I basically agree with those points regarding gold.
but we're discussing supply inflation.
and gold never became a poor store of value because of supply inflation
iow
a fixed and immutable supply isn't a requirement of money.
doing so has tradeoffs like everything else
but talking like its a necessary property of money is obviously contradicted by history.
Fair. So the tradeoff is that everyone on the monero network pays for maintaining the network through inflation whereas everyone on the Bitcoin network pays to maintain the network when they transact. The main takeaway is that everyone has to pay in some way.
yeah exactly
the general game theory on this is usually expressed through the "free rider problem"
basically
when there's network security cost and only a subset of users pay for it (people making txs)
everyone tries to be a "free rider", ie part of the group that *doesn't pay for security (hodlers).
according to the theory,
the security of such a network trends towards zero.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem
whether it works out that way in practice is of course another story.
but the point I want to make
is that tail emission is a legitimate tradeoff.
there are other tradeoffs Monero makes that can be criticized
but its not reasonable to argue tail emission makes it shitcoin IMHO.
Do you hold bitcoin for savings at all?
of course
Sorry for butting in, but I think almost no one who supports and promotes #XMR is dumb, fanatical, or narrow-minded enough to not recognize #BTC. Sadly, the same can’t be said for the “BTC-only” crowd when it comes to psychological traits and intelligence.
I don’t really have a problem with monero. But a lot of monero shills come at me very aggressively and it’s pretty annoying lol
I value privacy but I have concerns about whether monero is liquid enough to function as a p2p cash alternative when I’m ready to spend my bitcoin. Large bitcoin whales buying in and selling out of monero is not practical because it’ll make the price more volatile. I know bitcoin is volatile but that’s part of the feature of bitcoin. Monero being volatile isn’t a good thing since it is being strictly used for transacting. Monero staying a small project and flying under the radar is probably best. Mass adoption is not realistic imo.
Them poor bastards always looking to dunk on the king (bitcoin) in good times.
Bro
We’ll use any valuable code and features in bitcoin when we’re ready, don’t worry about it
I’m not worried about nothing related to cryptocurrency. Rest assured.
Just the way you call a coin as “king” resembles me that song.
Serious questions:
When will be that?
Is there a roadmap?
No joke.
coming soon™
In today’s world, where we’re in a frenzy of technological evolution, it’s funny to see someone use “coming soon” (or something like that) to defend one technology over another for years. And these excuses get thrown around left and right with no shame. Some even use them with a bit of pride.
No one here used coming soon.
New features and tech take their damn long time trickling in to bitcoin.
That too is a feature.
I've remember when they said that lightning would be private
Hey!! Don’t push them too much: BTC is a cheap cryptocurrency, have a really small network and the mining reward is smaller. They don’t have time nether resources to implement the coming soon features.
Bro don’t get sarcasm should avoid discussing. Pachorro Out!
not really.
maxis are much more prone to find opportunity to dunk
and much LESS interested in discussing nuance.
also they famously are widely NOT interested in using new code with new features and often are fans of premature ossification.
legit concern
i solve this by having a stack of monero as well and move between the two just a few times per year
which means my fiat net worth is lower than it would be otherwise
but I'm highly critical of the maxi attitude that everything should revolve around maximizing your fiat equiv buying power
it's both for monero actually. the network security budget is funded by both tail emission and transaction fees. but the fee revenue is not very significant. monero has about 20% of the daily transaction count of litecoin. if it gets used more then a greater share of the security budget will come from transaction fees.
Not everyone. Holders don't pay, but they benefit, and those that spend subsidize the security on behalf of those that don't spend. It's a big problem that will increasingly become obvious as it rears it's head in the coming decades. I wrote up some detail on it in the linked note and more in the thread it is in
The holders paid to secure their wealth when they initially moved their funds to their wallet. It’s just that there isn’t an ongoing cost to holding it. But wealth that never moves is not beneficial. At some point they have to move it and pay a cost.
I think that energy will become cheaper over time but also that bitcoin will become more valuable over time as well. The subsidy continues to shrink but Bitcoin’s value continues trending up while hash continues to rise along with it.
Time will tell.
There is an ongoing cost to holding it. Your wealth is secured by the network, without that security, your wealth is worthless. That security you get is subsidized by spenders, and this has incentive/game-theoretical implications for the bitcoin network that are not good. You can have the rarest of assets and if it can disappear while you sleep it's not worth anything.
Energy becoming cheaper... As energy becomes cheaper, people spend more on it by raising their energy usage. This is commonly observed everywhere in the world, and so far, empirically, this has held true for the bitcoin network as well.
I explained all of this stuff the other day in more detail in the following note, as well as another note in the same thread, if you want to give it a read to get a good idea of my thoughts on the matter.
Found this post that gives an alternative perspective on energy demand. Read the first section on AI energy use.
“But energy demand did not follow in the same way … Between 2010 and 2018, global data centre compute increased by more than 550%. Yet energy use in data centres increased by just 6%.”
https://newsletter.humanprogress.org/p/weekly-progress-roundup-35e
I'll read it, but just your quote says demand went up in the study, not down, which is what I'm saying. Compute increased 550% and energy usage 6%, if your projection was right it would've gone up 300% or something and energy usage gone down. That's not what we see empirically anywhere in the world. Where efficiency goes up, new energy demand outpaces it.
