Exactly
These arguments are not based in reality.
Discussion
huh?
i don't think you understood what I said.
the OP isnt comparing sha256 hash to RandomX.
I know he isn’t he is stating Monero is Secure and Bitcoin is NOT Secure which is absurd. Monero could be attacked with magnitudes less hash and energy than Bitcoin.
You were saying energy usage is a better metric and I responding by saying that the energy to generate those hashes for Monero are less than the energy needed to generate the hashes for bitcoin therefore would take less energy per hash to attack Monero. I Didn’t articulate it very well.
I'm not sure how the joules/hash works out for the respective algos.
hard to come up with an average since there are so many different Asics or cpus used...
but yeah, basically you're right.
asic resistance is another trade-off.
we get good decentralization at the expense of warehouse hash machines.
I get that. But the greatest security risk is a 51% attack and that would be very easy to do on Monero in comparison to Bitcoin therefore Bitcoin is secure in comparison to Monero not the other way around. Having tail emissions doesn’t make up for the lack of hashes.
its just a different vulnerability.
sure, Monero is more vulnerable to a hash attack.
otoh
Bitcoin is indeed gambling that there will be enough tx fees to incentivize miners in the future.
i think a tail emission is a no-brainer. more for game theory, free-rider reasons than "mining death spiral" reasons
and like, why not?
but here we are.