So what we should be really comparing monero to isn't bitcoin, but fedimint. Fediment can definitely offer greater privacy if you use a mint with a large enough anonymity set. Question is whether we can have fedimints that are more robust vs state attacks than Monero.
Discussion
Yes, except Monero has stronger guaruntees over the total supply.
Seems like a trilemma...
Bitcoin: Self-custodial, NGU
Monero: Self-custodial, Private
Ecash: NGU, Private
Depends what you mean. If we assume the mint can be trusted...
Pro: Monero network is more resistant to direct physical attack from states considering node count and ubiquity of general purpose CPU mining.
Ecash is either a single mint operator, or a handful of people from a federation you can go after. Might be harder for a federation, but defnitely much easier than rounding up every single miner on Monero. You could try and reduce this vulnerability by having many mints, but that would be negative for anonymity set.
Con: Monero network is currently more vulnerable to a pure hash war VS the state.
This attack isn't possible with Ecash because no mining is involved, obviously...but it involves assuming the mint is and will always be trustworthy (wasn't the whole point of Bitcoin to remove or reduce trust?)
Did u learn on how eth was capture ? How those federation...hum..."open source, free federations" works ?
There are a bunch of those project on eth, like here w ecash. That won work for me.
Bitcoin begin to work like a eth project, L2, state investor...bs after bs.
We all know how that will end (it will end like those bullshat tokenisatiion project that those suit like).
Agree with you. There will probably be many rugpulls.
Rugpulls are not an issue. People will just change method of exchange. And get they saving taken. Money can still be save after that.
What i see is that those spy will have hard time w privacy chain focus now. And no return to those anon chain.
In 2024 people will learn what is to be persecuted by those spy. Devs have already learn. They already shifting to those anon title XD.
There still so munch devs that are not anon. They will learn the hard way, w help of the prosecuters. As for bitcoin it will wind down, price high but only use by those public credited people.
no more anon node or hardware. No more exchange without kyc.
This is a maturation of blockchains tech. Its good to see.
This is the way.
Mints can steal, not comparable at all.
There are various other risks with Monero, such as the continual hard forks, potential for node centralization etc. The comparison is more, can we have a fedimint where the overal trustworthiness of the federation similar to that of the Monero system of incentives. You could also make the same comparison to bitcoin, but overall trust in the base system is much higher than Monero.
And the answer would be: no
Sufficient trust in a mint would be centralization. This applies even to trust in several large mints.
I agree with your second point and Monerans have been avoiding my query on this, but i disagree with your first point about frequent hard forks. It's "how" it's done that is important, not how often. The HF's that take place are years in the making, focused on improving the single value proposition for XMR. They go through rigourous testing by skilled devs. The community can reject it, but rarely do because, and it bares repeating, they only have one goal. Privacy. No ETF's or corporate/state actors to appease, no mining conglomerates or electricity infra, no layer 2 scaling or smart contracts to integrate, no ordinals or Script externalities like BitVm.
This means only a handful of experts need to work on a given fork, itself trying to fix a potential problem, push the fix and move on with their lives, like with RandomX. Whereas with other projects you need to pass on the torch, audit Interoperability, and consult with veterans and stake holders.
Scheduled Hard forks in Monero are way less dramatic than in politics based Bitcoin and even less than in centralized upgrades like Windows going from one version to another.
Monero is so simple, it eliminates entire classes of issues that would make frequent hard forks "scary", whereas Bitcoin preserves old problems to keep legacy devs employed.
I'll let the original participants in this conversation continue it. My comment was based on the assumption that criticisms already brought up were true, so it will rest on the conclusion of taat discussion.
fed imment is just another word for middlemen.