Subnostr

You're right. Same thing would likely happen to Monero.

The difference is if Monero *was* accepted (unlikely) they would either have to accept all Monero payments or none. They wouldn't be able to pick and choose like they could with Bitcoin and Liquid (Liquid is custodial and traceable since it doesn't hide sender/receiver it is still taintable). They wouldn't be able to peer into your full or partial balances or be able to trace them after being rejected either. Merchants also have plausible deniability that they couldn't know if the transaction was from a "dirty" source with Monero.

Let's say Monero is not allowed (likely). If they are allowing some Bitcoin transactions and rejecting others, they're likely only allowing those bitcoin transactions that "follow the rules" (taxes, regulations, KYC, approved custodians), so at that point it would make more sense to use fiat for that purchase.

At the end of the day this stuff is black market money

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Permissionless-Principle

Leo Fernevak 1y ago

Yes.

Bitcoin is less likely to be rejected in the supermarket example vs Monero and there would be ways to get around tainted addresses.

Yet, at the end of the day, if a jurisduction is hell-bent on not allowing Bitcoin and Monero in supermarkets, transactions would have to move to the black market. Such supermarkets would also not accept gold

Both Bitcoin and Monero are better payment systems vs gold in a crackdown situation.

The ideal food shopping will be purchases or orders directly from farmers, for a number of reasons, food quality included.

I can see a number of reasons why farmers would *likely* prefer payments in Bitcoin over both gold and Monero. It is possible that some farmers might prefer Monero, but every extra step of barter where people have to exchange from Bitcioin to Monero and back is an additional obstacle.

Bitcoin has a benefit of being both a globally accepted store of value while simultaneously having a wide spectrum of security options, from lower to higher depending on tradeoffs.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Saberhagen The Nameless 1y ago

***Bitcoin transactions that follow the rules*** are less likely to be rejected in the supermarket example. Not Bitcoin transactions in general. If I'm trying to follow the rules so my transaction isnt rejected, why wouldn't I just use digital fiat for that? It's the most "approved" rule-following currency and everyone accepts it. Faster and cheaper to transact too.

Unless you want to be fully traceable with worse privacy than Paypal (at least you have privacy from the general public when you use digital fiat) what are you going to do when any bitcoin coming from coinjoins is made illegal (tainted)? Or any transaction made without "approved custodians" is not allowed? Most white market businesses won't want to deal with the hassle and cost, OR will be very picky about their Bitcoin so they're not left with the "tainted" hot potato liability.

Bitcoin has been a better SoV historically (future is speculation), but its properties are less than ideal for frequent transactions (currency, digital cash, or MoE).

There are reasons why farmers might prefer Monero in a p2p situation:

-It's very cheap to transact unlike Bitcoin (Less than a cent. I can make about 400 transactions on Monero right now for the cost of a single Bitcoin transaction. It's much worse when there is a lot of demand in the mempool)

-Fungibility similar to gold and cash

-They don't have to worry about third-parties or counter-parties being able to peer into their balances or trace their histories. Even if it's just for personal security "look how rich this person is let's rob them" Sure, they *could* deal with the tedium of coinjoins, spend even more time and money, all for weaker privacy (because nothing is hidden in a coinjoin, it is just obfuscated. Monero has no amounts or addresses.)

-stronger plausible deniability

-Their transactions can't be individually censored by miners

-It makes more business sense for a merchant to accept all major crypto, you're casting a wider net for customers, and later just consolidate and swap to Bitcoin whatever they want to save long term

Do these outweigh the extra step (if you're a bitcoin saver)? What will the market do? It's not clear

I'm not arguing for gold, but I can see some benefits of gold that Bitcoin and Monero don't have.

Like not depending on digital infrastructure to use, more liquidity, wider acceptance, solid several millennia history, and gold bars don't cease to exist if gold miners don't mine

The only places Bitcoin/Monero always make sense is in black markets. Any white market use is fleeting and in flux. The general trend around the world looks to be more crypto regulation and crackdowns which leaves Bitcoin/Monero to their origins of black markets - the only markets that do not require permission.