10 sats \ 3 replies \ @yo2xncv0 13 Apr \ parent \ on: KYC'd Bitcoin is Worthless bitcoin
Yea, that's why I said it is hard to compare so I threw out different metrics. Not sure if it's fair to compare ETH as wanting to "replace an investment account" either.
I guess we just have to take WoS word for it? Where do you get Monero chain as 60Gb from? It should be closer to ~200Gb.
I don't see what bias has to do with it as this whole conversation was around privacy.
Yes, I know of Breez with a whopping 10k downloads, but it's not as popular as Phoenix, and even Phoenix is nothing versus custodial wallet popularity like WoS which was something like ~500k last time I checked.
I don't know how this helps your case. You're just proving my point that no LN users are going to use Lightning in a private way. If they can't deal with simple syncing they definitely won't run a LN node. If you want to scratch off all custodial users of both LN and Monero I would be glad to, but then that would just leave lightning with almost no one using the network and Monero resembling pretty much what it is now.
Ok, so for any delivery that isn't instant, or the customer doesn't immediately leave (online purchases, dine-in restaurants, entertainment venues, etc) this doesn't matter. If someone double spends the vendor can just cancel the order, tell customer to repay, kick them out, etc.
For everything else...we already exist and function in a world where you can commit fraud for everything above PLUS the instant delivery and in-person-immediate-leave transactions you are worried about (either thru chargebacks or counterfeit money). 0 conf, especially with DSP like on BCH, would still be a massive improvement over that. The customer would also have to rebroadcast a conflicting transaction within seconds of paying or it won't work (original transaction would propagate to more and more nodes the longer they wait decreasing chance of success with it) and the vendor would just know they tried to double spend while they were still in the store.
I guess we just have to take WoS word for it?
That's why I wrote "if they're telling the truth".
Where do you get Monero chain as 60Gb from? It should be closer to ~200Gb.
I got it from https://bitinfocharts.com, good to know if it's wrong.
I don't see what bias has to do with it as this whole conversation was around privacy.
Let me put it another way: nobody has the tech that provides 3 of 3 of convenience, privacy and sovereignty, but Bitcoin has the next best thing: you can pick 2 of 3, namely:
- convenience and privacy: ecash
- convenience and sovereignty: Phoenix
- privacy and sovereignty: own LN node or Breez
Thus Bitcoin is, in political terms, big tent. Monero on the other hand says that only one choice is correct, namely privacy and sovereignty. How dare other people make different choices than I do!
If they can't deal with simple syncing they definitely won't run a LN node.
It looks to me that you understand users as making the choice between Bitcoin and Monero first and the choice between convenience and privacy second. So you observe 10k Breez users vs 500k WoS users (+? Binance/Coinbase users) and you see sinners that make the wrong choice, and you pinpoint the issue to the original sin of choosing Bitcoin instead of Monero, and the 10k/500k figures just prove to you once more how sinful Bitcoin is.
But in my understanding users have preferences first and choose their tech second. So I look at those 10k Breez users vs 500k WoS users differently. The 10k Breez users are at least willing to sync the graph so they will potentially listen to Monero people with all their chain syncing requirements - what's left for Monero users to explain is why bother with the coin number forty-something. The 500k WoS users, however, exhibit preferences that are wholly incompatible with Monero but can be satisfied by Fedi. So I see that 10k/500k split as 10k Monero growth potential vs. 500k (+ Binance/Coinbase users) ecash growth potential.
Ok, so for any delivery that isn't instant,
Yeah, I agree here.
counterfeit money
That is way harder to accomplish than broadcasting a transaction.
0 conf, especially with DSP like on BCH, would still be a massive improvement over that.
There was a fork of Monero called Oxen that offered that exact feature, they called it Blink. So why hasn't Monero adopted it from Oxen then?
reply
I got it from https://bitinfocharts.com, good to know if it's wrong.
Yea, I'm pretty sure the bitinfocharts is way off. It is almost double the size it is saying for a even a Bitcoin node. Unless they are running a sharded Monero node, but then that would only include 1/3 of all transactions.
Let me put it another way: nobody has the tech that provides 3 of 3 of convenience...
I think I agree, but now this is going into another conversation when the original topic was about privacy. As far as sovereignty...that is the whole point of Bitcoin. If someone prioritizes convenience at expense of sovereignty why not just use fiat payment apps? Without self-custody and permissionless transactions there is nothing special about Bitcoin and by extension any L2 that doesn't also include sovereignty. Bitcoin is not a big tent. There is Bitcoin...and there are things that pose as Bitcoin by conflation or attaching itself like lampreys (custodial LN, LSP users, Ecash, Liquid, etc).
It looks to me that you understand users as making the choice between Bitcoin and Monero first...
Users can do what they want and also be deceived, but one thing that is a fact is that using Bitcoin in a non-sovereign way makes little sense if you aren't ideological. It is Paypal with the Bitcoin logo slapped on it, but with the benefits of neither. Worse version of fiat (no large network effect and acceptability) and worse version of Bitcoin (custodial, trusted, and/or permissioned). This is why things like USDT on Tron are much more popular than LN.
what's left for Monero users to explain is why bother with the coin number forty-something...
Because even if you are the 1% of LN users capable and willing to run your own LN node...there is still a much higher bar for arguably inferior privacy VS the most retarded Monero user just hitting the send button...and they don't even have to run a Monero node to gain all it's privacy benefits. Even if you use a public remote node for Monero - it is unable to see receiver, how much was sent, or who sent it. All without sacrificing self-custody or permissionless txs. Compare this to something like Phoenix where amounts and receivers are known by their node and your transactions are still permissioned.
Even if you run your own LN node...receiver privacy is just bad. Monero stealth addresses make it so any Monero user could have been the receiver. LN amount probing is a well known attack. Monero amount commitments are not visible and perfectly blinding.
The more centralized the large LN nodes grow (which is the natural incentive for successful routing and cheaper txs on LN), the less effective any onion routing becomes.
There was a fork of Monero called Oxen that offered that exact feature, they called it Blink. So why hasn't Monero adopted it from Oxen then?
I've no clue. Maybe it hasn't been thoroughly vetted on Monero. I only brought up DSP because you randomly brought up BCH.