Tail emission is meaningless, I don't go either way. It neither solves the "security budget", neither makes the money " soft". Gold has non-zero inflation and no one called it soft money. The aversion to tail emission is purely dogmatic and emotional.
For me it's a none issue, I abstain.
This. Tbf I can't blame bitcoiners being traumatized by fiat inflation.
But what makes fiat inflation terrible is the unpredictable and severe nature. Monero is neither. Less inflation than gold and % is constantly shrinking.
But sure, if all goes as planned, technically, Bitcoin is more scarce in the future no argument from me about that.
It's more about LONG term value. And a network that doesn't frequently hard fork lol
Yes. Long term value that comes from a scarce fixed supply (no inflation). That is my point.
Bitcoin has been a great SoV so far. But ~14 years is hardly "longterm". Extrapolating into the future is speculation.
If microscopic inflation and privacy improving hardforks from a FOSS project still scare you...don't save in Monero. Use it.
It's easier to extrapolate long term using industry standard encryption as opposed to something created on a whim to deter asics
That's a completely valid although subjective point. Different people will assess risk tradeoffs differently.
There's no objective truth here. I also prefer sha256 to RandomX for now.
And I can pick at tight ASIC manufacturer chokepoints, vulnerable corporate mining farm centralization, and less than discrete energy draw, heat, and noise.
But fair enough, we choose our trade offs.
Your issues with mining don't make it less secure. The energy it uses can aid in stabilizing energy grids and countless other uses. Asic manufacturing choke points aren't really an issue, id be more concerned about the couple big names in the space. And mining pools aren't really an issue, if they were to attempt to attack the network it would be obvious and people would just stop directing their hashpower there lol. Stratumv2 also nullifies that argument
How does stabilizing the grid make bitcoin mining more secure? If anything that makes it less secure because they are concentrated in single locations and can be flipped off and on by the state.
Of course ASIC manufacturer choke points are a potential issue you said it yourself...there are only a couple big names lol. How do you know newer better ASICs arent being secretly sold to governments? Would be more devastating to Bitcoin because of how limited ASICs are vs CPUs
Monero already has it's own version of "Stratumv2" called P2Pool for years. Catch up slowbros 🏄♂️
I'm sorry to say this.
Have you ever heard about server or data center? For a long time, centralized corporations or governments have had mass CPU computing power.
CPUs are also ASICs. CPUs also require cooling system. You don't understand what CPU, GPU, FPGA and ASIC are and semiconductor/computer industry at all. Your argument is based on ignorance.
Welcome back Mr. "bye bye 👋" 😂
You bring up some fair points about data centers.
What draws more energy and produces more heat/noise?Your average CPU or ASIC? Disingenuous to imply it is anywhere near the same level.
If I buy a bitcoin ASIC miner it is obvious what it is and what I'm going to do with it. If I buy a general purpose CPU you have no clue what I'm using it for. You don't even need to buy one you likely have several lying around.
Aws only doesn't control your chain because they don't want to
Bitmain only doesn't control your chain because they don't want to
Yikes dude now you're really reaching for the stars
Sorry exaggerating, Bitmain and MicroBT*
Maybe in 2017. Nowadays how could they control asics they already sold?
It would take them years and years of manufacturing and losing money until they would have enough hash power to make an impact.
Unless a government had been stockpiling ones not made available to the public all these years...with an unlimited money printer, and only a couple manufacturers to bribe. How would we know?
I consider it unlikely too...but still well within the realm of possiblility.
Also "no known quantum vulnerbilities" doesn't really mean anything. I'm sure some would be quickly found if it was more relevant. Maybe if it was an algorithm more people have looked at it would be more meaningful
