Fedimints are a great idea. At the same time it shows why Monero's choice of L1 privacy is much more reliable.
PSA: The functionality of multiple Fedimint federations is significantly degraded due to severe DNS issues.
It seems to be the case that some federation guardians have an XYZ domain that the DNS registrar has taken over. Freedom One and Bitcoin Principals appear to have one guardian offline due to this.
Unfortunately, despite the server and keys for these guardians being intact, there is no way for the DNS of a guardian to be swapped out after the fact. We became aware of this issue last week and then became aware that multiple federations are experiencing this: https://github.com/fedimint/fedimint/issues/5482/
Given the critical state of these federations, with one guardian out of four being permanently offline, it's essential that if you have funds in these federations, you should withdraw them immediately. Unfortunately, we're unaware of other public federations, so you must withdraw to another lightning or on-chain wallet.
From our experiences, intermittent/connectivity issues can occur with guardians, and this may result in errors if not all three remaining guardians are consistently online. No other guardian of these federations has XYZ or other domains like it. So, if you're having issues, please try again later.
Unfortunately, not much can be done on the Mutiny side, so we're removing the federation setup flow in the UI as a first step. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Discussion
How many monero are in circulation and what controls their issuance?
How much ecash is in circulation and what controls their issuance?
Am I advocating using e cash? 🤔
I don't know, that's up to you
Monero and eCash both suck
Monero currently has better privacy and UX then Bitcoin.
It's also much cheaper to kill.
That's definately true in regards to hashrate. Though Monero is ASIC resistant which does make it somewhat harder to coordinate in scale.
Not an invalid point, but relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things when it comes to defeating state actors and central banks.
I agree.
you can also make the argument that bitcoin ASIC centralization undermines the purpose of defeating state actors and central banks
It's not anywhere near centralized enough for that argument to be valid, and the market will respond as soon as they attempt to seize miners to produce empty blocks (this is the attack vector) - fees go up until enough hashpower comes online to mine non-empty blocks.
Until there is public, determined competition between nation states for domination of the mining space its a very real threat.
The US is *quite* adept at leveraging its position in even hostile jurisdictions. There is no place on earth that both 1,takes bitcoin seriously enough and 2,hates the US enough that miners can feel secure enough to bring large hash online there.
And of course, one jurisdiction isn't enough. We need many.
So tbh, it's stupid to dismiss that attack vector.
Sure you'll probably still be able to eventually get your tx mined.
But the network will NOT function as advertised.
You're describing the hash war phase. The network will not work as advertised, but only for a certain period of time until either the state or the market capitulate. Here watch this: https://youtu.be/X_xgmVLyB94?si=UhSN5Cmjzbk9Tyvs
18,445,342
PoW mining just like Bitcoin
