/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53090277
Can you show me a 19 million XMR transaction?

>>53090277
Yes for the devs because they can endlessly dump on low iq faggots. They even have to cope with stuff like pic related because this shitcoin just can't pump at all.

inflation lower than gold

usecase higher than bitcoin

dead wallets will never be a problem for supply

feels good to win at the starting line

This is my only issue with XMR. There can be an infinite mint bug like BTC had in it's early days and it won't be discovered because there is no public ledger.

>>53090395
10 year old fud, inb4 someone responds with the answer you've heard 1000 times explaining why you're wrong

>>53090277
Yes
Anyone who says different is a coping maxi who's expecting the fabled 'fee market' to incentivize miners, when it's literally been 12 years with no signs of such a market developing

>>53090458
Have sex

>>53090977
Have sex

>>53091037
Have kids.

>>53090277
>infinite supply on a infinite amount of time
>people die and dont give their wallets to anyone
>dead users is bullish

>>53091037
>>53091072
Have fun

>>53090403
What do you mean 10 year old fud? There was a bug in Bitcoin Core all the way to version 0.16.3. which was released in september 2018. Clearly not fud.

Look at CVE-2018-17144
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures

You are clueless sir

>>53091224
I do belive that with the new seraphis code an Inflation bug could be introduced. Do not trust berman.

>>53090458
What I don't get is how the fee market is supposed to maintain Bitcoin's security, while at the same time the lightning network will move most transactions off chain, reducing fees. The only workable scenario I can see playing out is that Bitcoin becomes a global reserve currency, and world governments mine just to protect their stacks from other countries.

>>53090313
hmm

>>53091072
have white babbys

>>53090395
monero is open source like bitcorn, you can see a bug just like bircorn. the transactions are hidden>>53091495
why would governments buy bitcoin, when they have fiat and can make their own chain. I know you bitcorn people are mentally ill but still.

there is defacto a fixed ammount of XMR, btc has more inflation atm

>>53090318
it performs better than bitcoin, lol

fucking retard

>>53090277
>>53090277
I'm gonna explain this to you room temperature iq faggots one last time.

There are 10 coins. They are worth $10 so $1 each. Now because there is an infinite supply some indian faggot can mint as many coins as he wants out of thin air and boom your coin that you bought for $1 is now worth $0.1
WHAAAAAAAAAT B-BUT I THOUGHT MONERO IS THE FUTURE THEY TOLD ME ON BIZ
>babys first scam

>>53090277
Yes because it gives incentives to miner, doge tokenomics are actually Long term more sustainable than btc

>>53090277
No, it killed the dog.
Only moneychangers does it.

>>53092531
OK but indian faggots can't mint as much monero as they want out of thin air

>>53090277

How are things at the lollipop factory?

>>53091495
Let's try and work this out from first principles.

1. There is always a demand for miners.
2. Some have considered mining, but don't find it profitable at the moment.
3. If miners leave the network, the mining difficulty adjusts leaving room for the miners mentioned above. This phenomenon was observed when China cracked down on its mining ops. The hash rate was crippled for a few days and then surged back as new miners in the US took their places. Same with Kazakhstan.
4. There will always be a more profitable miner than the ones exiting the network, especially ones that have access to excess energy or if the planet moves to cheaper and less destructive sources.

PS: If the block size doesn't increase significantly, then users will always compete for block space, thus helping in creation of a fee market

>>53090395
>This is my only issue with XMR. There can be an infinite mint bug like BTC had in it's early days and it won't be discovered because there is no public ledger.

1. Monero's coinbase transactions are TRANSPARENT, you can tally new coins as they enter the shielded RingCT pool to verify that no extra supply has materialized.

2. ZKP range proofs (Bulletproofs+) are there to specifically ensure that inputs and outputs sum to zero. Just because you can't SEE amounts doesn't mean you can't VALIDATE amounts.

3. If there actually was an exploited inflation bug you'd expect to see an overabundance of supply on exchanges as the hacker in question hurriedly cashes out before the bug is discovered.

But the exact opposite is true: there is so little XMR actually available on exchanges that withdrawals keep being suspended with bullshit excuses being given i.e. they're selling paper XMR and getting caught.

Tail emission is an IQ test.

>>53094664
The only problem with Monero is that it hard forks every now and then which is absolutely horrible for something that should be a currency. Currencies require a solid base, not something that might break during one of the upgrades.

>>53092934
You didn't even answer my question, I know how mining works.
>Bitcoin block reward disappears
>Simultaneously 99% of transactions move to the lightning network
>Even with outrageous tx fees, most miners still leave since it's not profitable
>Hash rate & network security plummet
>It's now much easier for an outside party to attack the network

>>53094958
its the exact opposite nigger brain.
Use win95 if you hate updates.

Monero stays pretty stable because most people use it to buy drugs, not pump and dump like other assets here
>>53092531
Isn’t it programmed to enter the supply over decades? You can’t just mint them

>>53094958
Currency has had a ton of updates over its history. Any time a king dies you have to update to a new version/backing. The addition of ridges to prevent coin clipping, coin weights, composition, etc. Monero is a lot more standardized by comparison, while still maintaining a competitive edge.

>>53092517

>>53095104
Monero has outperformed Bitcoin since inception.

>>53091495
Mining will be regulated at hardware and cooperative level. There will be only one mine operation by country and quotas. No more arms race competition. The level of hash power security will be predetermined year by year base on how much they think a rogue faction could harness computer power in a short time. A rogue state like North Korea could try to create an 51% attack operation, but the production and location of hardware would be detected. The world can either use reserve hardware to outlast the rogue country or bomb the buildings.

You will be allowed/tolerated to mine with your personal computer and hidden network people.

Prevention of 51% attack will be mostly social with the minimal backup of brute computer power.

>>53090318
Devs don't make xmr, miners do. Xmr is not proof of stake

>>53094962
>You didn't even answer my question, I know how mining works.
Let's try again
>>Bitcoin block reward disappears
Correct
>>Simultaneously 99% of transactions move to the lightning network
Somewhat correct, it's difficult to put an estimate. I would add that opening a channel on L2 requires spending on L1, even if it's a one-time fee, unless more L2s pop up and people hop from one to the other like Linux distro hopping lol. In this case there would be more interaction with L1.
>>Even with outrageous tx fees, most miners still leave since it's not profitable
Somewhat correct. Not most miners, but inefficient miners will leave. Bitcoin creates competition between miners. You can argue that some would mine even if there is no profit, essentially paying for security. Remember legacy payment systems have no finality, they can be easily reversed, cancelled, etc. That is worth something, no? Also entities that benefit from excess energy could very well pour into Bitcoin.
>>Hash rate & network security plummet
Even if it plummets, the current hash rate is more than enough to secure the network against 51% attacks. A better question is, what's the minimum required?

Some possible solutions: merge-mining. In the same way Dogecoin secures Litecoin. See Bip301. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/with-drivechain-bitcoin-will-make-altcoins-obsolete

I think you would greatly benefit from reading this: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/security-budget-ii-mm/
Let me know what you think.

>>53095454
>unless more L2s pop up
It took 5 years for LN to start being used at all with all the maxis swearing it is the second coming of Christ. New ones aren't going to pop up out of nowhere in the next 6 years before the block reward is 25% of what it is now.

>>53095094
Do you understand what finality is? It's the point that if traversed, an action ceases to be reversible. Traditional fiat systems have no finality. Whatever you have in your chequing account, or whatever you are wiring or transmitting with interac can be reversed/misappropriated at any time by someone ranked higher than you. It's a double edged sword, because it has the advantage of undoing errors. You cannot undo errors if some critical bug is exploited on Monero and these bugs are introduced during hard forks. Seraphis/Jamtis are hard forks.

>>53095485
That can change very fast. Look at the number of L2 on Ethereum.
https://l2beat.com/scaling/tvl/

>>53095507
>Seraphis/Jamtis are hard forks.
>See Bip301
You are a cultist. It is okay when you hardfork, in fact it will solve all of your problems but when anyone else does it it's a security risk.

What is the point of having barely connected side chains? Avax already does that and is laughed at for having variable security between chains.

>>53095552
How? Does BTC support optimistic rollups? zkrollups? If not how can people start building on BTC? We can't hard fork it like you said because hard forks are bad

>>53095603
Meant for >>53095538

>>53095552
My contention is that hard forks may lead to chain splits and inevitably cause security risks. This is something to have in mind if your crypto asset is going to absorb trillions in terms of USD.

>>53095656
retarded take

>>53095698
Why?

>>53095708
Answer >>53095603
>>53095698
It isn't a take at all. It is a deflection to price.

>>53095656

Privacy is an arms race, your adversaries are always getting better and cryptographic schemes are eventually broken, so if you're not upgrading/hard forking accordingly you're dying a slow but certain death.

>>53090277
right? With Bitcoin we only had 128 billion printed in 2010, not INFINITY. Lambo soon, Bitcoin to the moon! Privacy big gay

I have never seen so much XMR FUD in my life. Are they getting scared? Glowies want us to sell so bad. They know we are winning. Hold the line Monerochads

>>53095552
Can't say for Avax, I don't know how it works. But Satoshi already implied the existence of sidechains.

>>53095720
yes buying now is like buying BTC in 2014

>>53095454
>you can argue that some would mine even if there is no profit
Yes, that was my original post. Governments & large corporate entities take over mining, not for profit, but to maintain their own security. As >>53095345 said mining will be a globally regulated industry, entirely defeating the original point of Bitcoin.

>merged mining
So a handful of random PoW shitcoins are what'll save Bitcoin maxis? lmao. In the hyperbitcoinized future they always shill, most altcoins are completely worthless. 99% of them already bleed sats constantly. Also your blog is complete shit.

>>53095739
Feels so similar to early bitcoin and even ethereum FUD. Basically confirms my suspicions that XMR will be starting to supplant a lot of the top 10s in marketcap soon enough. Same exact sentiment

>>53095781
it will take 3x more time than it took BTC, but it will grow to this point. It's the Monero deal. Organic shit

>>53095732
That was in 2010. It may have made sense to have an entire POW chain just for domain names in 2010 (Namecoin was a retarded idea but that is besides the point.)
We have turing complete smart contracts networks now. Why would we need lots of POW chains? Name 5 different applications that would each require their own chain. For what you are stating to make sense the chains would need value independent of Bitcoin.

>>53095862
>Why would we need lots of POW chains?
To expand on this: Why would we need five different ETH killers as sidechains to BTC? They would all need to be running the same POW algorithm as BTC meaning they would all start development from a similar codebase making them very similar. At that point you just have a bunch of chains that can't communicate all doing the same thing.

>>53095769
They will only lose money mining if the minimal to safely prevent a short term rogue faction attack is more than the generated fees. There won't be wasteful resources in a hardware competition. Less hardware required. They can also adjust fees to this minimum, prevent direct losses to taxpayers.

Bitcoin would still conserve some advantages over fiat. And the countries will have to cooperate and negotiate like it is with nuclear power and weapons. The hash quotas between USA, China and other countries would be a cooperative treaty. Bitcoin could still revert to hardware competition if a powerful countries don't accept the deal.

>>53095862
>Why would we need lots of POW chains?
Because PoS is not secure.
>Name 5 different applications that would each require their own chain.
prediction markets, micropayments, privacy, digital assets, distributed DNS
>>53095769
>Yes, that was my original post. Governments & large corporate entities take over mining, not for profit, but to maintain their own security. As >>53095345 said mining will be a globally regulated industry, entirely defeating the original point of Bitcoin.
Here is a post by satoshi himself hinting that the common user would run SPV client (eg. Electrum) and full nodes would be delegated to farms
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

>>53096051
>Because PoS is not secure.
Agreed. You missed my point entirely though. Why does each dapp need a chain to itself?
>prediction markets, micropayments, privacy, digital assets, distributed DNS
Why would they each require a chain instead of running one smart contract platform that can do all those things?

>>53096051
And here's a post by me saying you're a fucking retard:
You're a fucking retard.

>>53095862
>Namecoin was a retarded idea
wrong, it was great. It was ENS+ETH before its time.

Monero is a ticking time bomb
A game of musical chairs
It will become the first cryptocurrency that will be illegal to possess and possibly the only illegal crypto ever

>>53096387
Who would possibly want to be left bagholding something illegal?
I don't like this token.

>>53096387
>>53096431
Pro tip: they only outlaw it because it fucking works

>>53092461
>why would governments buy bitcoin
What is El Salvador, for $200, Alex.

>>53096485
>I lost all my money but at least I know they're scared of me

Damn it feels good to be a gangster

>>53096562
>what are atomic swaps
>what are other jurisdictions

>>53096616
so Monero relies on Bitcoin and Ethereum...

>>53090313
fpbp

>>53096387
>>53096431

If your crypto isn't worthy of being banned its not truly permissionless and is therefore ultimately useless.

>>53096776
based inshallah

>>53092971
>1
bitcoin's bug didn't use coinbase transactions, the coins were minted when simply transacting
>2
fair point but remember bitcoin failed this check as well in 2010
>3
if they're smart about it, they'd slowly cash out and drain all the liquidity, they'd be rich before anyone noticing, depending on the details

>>53096697
anon, its the other way around.
those coin depend on monero, all the hackers using btc or eth soon will be swapping for monero to not get detected. if monero get outlawed then so is btc and eth and every other coin that is able to do atomic swaps with monero, with the only difference that monero is resistant to regulations, not like those other coins which will try to comply becoming a useless creation.

>>53097773
>what is coinjoin
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1609613748364509184?cxt=HHwWgIDQjaLLv9YsAAAA

>>53097919
are you retarded? These amounts are literally being monitored right now and will be censored at exchanges.
see: https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1609663902610034691?s=20
Watch as this hacker will convert into Monero. Seethe more.

>>53097919
>>what is coinjoin
a placebo scam you retarded dipshit
>>53097773
>anon, its the other way around.
this
if for any reason monero becomes obsolete or whatever, they would go after (make illegal every other coin). If monero does go illegal and as predicted it doesn't effect usage, they will go after bitcoin and the rest-and at that point only xmr will ramain

>>53090277
You can't just "hack" a cryptocurrency like Monero. An inflation exploit would require somebody to be highly intelligent in mathematics. The type of person who would find such an exploit would likely be an academia and would go through the proper protocols to submit this in a safe manner.
Retards think that somebody can just "hack" Monero and create free Monero. It just doesn't work like that.
They would need to break literal cryptographic proofs that are audited and well understood by individuals with Doctorates.
Further more, Monero's cryptography is really not that insane or cutting edge. Ring signatures have existed for a while and the zero knowledge proof used to shield transaction amounts is used primarily because it is so well understood. Monero may one day move to something like zk starks but they aren't studied enough.

>>53098114
>Watch as this hacker will convert into Monero. Seethe more.
then what lol?

>>53098241
>then what lol?
https://buy.cakepay.com/
https://moneromarket.io/
PS dark net

Damn it feels good to be a gangster

>>53098241
please tell me this is a troll and that btc maxis are not still this ignorant, it's been 8 years

>>53099246
not a troll, I just doubt that you've used xmr for anything other than speculation. cheers

>>53096074
Why would they each require a chain instead of running one smart contract platform that can do all those things?
For the same reason you have different kitchen ustensils (forks, knives, spoons, etc.) You could in theory use the same tool for various uses, but for personal and practical reasons we prefer they be separate.

>>53100248
xmr has the biggest upside and true potential as an unbreakable world reserve currency

I allegedly used bitcoin in 2015 to buy drugs on the darknet, so that's why we understand the true potential of these things, maybe you weren't around back then

you would have to be stupid to not realize we're sitting on the best investment on the planet

the only thing better would be if space gold landed on your property

>>53096074
>>53096106

I'm going to address the Bitcoin was hijacked fud here because it's sort of the same subject and I already provided an answer in a separate thread. So a bunch of Bitcoin Core maintainers founded Blockstream and were funded by VC money (BlackRock, Toys R Us, the Mormons, etc. doesn't matter). Is it legitimate to have expected them to work for free?

Now how did Blockstream monetize Bitcoin to pay back their investors? By building sidechain technology (eg. Liquid).

https://blockstream.com/liquid/

So far, has Blockstream made foul play? I don't see how. Satoshi himself envisioned sidechains.

"The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work.

While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28715#msg28715
He is referring to BitDNS here.

He adds:
"The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

So not only he foretold the future, but I'm assuming he suggests merge-mining as a solution to keeping the block size small.

So where is the foul play here if Satoshi made himself these suggestions?

>>53100815
>So where is the foul play here
That all signs point to lightning network becoming centralized

>>53100815
I replied to a post asking questions about how a thing in a link would work and you replied by quoting the link implying I didn't read it. Answer my question instead of telling me what Satoshi said. >>53096074

I don't care who gives Blockstream money if they do a good job. The lighting network is not P2P. If you love Satoshi so much then why do you not care that "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is not P2P?

>>53100815
The entirety of your argument is admitting Bitcoin itself has a broken economic model, but that a bunch of redundant, unnecessary shitcoins will somehow save it. That and arguing that just because Satoshi said so it must be right. This may be the case, given his support for features that were ultimately implemented in Monero. But Bitcoin maxis have already deviated so far from his original vision that they can't whip out "but Satoshi said so" whenever they feel like it.

>to many posters here

my post will probably get lost in an ocean of posts
what I'll say has been said countless time, so I'll sumarize
some people just can't understand
I'm not a btc maxi but I can understand why btc maxi feel superior, it doesn't take genius iq to understand:

>blockstream
this thing literally doesn't matter and the LN thing and centralized stuff is a conspiracy theory
no serious person think that the block size will never increase, the point is to increase the block size WHEN RUNNING A FULL NODE WITH A BTC BLOCKCHAIN SIZED LIKE 100TB CAN BE DONE FOR CLOSE TO ZERO ON CHEAP PHONES. sorry for the caps but people just don't get it. currently the bitcoin blockchain is 200x smaller than my example.

>monero
I like monero but monero maxi are just plain wrong in many aspects
they think monero is more censorship resistant than bitcoin, it's wrong, the cost to run an attack on monero is far lower, and will also be lower if monero has the market cap of btc, because it's asic resistant
that's just a fact
also they keep ignoring that no supply transparency means no supply certainty. YES IT IS BASED ON CRYPTOGRAPHY BUT THOSE ARE ASSUMPTIONS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE BROKEN AND AS SUCH IT IS A NON ZERO RISK OF A NON RECOVERABLE CATASTROPHE.
unlike the bitcoin inflation bug which provably didn't killed bitcoin
there are countless things like that. I'll stop here

>precious metal
they think something non digital can succeed in the modern era of the internet and beyond
it's just a dream

>dollar fags
banks always have a 2% inflation target, regardless if the dollar supply drops, a fixed supply currency will inevitably be more valuable as decades pass

>>53090277
>topic of this thread
a fixed supply currency will always end up being more scarce than a non fixed supply currency (XMR), that is the point not inflation trending to 0. so ask, bullish against what?

no animosity, even if you do not understand what I say yet or if I explained badly, I hope you make it frens

>>53101367
No offense man but you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about and are 100% just regurgitating shit you've heard others say.

>>53101367
>blockstream
>this thing literally doesn't matter and the LN thing and centralized stuff is a conspiracy theory
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

>>53101407
you are mistaken I'm afraid. peace fren

>>53101448
you are also an example of the countless people I target, because I never advocated for lightning network a single time in my post. yet your answer is against a point I've never made. it's not good fren

that's one answer just saying "you're wrong" and one answer saying something unrelated. I do not have the time to talk to everyone, I will probably stop answering and let my post be lost

>>53101525
>the LN thing and centralized stuff is a conspiracy theory
I posted evidence to the contrary and you are backtracking.

>>53100286
You want multiple general use computers to perform different tasks? Why? Do you use different computers for excel and web browsing?

>>53101546
I do not care about the LN, I don't think the LN will handle the vast majority of the value transacted in bitcoin in the future if btc succeeds, please stop talking about that

>>53101584
>criticism of LN is a conspiracy theory
>actually, I don't care about LN, despite it being the #1 thing BTC maxis shill lately, so you're not allowed to talk about it
The whole argument for the long-term viability and scalability of Bitcoin hinges on Lightning, brushing it off is stupid.

>>53101584
So big blocks? I support bigger blocks but it isn't a long term solution.

>>53101625
no, it doesn't, it depends on the computer hardware breakthroughs, fiber optic usage, bandwith, and very powerful storage future technologies, LN is secondary to that, it can have its use but I don't even think it will catch up because many people will never be able to handle their own keys and as such if bitcoin succeeds centralized entities will handle that and fast payments, even though I would like it to be different. maybe in the far future
I tell you things, do what you like with those informations

>>53090277
>It's Moneros infinite supply bullish?
Current supply is 18,147,820. This is not infinite, retard.

>>53101711
Increasing the blocksize is the solution Monero is already relying on. But you're assuming Bitcoin, after decades, will just abandon their blocksize limit despite every Bitcoiner being opposed to it, fighting blocksize wars over it, and dumping hundreds of millions into funding LN instead.

Plus, raising the blocksize is completely opposed to the fee market Bitcoin will have to rely on. If you raise the limit then there's no need to compete over block space. That's why you need a constant block reward, rather than a hard supply limit.

shills work overtime on this shit, all the words in the world won't save you

>>53101665
very large blocks at the correct moment solves the transaction per second "issue". currently it's fine but it wouldn't be fine if everyone started using bitcoin. it also massively increases the reward fees to secure the network. so yes it's pretty much a long term solution for scalability and security. LN may work for what represents the majority of the transactions which represent a minority of the value transacted on the network. wouldn't hold my breath as long as the world is what it is now. I'm not against LN but that's not what I care about right now.

>>53101803
I don't think bitcoiners are opposed to raise the blocksize in a situation where everyone can store the current internet on their pc. this is like talking about after 2140 when we don't know if bitcoin will succeed. this is not the time. I'm opposed to increase the blocksize now and for a while.
as for the reward, as a miner you compete to append the next block, that's all. bigger block, more transaction, more fees. I've really said everything already in my first post, I'll try to stop answering because I cannot answer to everyone

>>53101742
>he doesn't know

>>53101861
>bigger block, more transaction, more fees
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. If you increase the block size, there's less competition for limited space, because there's more space available. So people can considerably lower the fee they're willing to pay, to almost zero if the space exceeds demand, destroying their required fee market.

>>53102011
you are assuming that the sum of the transaction fees of a worldwide payment system like I've described are inferior to the sum of the transaction fees of a payment system with a block size that throttles the transaction per second count. I don't really think that's true. you are also assuming that the block size would be infinite or something, so that fees are close to zero.
for bitcoin to work and succeed, it has to match a certain level of transaction per second. that level depends on the block size, so it's an extremely important variable. if bitcoin cannot handle this, people will just not use it, and the fee market + competition supposed to reward more than what I've described wouldn't even exist, because the network would be too slow. if the world runs on bitcoin, and the hardware is there, block size will be much higher, still limited in size, and people will still have the ability to pay higher fees for faster transactions. but I don't think the fees would be very high relative to one individual, as it should. we have time to see that coming

>>53102143
Yeah, it's called an adaptive block size, something Monero already has, and which requires a continuous block reward to function properly. The things you're advocating for Bitcoin, Monero already figured out a while ago.

>>53102164
it's very tiring fren
I've already said why it's a bad idea to increase the block size of bitcoin (this is not a niche currency but the leading one), in caps
you understand that I just cannot keep repeating myself, and do that with everyone. if bitcoin had an adaptive block reward then the bitcoin blockchain size would increase, and inflate too much relative to the cost needed to host a full node for many people in the world. it is not about an adaptive block size. it's about a carefully chosen increase in block size, at key moments. I've already talked about the rewards
there, I've repeated myself with changing words out of goodwill
best of luck with your portfolio

>>53100248
>I just doubt that you've used xmr for anything other than speculation.
wouldnt you like to know, weather boy

>>53090277
No, now fuck off retards

>>53102224
>it's very tiring fren
For you.
>I've already said why it's a bad idea to increase the block size of bitcoin (this is not a niche currency but the leading one), in caps
By what metric is it the leading currency? Nobody uses Bitcoin as a currency.

>>53102390
kek

>>53101367

>they think monero is more censorship resistant than bitcoin, it's wrong

Bitcoin is inherently more censorable because it's a transparent surveillance chain. It's traceable and non-fungible, and therefore allows authorities to easily target individual users. Not to mention the fact that the microscopic blocksize restriction forces most transactions onto LN which is little more than a shittier, less private, and less reliable version of PayPal.

Even if raw costs are lower with ASIC resistance (that's debatable, but just for the sake of argument let's assume that), ASIC chains are still far easier to attack. ASIC farms are incredibly easy to identify and seize. When China banned mining, BTC hashrate fell by more than half, and other ASIC chains fell as much as 85% ... meanwhile, Monero's increased by 10 or 15%. ASIC resistance levels the playing field, whereas ASICs will always by definition result in a few centralized mining facilities dominating the chain.

>no supply transparency means no supply certainty

Monero relies on the literal exact same cryptographic assumptions that Bitcoin uses to verify signatures, and all of modern society does to... exist. And saying that Monero "can't be verified" is like a kindergartner saying that fractions "can't be verified" because he can't count them on his hand. You can't count XMR on your hand like a child, unlike Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean it isn't fully verifiable.

Also, why do you think Monero chooses to have non-public transaction amounts? Just for shits and giggles? Privacy and fungibility are mandatory to have actual digital cash. Surrendering to surveillance is a deliberate tradeoff which Monero refuses to make.

>there are countless things like that. I'll stop here

Please, go on.

>>53102985

>>53100948
>>53101095
>The lighting network is not P2P. If you love Satoshi so much then why do you not care that "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is not P2P?

It is p2p lol, how is it not? two peers open a channel and if you wish to send btc to someone and you don't have an open channel with, the payment gets routed via another peer. this is no different than the bitcoin network structure in Satoshi's whitepaper. people who run client-only nodes must rely on intermediary nodes for transacting. this is precisely the same network topology. hell, even torrent which people call p2p relies on intermediaries (trackers are centralized services). best you review p2p notions

>>53101096
>The entirety of your argument is admitting Bitcoin itself has a broken economic model

Bitcoin was made to thrive on a fee market, the block rewards mechanism was just a way to bootstrap the network. So if the fees go up sufficiently to incentivize miners, then the model has worked.

Monero relies on Bitcoin too, speaking of shitcoins. What do you think atomic swaps were designed for? When there are no more on-and-off ramps for Monero because it got regulated to hell, the only way way for people to exchange monero is via localmonero and atomic swaps lol

No one said by the way that Bitcoin requires shitcoins to be saved. It was simply proposed that it would be a waste not to merge mine for the same amount of work.
>>53102164
see picrel and just admit you are being dishonest.
>muh monero pioneered adaptive block size
you can clearly see that the size of blocks varies through time and follows a steady incline

>>53102390
>By what metric is it the leading currency?
by this metric

https://cryptwerk.com/analytics/bitcoin/
https://cryptwerk.com/analytics/monero/
>>53102985
>Not to mention the fact that the microscopic blocksize restriction forces most transactions onto LN which is little more than a shittier, less private, and less reliable version of PayPal.

You're crazy. PayPal is absolutely centralized. They can and are freezing accounts and fining people at will for speaking against Pfizer, Moderna, etc.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/paypal-says-it-never-intended-fine-users-misinformation-bloomberg-news-2022-10-10/

LN is entirely P2P structured.

>>53104780
>LN is entirely P2P structured.
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

>>53104707
>you can clearly see that the size of blocks varies through time and follows a steady incline
Yeah, that is adoption as more people use the network.
>>53104707
>What do you think atomic swaps were designed for?
A way of transferring value between different chains.
>When there are no more on-and-off ramps for Monero because it got regulated to hell, the only way way for people to exchange monero is via localmonero and atomic swaps lol
If.
What is your point exactly? If CEXs shut down Monero ramps you will need to buy and sell Monero in a different way and atomic swaps with Bitcoin are one possible way to do that.

>>53104894
>Yeah, that is adoption as more people use the network.
I forgot to mention. That stopped in 2018.

>>53104842
The correct topology would be a mixture of the middle and right graph, no? Some people might open multiple channels, what's stopping them?

>>53105097Imagine Alice wants to send 1 BTC to Carol through Bob like so: Alice->Bob->Carol

In order to route the money, Bob has to have at least 1 BTC in his “balance” in the channel with Carol. Essentially, Alice is borrowing from Bob to pay Carol.

Bob transfers his 1 BTC to Carol in the [Bob->Carol] channel, and Alice transfers 1 BTC to Bob in the [Alice->Bob] channel. That’s how it works — Alice cannot “give” the 1 BTC to Bob to then pass along to Carol.

It really is a loan because the network uses timelocks to eliminate custodial risk: Alice can’t repay Bob safely until she’s sure Bob has paid Carol.

In fact, EVERY hop en route to a destination must have the funds available for each transaction. So, the more hops that are used, the more this lending burden is multiplied.

Why is this a big deal?
It Means a Large Number of Hops is a Deal-Breaker

>>53104707
>No one said by the way that Bitcoin requires shitcoins to be saved
Your long winded blog post fully spelled out that transaction fees have been going down, will continue to go down (e.g., due to LN), and that the primary solution is "Merged Mining, at which point the Security Budget problem will be solved". The entire argument provided is that shitcoins are needed to save Bitcoin's security model.

>size of blocks follows a steady incline
Yeah, as adoption grows the blocksize does with it, with bandwidth and drive costs more than keeping up.

>no more on-and-off ramps for Monero because it got regulated
This is the worst thing about maxis lately. Rather than trying to fight the establishment and create a new economic system, they're so focused on institutional adoption, obeying regulators, and sucking banker dick. Yes Monero has/will have atomic swaps with Bitcoin, as well as a bunch of coins, more DEXs, P2P trades, & direct Monero markets. But the point is to replace the current economic system, not require it to survive.

>>53100248
You can literally walk into a Hooters, order 20 wings + 10 free on a Wednesday with a tall Guinness, pay with Monero, and have 0 KYC involved, the process takes seconds. Keep up, BTC maxi.

>>53104707
>>53104780

>LN is entirely P2P structured

Hilarious. The only economically rational structure for the LN to adopt is a hub-and-spoke system. Anything else is literally throwing away money. So that's exactly what it's doing, because it's directly incentivized. LN is and will continue to become entirely centralized into the hands of a few financial institutions. Not to mention the fact that it also strongly disincentivizes self-custody, hence full or semi-custodial solutions represent the overwhelmingly vast majority of adoption.

LN is a recreation of the fiat system.

>this is no different than the bitcoin network structure in Satoshi's whitepaper

You're retarded. Even if you want to pretend that LN isn't centralized and a complete betrayal of everything Satoshi valued (it is), it's still objectively a completely different system from the actual Bitcoin network. To say otherwise shows that you understand neither.

>you can clearly see that the size of blocks varies through time and follows a steady incline

Lmao, you don't even know what the adaptive blocksize means, do you?

>>53102985
>Monero relies on the literal exact same cryptographic assumptions that Bitcoin uses to verify signatures
not really, your monero address is a raw public key generated through EdDSA. in bitcoin it's a hash of the public key (P2PKH). this offers an additional layer of protection to bitcoin. the latter would have to initiate a transaction for the public key to be revealed, but in monero's case if someone knows the address, it can be broken with Schor's algorithm with or without initiating a transaction.

>>53108931

A cryptographic assumption is something which is assumed to be true (even if not technically mathematically proven), and defines the theoretical security of the system. For both Bitcoin and Monero, the primary cryptographic assumptions are assuming the safety of collision resistant hashes, and the hardness of the elliptic curve discrete log problem. These are both very standard. Even though Bitcoin and Monero apply them in different ways, that does not impact the cryptographic assumptions.

Also, this isn't true for a significant amount of Satsohi-era coins, and isn't true for Taproot (the new Bitcoin standard) either. Also just to be clear P2PKH outputs are not "safe", because once you attempt to spend it, a quantum adversary can just break the key and use RBF to send to themselves. P2PKH also relies on a 160-bit hash, which provides many many many orders of magnitude less security than 256-bit elliptic curves.

>>53109134
Ok. You got me. Can I mine it with a miniPC?

>>53109442

I don't see why not

>>53109442
>Can I mine it with a miniPC?
if you want. the cool kids mine on car stereos.

>>53109970
what in the fuck. why can't i see the hash rate on it? do you have any idea what the car stereo cpu is?

>>53110024
It was jst a webm I ran into. Otherwise I know nothing about it.

>>53110024
https://twitter.com/hyc_symas/status/1600857111793057792
2x Cortex-A75, 6x Cortex-A55, 8GB RAM, 128GB storage

>>53100248
>>53106903
hooters

>>53108931
>this offers an additional layer of protection to bitcoin.
LOL bittards will say anything to justify bitcoin's design decisions. This is completely wrong: it adds additional risk of hash collision. hashing the address is just to reduce entropy, see https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3600/why-are-bitcoin-addresses-hashes-of-public-keys

>>53090313
You cannot disprove that devs are minting more coins. It's that untraceable, by design of course!

>>53102985
a crypto that is more vulnerable to an attack from large entities like a state isn't less censorable. it's cheaper and easier to attack the monero network than to go in other countries attacking the miners.
monero would maybe be harder if it had much more nodes, but it doesn't, and there's reasons for that that monero people decide to ignore...

>>53109134
monero doesn't rely on the same cryptogprahic methods to count the coins in circulation. bitcoin is fully transparent. monero isn't transparent. you can't count the supply on monero, instead you rely on assumptions. that's not hard to understand. in the digital world, fungibility equals to uncertainties about the supply. that's just how it is, it would help monero if monero people were honest about it. it doesn't defeat the purpose of monero, anonymity
if something can be broken it will be en up being improved (both in bitcoin and monero), for instance one day the current crypto algorithms will inevitably by changed

>>53110144
this car stereo is beefier than my phone

>>53110445
> it's cheaper and easier to attack the monero network than to go in other countries attacking the miners.
You would need to keep attacking monero as a 51% attack is temporary.
Also, isn't there only one company that sells bitcoin ASICs? just ban them from being sold or imported, or require them to insert a backdoor that prevents them from working in X country. boom problem solved.

>monero would maybe be harder if it had much more nodes
No it wouldn't. Non-mining nodes do basically nothing for decentralization or security. They don't resist 51% attacks. This is just a common bitcoiner talking point used to distract from the fact that the network is controlled by a handful of ASIC miners and pools. Your non-mining node does nothing for the network. Your tiny lightning node with fuck all liquidity does nothing for the network. cope and seethe. https://youtu.be/sbD0kiTddEs?t=190

>if something can be broken it will be en up being improved (both in bitcoin and monero), for instance one day the current crypto algorithms will inevitably by changed
No it won't because bitcoin is run and used by lazy retards like you. Who will upgrade bitcoin's cryptography? You? You're in the developer meetings? You're contributing to the codebase? I think not.
Bitcoiners obviously have no idea how open source software works because they just expect bitcoin to improve without having to think critically or work hard to improve the software. They basically just wait around like they think a company is going to come and improve it for them.
Bitcoin's development has succumbed to corporate capture by a company called Blockstream that profits from its faults, so it will never improve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BZoKH-hX_o
If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

>>53110445
welcome back brother. i actually enjoy reading your posts. your time is not wasted on me

>>53110958
why are you so mean fren, it's not good

>51%
once you have the hardware to 51% monero, it's much cheaper to keep attacking the network because unlike with asics, you just have to run regular computers...

what I called nodes was miners, miners are mining "nodes", the context made it obvious, but anyway

>Who will upgrade bitcoin's cryptography? You? You're in the developer meetings? You're contributing to the codebase? I think not.
I'm just leaving that here for others to see. many cryptographers are working on bitcoin the same for monero, my post on the other thread was very true >>53101472


everything I've said is validated by this post, I hope some people notice silently. it's sad so see monero users like this, not good...

>>53111106
me too fren

>>53111187
You're on 4chan, a hostile board, talking about crypto, a hostile environment, that's trying to change the economy, an even more hostile environment. If you want someone to jack you off and not hurt your fee fees, go to r*ddit. Almost everything you've said is retarded, and then you cry about it.

>>53111368
I'm not saying this for me
if by now with all the time I took to explain various things you don't realize that what I'm saying is real and what is generally observed outside of an echo chamber, there's nothing I can do

>>53111187
>once you have the hardware to 51% monero, it's much cheaper to keep attacking the network because unlike with asics, you just have to run regular computers...
...what?

>>53110445

You're delusional if you think that countries won't work together to take down a threat to the global fiat system. A handful of countries could easily take control of Bitcoin, and in fact China single-handedly could have done that when they banned mining, but they just decided not to. Bitcoin wasn't attacked because the CCP literally just didn't feel like it. Also ASIC production is another heavily centralized factor, which could also easily be taken control of. ASIC chains, from start to finish, are all about centralization.

Monero is only weaker RIGHT NOW because the market cap and therefore mining rewards are a lot lower than Bitcoin. ASICs significantly increase the barrier to entry: Hashrate is proportionally higher on CPU chains because that barrier is eliminated. Aside from the fact that obtaining mass amounts of consumer hardware isn't as easy as you seem to think, each dollar of security budget is spent a lot more efficiently on CPU chains because proportionally more people are mining on it. To summarize: On ASIC chains, miners pay for hardware and electricity, and attackers do the same. On CPU chains, miners only pay for electricity (because it's not economically rational to buy dedicated new mining rigs, and so excess profitability is just eaten up by other miners), while attackers pay for hardware AND electricity.

Even if obtaining a fuckton of consumer hardware was easier than obtaining as many ASICs (it's not), attackers are still fighting a larger opponent.

>monero would maybe be harder if it had much more nodes

That's not how nakamoto consensus works.

>>53111670
All you've said is that you choose to completely ignore blockstream and LN despite how important they are, that the block size will be lifted despite bitcoiners universally stating that'll never happen and treating the 1MB limit as gospel.

Given how centralized the miners are, and how transparent the Bitcoin blockchain is it's much more censorable, as has been demonstrated time and again.

The only things you've said about Monero are to regurgitate the vague, tired inflation bug and network attack fud, despite Monero coinbase txs being unencrypted, a successful attack never being executed, no evidence of an inflation bug ever being provided, and no one ever having been traced through Monero. And whenever anyone disagrees with you get all condescending. You've said nothing new or interesting whatsoever.

>>53110445

>supply transparency

Yes you can't count XMR on your hand like a child, but if Monero's verification mathematics turns out to be flawed, then all modern technology as we know it is also flawed. BTC could still be stolen in that scenario, by the way, which would make it completely worthless, but regardless nearly the entire internet would basically just be gone in that scenario. If you think verifying the supply in this way is "too risky", why do you trust anything, including Bitcoin? Yes it's technically possible for it to be flawed, but unfathomably unlikely.

>>53112003
And as for hostility, Bitcoin and Monero people both have good reason to be incredibly hostile, dealing with scams like DeFi, PoS, and meme coins all the time. Monero people even more so, given how quickly Bitcoiners brush it off as garbage and cope about how losing darknet markets isn't at all important.

I’ve always wondered about this topic. Particl was exploited in this way I recall, or something similar. The fact that monero is so popular for so long without being directly banned makes me wonder if there is an ongoing op to profit from this. Then you have the withdrawal issues on exchanges.

>>53111996
this was fairly clear. the power needed to 51% bitcoin is much higher than the power needed to 51% monero

>>53111998
will all governments work together to attack something and succeed, has this ever happened in history?
it's easier to attack monero at equal market cap, because it's cheaper since it's asic resistant, and it's harder to stack asics than a lot of cpus, that's it...

you claim asic resistance creates a higher barrier of entry : let's just see how it goes when 1. states decide to attack bitcoin 2.factories are somehow seized. 3.they pay a lot of energy to keep the attack going 4. it creates long term disruption. only then will we know who was right. this really sounds like a conspiracy theory scenario, but I won't dismiss it

what I meant by nodes was mining nodes

>>53112003
block size won't stay at 1mb when the hardware will be so much more performant than currently
bitcoin is more censorship resistant than monero because of the security of its network, monero isn't protected enough against large scale attacks
the supply problem is real, but unlikely, still, possible and catastrophic if it happens, that's just how it is
the coinbase transaction is just the fee+block reward, a supply exploit would bypass that sadly, that's the issue

>>53112007
yes except for bitcoin. bitcoin has a working consensus, if there's a problem with the supply it will be visible immediately, any issues will end up fixed, and bitcoin will keep going. like with the inflation bug it encountered. monero isn't transparent, monero people shall as well accept that monero made tradeoffs, you can't have everything, I'm not even hostile to monero, but I wish more people were honest

>149 replies
>CTRL + V
>"tail emission"
>1 result
You probably don't even deserve to be red pilled with Monero threads in this board.
Just go trade your seasonal /biz/ scam token or your fancy .jpeg monkey picture.

no, but coordinated fudding is

>>53113348

>will all governments work together to attack something and succeed, has this ever happened in history?

Stop being dishonest. You don't need "all". Currently NATO could decide to seize mining farms and suddenly half of the hashrate would state-controlled. This isn't even unrealistic, considering that the EU is discussing a mining ban, and communists like Warren in the US are pushing for similar. And like I said, China could've easily done it single-handedly, they just decided not to. Not to mention the centralized manufacturing, which would be slower to properly take advantage of than direct seizure, but is still a threat. We've already been over this.

You say that you're "not even hostile to monero" and that you "wish more people were honest" but then immediately start being dishonest. Nice.

>t's cheaper since it's asic resistant, and it's harder to stack asics than a lot of cpus, that's it...
>you claim asic resistance creates a higher barrier of entry : let's just see how it goes

Are you special or something? Again, I just went over this.

>this really sounds like a conspiracy theory scenario

So a logical, demonstrable, and evidence-backed claim (that you're clearly purposely choosing to disregard) is a "conspiracy theory", but "muh secret flawed math inflation bug that also somehow only affects monero" isn't? Yeah fuck right off.

>>53095720
Only low IQ faggots would campaign against privacy.

>>53113903
let's recap your claims

1.monero is currently more vulnerable than bitcoin, so you imagine a situation where monero grows to bitcoin's current level

2.following this you imagine a situation where states will decide to attack bitcoin (I do not dismiss it)

3.then you imagine a situation where NATO or similar or some governments cooperating will succeed in seizing enough hardware to 51% attack bitcoin

4.they spend billions to keep the network unusable continuously

5.and you somehow imagine that if they have the men and the budget to succeed this attack, they won't have the men and budget to attack monero, stack an extremely high amount of cpus and run them, and stacking more as needed, which is very energy efficient for them to run since it's asic resistant

so I'll repeat...let's see how it goes? yes it sounds like a conspiracy theory scenario...sorry if that makes you angry, this wasn't the goal
also let's think, how profitable would be monero mining compared to bitcoin mining in this extraordinary scenario?

>>53113903
also regarding the supply issue on monero, it's not a matter of how likely, it's a matter of why taking the risk if there's an alternative without the risk; it's a competition for the best form of money, and stability is one of the most important criteria. monero made tradeoffs, you need to acknowledge this

>>53114489
>then you imagine a situation where NATO or similar or some governments cooperating will succeed in seizing enough hardware to 51% attack bitcoin

lol there's no need to attack Bitcoin the hard way when the easier way will suffice:

1. Cut miners off from the resupply of new ASICs and just wait for existing ones to burn out.
2 Cut miners off from access to trading platforms and banking services and cripple their ability to pay their operating costs.
3. Begin actively penalizing non-compliant miners as an example to others.


>and you somehow imagine that if they have the men and the budget to succeed this attack, they won't have the men and budget to attack monero, stack an extremely high amount of cpus and run them, and stacking more as needed, which is very energy efficient for them to run since it's asic resistant

And how exactly are they going to acquire an "an extremely high amount" of Ryzens and such on the open market without creating an epic bidding war and driving the price-per-unit to fucking Mars? Remember, the vast majority of CPUs optimal for mining Monero are already being used for non-mining applications, so there is a CONSTANT and HIGH demand for them from a very wide spectrum of industries, you're just not going to be able to buy up 50K+ Rzyens in bulk like you can Antminers.

>MARATHON BOUGHT 78,000 BITCOIN MINERS FOR $879 MILLION
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/marathon-bought-78000-bitcoin-miners-for-879-million

Also remember that the millions of existing Ryzen rigs out there are ALL potential Monero miners, so in a widely-publicized David vs Goliath battle between Big Gubmint and the People's Coin they could pretty much instantly be configured to start mining anonymously over Tor/I2P as a FUCK YOU to authority, you don't even need a local node to mine in P2Pool now.

there are people who are paid to post negative things about monero

scammers are so desperate

>>53114489
>>53114514

I'm not saying it WILL happen to Bitcoin, or that it CANT happen to Monero, only that if they wanted to crack down it'd be much easier to do so to Bitcoin than Monero.

Another thing is that ASICs make mining inaccessible to the average person. Want to start mining? Bitcoin says fuck you. Monero says run some software.

>stack an extremely high amount of cpus and run them

Indeed, they'll just magically find a few ten/hundred-million modern CPUs and mobos lying around, because the consumer production which can't even handle supply for gaymers will definitely allow for that. Yet you think that locating massive corporate mining farms, or the few factories where ASICs are produced, or obtaining electricity for far less than typical consumer prices, or spending a few extra billion dollars on an existential threat (realistically they could be much more efficient, plus the fact they'll have new bitcoins to sell to make up for some/all of it, but I digress) is somehow unrealistic?

>why taking the risk if there's an alternative without the risk; it's a competition for the best form of money

Well to start, something which is not fungible cannot be good money.

But maybe you're right. Why take the risk? Let's not have fungibility or any privacy, and allow it to be used to target and censor certain individuals. After all, it's not worth the risk. Let's also get rid of the digital signatures: they might break, why take the risk? Instead, we'll have an account system. Let's then get rid of the proof of work: relying on CRHs is extremely dangerous, why take the risk? We'll just have mining companies manage the flow of funds directly. Wait, the supply curve is ALSO based on math! Let's just have a central bitcoin minter decide what the supply should be. Why take the risk? After all, why have all that if there's an alternative without the risk?

Once you arbitrarily decide that it doesn't need one aspect of money, there's no reason to keep the rest.

>>53115041

pic related: >>53113903

>>53115041
they don't know when to fucking stop. they should just admit it's fucking over and that this project has obviously won. They had their chance to stuff Monero into a box but now it's too large to fit

>>53114906
if they can go as far as going to other countries to seize asic factories (asic mining also requires chips from general purpose chip maker TSMC), then why won't they manage to increase the production of ryzen cpus? amd is selling millions of chips already, producing more chips just seems to be a matter of more money, which an attacker have. double the production, why not? one cpu chip isn't really expensive, the production cost is quite lower than that.

note that I'm not trying to discredit monero, but try to make you aware that if large scale attacks happen, we might not be ready yet, that's equally bad for bitcoin or monero
in the current state, all we have is "hope", not good

>>53114906
>>53115140
>I'm not saying it WILL happen to Bitcoin, or that it CANT happen to Monero
what's the point to discuss how easy or hard it would be if they would succeed anyway to 51% and keep the network down? you're arguing that asic resistance is better because it would be 'harder' to attack in the case of a successful very large scale attack?

you're thinking about the most extreme scenario, in an hypothetical future, why not, but then why not thinking about small to moderate attacks? it's actual reality and it also matters, asic mining is more secure outside of a literal war like you describe because it costs more to attack, without this system bitcoin could have been already attacked

there needs to be more asic manufacturers outside of taiwan/china/usa, and there needs to be testing grounds for alternative mining methods, monero has utility in that regard (if the asic factory attack scenario happens, the easier way to mitigate this would probably be a protocol change or a fork rendering the attack useless)
all in all I think the best bet for either bitcoin or monero to survive is to properly adapt to incoming attacks in a whack a mole way

>>53115140
>best form of money
digital fungibility comes with tradeoffs. at least in the current year. it comes with uncertainty, the approach of monero. maybe bitcoin will find a solution, some weird cryptographical trick, weird like "proving that x knows something without telling what it is" or "hiding the act of hiding". or maybe it's just not possible and bitcoin is still preferable as a store of value for most people. I don't think they'd trust a currency for that which may have a breaking supply bug, even if it's extremely unlikely. I don't

I like privacy, but currently there is no working solution to have all benefits without the tradoffs I mentioned. there are no risks on things that can be verified. monero is nontransparent, circulating supply relies on cryptographic assumptions. that's just how it is, it's even mention on moneropedia if I recall

I don't know how math works so I will claim infinite supply and ignore everything else

>>53115779
this but unironically :3

>>53115779
>>53115789

>>53115749
>then why won't they manage to increase the production of ryzen cpus? amd is selling millions of chips already, producing more chips just seems to be a matter of more money, which an attacker have. double the production, why not? one cpu chip isn't really expensive, the production cost is quite lower than that.

Because of quality assurance, you can't just slap a couple of components together and declare GREAT SUCCESS! Modern general-purpose CPU manufacturing is an INSANELY complex and delicate struggle, especially when manufacturing higher end units, the amount of quality control required to weed out defective units and ensure optimal performance is astounding and requires time, patience and extra resources.

>>53115869

>If you require a 100% ironclad guarantee that the airliner you're about to board will land safely don't get on the plane.

You can't fully eliminate risk but you can minimize it to the point it becomes negligible.

can you guys tell me what the best amd ryzens are that i need to buy? is a 5800 or 5900 enough?

>>53115994

https://xmrig.com/benchmark

>>53115928
sorry but this sounds like cope...some governments cannot fund a company producing millions of cpus to produce even more cpus? there is no physical limit like missing material of lacking energy, if they know how to make it then they can make more, especially in a situation where "states will be determined to go into other countries to seize factories to attack bitcoin"

>>53115953
not being absolutely certain that a worldwide global economic system which does store of value+payment for everyone doesn't have a supply problem at any time is not negligible at all, it will never ever work because mostly no one will trust it when there's an alternative that provides absolute certainty, which is required...
no certainty is fine for the use case of monero

>>53116301
>sorry but this sounds like cope...some governments cannot fund a company producing millions of cpus to produce even more cpus? there is no physical limit like missing material of lacking energy, if they know how to make it then they can make more

lol its not about the money, its about the logistics of scaling a HIGHLY fault intolerant process up without getting rekt along the way. There simply is a limit on how many high-end CPUs can be manufactured to very exacting standards every year.

And even if they TRIED it would take YEARS to first expand manufacturing capabilities, such an attack would be seen coming a million miles away lmao.

And don't forget the absolutely vast potential hashrate of free citizens around the world is available to be tapped as necessary, what is easier to attack is also easier to defend.


>especially in a situation where "states will be determined to go into other countries to seize factories to attack bitcoin"

lol no need to invade other countries, just ban ASIC importation citing "muh environmental concerns" and that's pretty much it, starve miners of new hardware and the hashrate will inevitably drop over time as older units burn out.

>>53116301
>not being absolutely certain that a worldwide global economic system which does store of value+payment for everyone doesn't have a supply problem at any time is not negligible at all, it will never ever work because mostly no one will trust it when there's an alternative that provides absolute certainty, which is required...

there is no "absolute certainty" when it comes to software. Bitcoin's transparent ledger doesn't guarantee it won't suffer inflation bugs, there have already been 2, with the first one having been exploited.

And how was it fixed? By rolling back the chain and also erasing a certain amount of legitimate TXs in the process. Not such a big deal in 2010 when BTC was 7 cents, an absolutely devastating event in 2023 and beyond with literal billions on the line.

>The Value Overflow incident that nearly destroyed Bitcoin
Within 5 hours of the incident, they were able to release 0.3.1 version of Bitcoin to prevent future printing of Bitcoin and rewound blockchain to deplete the hacked 184.467B Bitcoins.

https://www.consulting24.co/post/the-value-overflow-incident-that-nearly-destroyed-bitcoin

In other words, since there have already been 2 inflation bugs in BTC there is theoretically a chance there's also a 3rd or 4th or 5th one out there just waiting to be exploited, which would necessitate another destructive chain rollback that would harm thousands of innocent users and very easily destroy faith and confidence in Bitcoin forever.

Is this something that is likely? Nope, its actually VERY unlikely at this point. But its not impossible. Again, there are no 100% guarantees when it comes to software, and crypto ultimately IS software.

>>53116253
thx for that!

how more private is mining monero compared to localmonero for example?

>>53116742
>how more private is mining monero compared to localmonero for example?

Well, mining is THEE most private way of acquiring Monero since you can do it without anybody else knowing.

But buying it thru non-KYC hubs is much more practical.

Monero is unfathomably based.

>>53115749

>what's the point to discuss how easy or hard it would be if they would succeed anyway to 51% and keep the network down? you're arguing that asic resistance is better because it would be 'harder' to attack in the case of a successful very large scale attack?

You're the one who brought it up lmfao.

But to add to that, I'm also arguing that asic resistance is better because it makes mining far more decentralized and accessible.

>the best bet for either bitcoin or monero to survive is to properly adapt to incoming attacks in a whack a mole way

Agreed, but Bitcoin probably won't be capable of this. Monero has a culture which accepts clean hard forks to update and improve the protocol. Bitcoin does not. At best you'd get a small majority of the network on board, but that alone would take months to convince people of, and you'd still be left with a sizeable minority left on the legacy chain.

>maybe bitcoin will find a solution, some weird cryptographical trick, weird like "proving that x knows something without telling what it is"

That's literally exactly what Monero does lmfao

>relies on cryptographic assumptions

Yes, ones which are extremely conservative, have been studied for decades, and have all of e-commerce relying on them. If we were talking about some nascent, wacky, exotic assumptions like those used by zkSNARKs, that'd be different. Again, if you accept the idea that Bitcoin's signatures are safe, then you must also accept that Monero is safe. Can you honestly tell me that if tomorrow we found out that anyone can just reassign any Bitcoin to themselves, that would be tangibly less severe than an inflation bug? Bitcoin would be completely worthless. In this scenario, where the ECDLP assumption is apparently wrong, then the entire internet would be gone, let's just pretend that itsn't the case.

>>53116662
maybe it would take years, and I don't see how anyone would see it coming, especially if the state doesn't tell what it would need the cpu for. if production and supply is increased there will be no difference in prices
really you are just hoping that a government doesn't succeed in acquiring enough cpu, this is not an impossibility, and it's important to account for that, like I said adaptation is probably key, not just hope
invading countries or not, I was talking about a determined attacker which can do it if needed and more
>certainty
you don't understand or refuse to understand that it's about competition and a currency which provides a way to count the actual supply is safer to use (preferable for most people) than a currency which doesn't and relies and assumptions. read moneropedia again...
every software can have bugs, yes, and a software that can correct such bug sooner is better.
a worldwide currency needs
1. to be certain at all times that the supply is the supply expected
2. if a supply bug happens, that we can figure as soon as possible
monero provides none of those
if bitcoin can have this issue at any time, any crypto can, which is why it's important to not rely on assumptions for the supply

>>53119874
I don't remember who talked about what first, but my point is that outside an extreme attack scenario asic mining is quite more resilient, and in the case of the big attack scenario, the attacked crypto will have to adapt because the attacker if determined will certainly succeed in causing massive harm if doing nothing
I agree that asic resistance makes it better for the individual, but it is less secure because an attack is easier and cheaper

I believe bitcoin will be capable of adapting if needed. funny how it all seems to be about belief in the end

>That's literally exactly what Monero does lmfao
the subject is doing that in a transparent way

>assumptions
I know the assumptions are conservative and unlikely to be broken, my point is that there's no way to know for sure
it's just about the supply really, no need to change the subject
I believe that bugs can happen (not just to money) and also that such bugs can be fixed, it has always been the case, crypto algorithms have always been evolving, and will keep evolving
no digital currency is immune to bugs, that includes centralized currencies

>>53090277
>It's Moneros infinite supply bullish?
yes, and even retard bitcoin maxis understand tail emission, so why don't you?
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary
>NEXT

No amount of incredibly brainlet cope arguments is yet to convince me to go back to Bitcoin.
I'm not going to share all my transactions and my wallet balance just so some brainlet can have a peace of mind.
I'm not going to transact on an open ledger where not only all transactions are visible, but the miners can also discriminate said transactions.

>>53090277
If any coin loss exists, supply can't be infinite. But then we're talking about shit that will take centuries. Just take the worst number: 0.8%. Wow it's over.

>>53110375
Show in the code where it would be possible for a dev to mint coins.

>>53110024
>why can't i see the hash rate on it?
It's 292 h/s you blind nomonero nominer.

>>53094958
That's why you test on testnet first, after many reviews.

>>53110445
Monero not being transparent is the fucking point. Do you want all your gold to be transparent to everyone in the world? Holy fucking shit.

>>53110445
>go thorough the blockchain
>add up block rewards
>go through and verify the proofs
Voila! If you find a problem, show them in the code, or at least some math please. Otherwise fuck off.

>>53122989
>>53115869
pic related
the point is anonymity. nontransparency is a (big) tradeoff, it was the only solution when monero was created
both bitcoin cultists an monero cultists can be as delusional, it's sad

>>53123388
Go back