pull down to refresh

Yesterday I came across a tweet that got me thinking.
Someone was saying that Monero's principles were practically communist. I found it funny at first because I'm Cuban and come from a communist country, but after doing a little research on how Monero mining works... I couldn't help but see that he was somewhat right.
Up until that moment, I didn't even know how Monero mining actually worked. I'd always heard it was the "privacy coin," and didn't give it much thought. But when I saw that tweet, I decided to do what one should do: investigate.
DISCLAIMER: Please correct me on my understanding of Monero if I'm wrong, but this was my conclusion, perhaps specialists know more about the subject than I do.
What I discovered surprised me. Monero has an infinite supply. Yes, infinite. After the initial emission period, it enters a phase called "tail emission," where 0.6 XMR are created per block forever. The argument? That this incentivizes miners to continue securing the network.
But not only that. Monero strives to make mining as "fair" as possible. It uses an algorithm called RandomX, which supposedly levels the competition between CPUs, so anyone can mine from their laptop without needing specialized equipment. Sounds good... in theory.
The intention seems good: to "democratize mining," to distribute rewards more equitably among participants. But in practice, this means everyone receives the same, regardless of their efficiency, investment, or risk.
Sound familiar?
It's the same logic applied by collectivist systems: rewarding everyone equally, without recognizing merit, effort, or innovation. And just like those systems, what this achieves is to discourage excellence and dilute value.
And all of this... for what? Privacy?
Yes, Monero is strong on privacy by design, without a doubt. But in the end, real privacy depends on not being able to link your identity to a transaction. And Bitcoin, although it leaves traces on the chain, is still very powerful if you take basic measures. If it's not linked to you, it's still effectively anonymous.
Also, I prefer a network that incentivizes competition, rewards efficiency, has a clear and predictable emission limit, and doesn't base its economic model on doling out crumbs forever. I prefer a network where there's real scarcity, not inflation disguised as "inclusion."
I understand why Monero appeals to some: strong anonymity, egalitarian ideology, ASIC resistance. But after looking under the hood, I have to say: I'm not convinced.
Was Satoshi Nakamoto a communist? Why did he write "1 CPU = 1 VOTE" inside the Bitcoin Whitepaper?
reply
The idea of "1 CPU = 1 vote" sounds at first glance like something egalitarian, almost democratic in the classical sense. But in reality, it has nothing to do with communism or distributing everything equally.
What Satoshi was trying to avoid was precisely the opposite: the control of the network by a single entity, a single server, or a closed group. Instead of relying on "one person = one vote," which would be easily manipulated, he used computational power as a form of consensus: whoever contributes energy and labor has a voice. But it's not that Satoshi wanted everyone to earn the same, or that everyone had the same power regardless of their stakes, but rather that all power would be concentrated in a single person. In other words, if a government started mining Bitcoin, no matter how large its mining infrastructure, it would have the same vote on the network as John mining at home with his GPU. What this avoids is that the same government with that mining power could manipulate the network.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my first reading, maybe some enlightened ones can help us.
reply
3 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 31 Jul
But in reality, it has nothing to do with communism or distributing everything equally.
so in bitcoin's case, it has nothing to do with communism, but in monero's case, it does?
reply
I understand that yes, that's why I called you who have more experience...in my point of view
reply
You just haven't thought the logic through the end conclusion. PoW mining only works as decentralized consensus insofar as a majority of miners are normal honest people. When specific hardware has an advantage, the mining pool centralizes there creating a situation where whoever controls that hardware controls the consensus.
What you've done in your argument is extrapolate the egalitarian principles of RandomX mining into being equivalent to communism. Then you used the specific real-world instance of communist society, Cuba, to conclude that RandomX is bad. This logic is a non-sequitur, it doesn't follow.
reply
mmmm....maybe, I think that living under communism for so long has left me a little sick jajajjajajajaja
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 31 Jul
this means everyone receives the same, regardless of their efficiency, investment, or risk.
it does not: more CPUs, more votes
reply
Isn't ASIC resistance meant to keep mining viable with common hardware?
What strikes me, and hence the comparison, is how certain coins (like Monero) try to sustain that initial idea of "everyone can participate equally" by artificially limiting the advantages of more powerful hardware. Sometimes that sounds more like a "planned economy" than an incentive-free market.
I'm not saying it's wrong; I just found that twist curious. That's why I asked it as a question, not as a dogma. Satoshi wasn't a communist, for sure. But some initial ideas, designed to protect the network, can resemble others used in systems with strong central planning.
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 31 Jul
You might be interested in knowing that Satoshi told Laszlo to hold back with his GPU mining and reading this:
“I thought that having more processing power would secure the network. But I didn’t understand that I should have kept it to myself. It would have made more sense to be greedy,” he joked.
I think the main difference why bitcoin survived without something like ASIC-resistance is because it was the first cryptocurrency, so the early adopters were ideologically driven and didn't immediately capture it.
reply
Very interesting on that topic, it really is a very big world still for me to discover...thanks for sharing a bit of your wisdom.
reply
if there is reason to not like monero, this is most certainly not one of them...
reply
It’s a very interesting point of view.
I’m not concerned about Monero or any other shitcoin. I read a bit about it when I first got into Bitcoin, just like I did with other well-known garbage. Nothing useful.
reply