pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 23 replies \ @yo2xncv0 17 Jun \ parent \ on: What are your thoughts on Bitcoin losing the Darknet bitcoin
Private, anonymous, cheap, fungible, targeted censorship-resistant (Bitcoin isnt).
Fair distribution is not unique to Bitcoin. Monero had no pre-mine, dev fund, or any of that.
I get you don't like Monero, but at least be accurate.
You can't learn to use Bitcoin privately because it can never be private. Transparent chains are mutually exclusive with privacy. Coinjoins don't make your transactions private.
Monero is definitely good from a privacy perspective, but there are still the issues that make it unrealistic for me that I can reach the adoption level of bitcoin.
First the supply is not auditable, risk of an inflation hack, has already happened with zcash.
Also I am still not convinced that it can scale. I was listening recently to an interview with someone that is highly regarded in the monero community about potential scaling solution and his two suggestions were:
- Scaling through elastic block size: The block size discussion has been held enough time and it simply leads to centralization. Certainly, even Andreas Antonopoulos admitted recently, that you could always increase it a little as hardware improves, but looking at how much fatter transactions are in monero compared to bitcoin, I see the monero blockchain already exceeding the 8TB SSD size, if it had the current scale of bitcoin adoption. 8 TB is currently more or less the maximum you can get for consumer level SSDs.
- It can always scale through other coins: This is just fucking ridiculous, I really don't see how someone in all seriousness can use such an argument. This is like me saying that bitcoin can scale through dogecoin and litecoin.
reply
As for unknown inflation risk I'll give you that. Monero is technically more at risk (thats the trade off - privacy VS auditability). But Pedersen Commitments and Range Proofs are pretty well established at this point. They're based on cryptography from the 80s so I'm not very worried. Zcash was messing with some untested neo moon math at the time so that is not surprising.
There are other critical areas where Bitcoin uses cryptography for security, yet these concerns never seem to come up there. Which seems a bit convenient to me.
What meaningful level of adoption do you think Bitcoin will reach? If it is even adopted world wide, yet 99% of users are transacting with custodians and under permissioned white markets...those transactions are pretty meaningless for it's core value prop. Might as well use fiat in those cases because there is no difference. I don't think most people want to transact with Bitcoin or Monero in any true sense:
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Permissionless-Principle
-
Gigablockers are just as ridiculous as microblockers. Your blocks can be 1KB small, but if no one can afford to make a transaction on your chain no one is going to run a node for it. Nodes will also centralize with adoption over time if they are too small.
-
I don't know if you're expecting me to defend some other persons argument?...Well Bitcoiners are literally pushing Ecash as a method to scale Bitcoin, so your camp is not very different.
I think we can afford to scale the blocksize conservatively...just a little 👇
It started from a sh$tcoin and I guess whoever started it had a pretty high time preference as the block reward was done in less than 10 years. Then they hardforked a tail emission and everyone went along with it. When will it change again?
Bitcoin bought without KYC, coin joined and open a LN channel from it is good enough privacy for the vast majority of ,people. I do wish more would do this, but takes time to learn.
reply
Who cares what it started from, it forked off and did it's own thing.
Yea sorry, you can't control who all uses a piece of software or not. That's FOSS. Most users decided to use the tail emission fork just like most users decided to leave the original shitcoin it was created from.
Dude most users are never going to manage inbound/outbound liquidity, deal with channel closures, synchronous payment, etc. That's ridiculous to expect that. Especially for lackluster privacy you would gain doing that. Ecash has more of a shot than that happening, but I'm sure you know the major trade offs with that.
reply