pull down to refresh
Regarding the absolute "SHIT UX" I don't really agree, it is still not 100% good for everything, but it works very well for all use cases I had where I buy something. I use Phoenix to buy things (drinks recently) so this may explain my divergence of opinion with you. If you use Blixt, I agree the UX is not great but this is for people who want to dive deeper into LN in my opinion. Try Phoenix only for a (far) better UX.
About "Something that onchain bitcoin just simply DOES NOT HAVE. All bitcoins DO NOT resemble all other bitcoins", however I would totally disagree. Do you refer to exchanges which would for example refuse bitcoins coming from terrorists?
If this is the case, this is not a fungibility issue but an issue with the exchange. If you have bitcoins supposedly from terrorists I am ok to buy some from you to show you it is fungible.
reply
ACINQ, the company behind Phoenix, knows almost everything you do with that wallet. It's privacy cannot be compared to monero.
reply
reply
So bottom line, privacy as a sender or recipient are getting better on Phoenix, and the only drawback is when 2 people using Phoenix send sats to each other, Acinq knows it. In my case I don't care as when I buy or receive something it has nothing to do with Acinq. So I am or will benefit of better privacy than Monero with Bolt12. As far as I know, an external observer can see the recipient and sender of transactions on Monero.
reply
privacy as a recipient is getting better on Phoenix
No, it's not. ACINQ will always know when you receive payments as long as you can only open channels to their node and I think they don't have plans to change that.
In my case I don't care
Nice way to get out of a discussion about privacy 👀
reply
Sorry I shouldn't have said I don't care. Let me rephrase: given a typical use case of Phoenix, e.g. transacting with merchants (who use typically specific software like Btc Pay server), the privacy aspect will get better with Bolt12 and (IMHO good enough). I see other use cases like sending or receiving money to close peers, using Phoenix, as more rare so not a significant issue.
For this use-case though, namely transacting with friends or close peers, I see more something like ecash making sense given that privacy is the default and it has very low fees.
ACINQ will always know when you receive payments as long as you can only open channels to their node and I think they don't have plans to change that
What you describe looks to me like Signal, they log every time we receive a message from someone, in terms of privacy it doesn't look critical to me given that Acinq doesn't know the origin. The main privacy issue I see (and didn't know before) is for transactions between Phoenix users mentioned above.
Try Phoenix only for a (far) better UX.
Yes, Phoenix has decent UX.
Phoenix is a bit of an outlier...
And it has privacy tradeoffs...
So not really a great rebuttal.
reply
If you have bitcoins supposedly from terrorists I am ok to buy some from you to show you it is fungible.
That's not the point though. The point regarding fungibility is NOT whether you CAN get someone to accept it. It is regarding the traceability of bitcoins.
That yes, I CAN see it's history.
I don't use exchanges either. And I mine bitcoins... So it's not an issue for me. The point I'm making is that monero is different in character. Even IF you had gotten it from an exchange, or terrorist, none of that would be clear to someone observing the chain.
reply
If on-chain, you feel traceability is an issue for your utxos, then use coinjoins.
From my perspective at the protocol level it is fungible. A value in can later be converted as a value out. When people play with Bitcoin to search for "rare" coins, there are just adding new rules which are not on Bitcoin but exist in their world.
Similarly even if banknotes have identifiers and hence can be traced this doesn't undermine it's fungibility, since in the real world nobody care in most cases.
Fungibility issues may be raised among Monero people, but IMHO it is a weak argument. As a criticism UX of Lightning is more convincing (still LN UX gradually improves over time).
reply
Paying for fungibility via coinjoining which Samourai Wallet devs have literally been indicted for by the US DoJ seems silly when monero has this by default...
And in a high miner fee environment it's even worse.
reply
I see your point, but can't agree as at the protocol level there is fungibility. There is no difference between the numbers in inputs and outputs. People may interpret these numbers as rare satoshis but these are rules not related to Bitcoin.
A higher miner fee environment is a better argument IMHO. But then we will have tools using payjoin, Ark, etc to batch payments and add privacy on top of Bitcoin.
reply
Fungibility is a spectrum. Monero has is full stop. Bitcoin... Sure, it's debatable since you're clearing debating it.
quaranteespossibilites if you use it right. Unfortunately not enough of these things (bolt 12 invoices, proxy node in invoice creation for receivers for bolt 11, trampoline, blinded routes, MPP) are defaults making it harder for the user to KNOW they're getting the privacy they want unless they dig in and research and implement and use it in the right way. Not to mention SO MANY just resort to using a custodian for lightning due to it's absolute SHIT UX.