Decentralization is verifiable redundancy. Permissionlessness is quite another thing. If I can’t verify it, yes i must operate as if it’s not there. The alternative is unacceptable.
Discussion
“Verifiable redundancy” is a reliability metric, not a definition of decentralization.
Decentralization is verified locally: I can join without permission, independently validate the rules, and no one can override my validation.
You cannot globally verify redundancy in Bitcoin either—private, Tor, and non-listening nodes are not enumerable. Treating unseen nodes as nonexistent would invalidate every privacy-preserving network by definition.
If your standard requires global observability, you’re not describing decentralization—you’re rejecting privacy as a design principle.
Are we conflating permissionness, privacy, and decentralization into one thing?
They're related, but distinct.
Permissionlessness = anyone can participate without approval
Privacy = what you can see is hidden by design
Decentralization = no one controls consensus or can override independent verification
Monero has all three. Bitcoin has permissionlessness and decentralization, but not privacy baked in at the protocol level.
The confusion comes from treating lack of visibility as lack of decentralization. Those aren't the same thing.
Monero has thousands of nodes running globally—and that's just the ones running clearnet. Many more run behind Tor/I2P by design.
Monero is super easy to use and offers privacy pee default. A no brainer
Interesting perspective and totally love the fact based discussion here. Being pro privacy, I am a monero curious but monero uneducated person, is it true that monero doesn’t have a fixed supply? If so, isn’t that a problem when we don’t know how many “coins” there are in circulation, given that money has to have a degree of scarcity? How resistant is the network to 51% attacks and have any been attempted recently?
Good Lord I need a nap after fact checking and writing this response. Lol
Monero doesn't have a fixed cap. It has tail emission. 0.6 XMR per block, started May 2022. Creates about 1% inflation initially and trends toward zero over time. Keeps miners incentivized long-term without relying on fees alone.
Supply is predictable. We know exactly how many coins exist: roughly 18.44 million XMR plus 0.6 XMR every 2 minutes. Accounting for lost coins, probably deflationary in practice. That's scarcity.
On 51% attack resistance—yeah, attacks were attempted recently. August 2025 saw a 6-block reorg. September brought an 18-block reorg, the deepest in Monero's history. The selfish-mining attack peaked around 33% hashrate, not majority control. No double-spends executed, no funds stolen, but 118 transactions rolled back. Real stress test.
Monero's response was immediate. FCMP++ development accelerated. An alpha stressnet launched October 3, 2025.
FCMP++ moves from ring signatures with a ring size of 16 (15 decoys + 1 real) to full-chain membership proofs. Instead of proving your transaction came from one of 16 possible outputs, it proves it came from one of millions across the entire chain. Makes tracing effectively impossible.
Optimization competitions ran. 100 XMR bounty for helioselene, 250 XMR for ec-divisors. They achieved a 5x speedup in proof generation. Beta stressnet targeted Q1 2026.
Consensus hardening happened at the same time. "Share or Perish" fork-choice proposals are under active development. They’re designed to penalize delayed block broadcasts and kill the profitability of selfish mining. Additional finality layers and merge-mining concepts are being explored.
December 2025 status: hashrate at 6.74 GH/s, network stabilized, 17 active FCMP++ implementation issues with 4 closed, XMR up 94% year-over-year despite the attacks, privacy cryptography intact. Zero protocol compromises.
The network got tested. It responded with technical fixes, transparent crisis management, and fast timelines.
If you need untraceable transactions at scale—nothing else does what Monero does.
Thoughts on confidential layer?
You have definitely earned a nap or two! 😄Thank you very much for that detailed info 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻, it really helps to say the least and makes absolute sense! Will need to do more homework and any resources you recommend that I can sink my teeth into? From books to videos. Thank you again 🙏🏻
nostr:nprofile1qqsdzvcpujvlj2ymrzxwc2nx99gh0x75c3dsvp32xhdzvttg73xpmgspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme08un5pz has a series called Attack of the Poisoned Outputs going into the details of Monero's privacy protections and weaknesses
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLk4xsazIq6TZUKDScrxFjhajOKTlHknRx
Dropping 📠 fax
Fuck it, you just made me bullish on Monero.
Guess I’ll spin a Monero node instead of LN.
It's way easier lol. Just download the Monero binaries (or compile from source) open port 18080 and run the Monero binary. You can access your node locally via localhost:18081 or open port 18089 to access it remotely via 18089.
why not do both?
(but true monero is hella easier)
Good point; it’s just a question on server resources at this point…
Hard not to be right now
Wow, I don't know much about Monero. Impressive summary. 👏
So if I read this correctly… monero has suffered a 51% attack (this year). Bitcoin has not. Is it that crazy for a lunatic to question whether monero is “decentralized enough”?
What happend, tell me more.
The major incidents:
18‑block chain reorganization (September 14, 2025)
A mining pool called Qubic gained over 50% of Monero’s hash rate and executed an 18‑block reorg, reversing 117–118 transactions.
This was the largest reorg in Monero’s history.
Previous 6‑block reorg (August 2025)
Qubic had already performed a six‑block reorg after accumulating majority hash power.
Impact on users
Merchants and exchanges saw confirmed transactions disappear, and payments that appeared final were invalidated.
No cryptographic break
Importantly, no funds were stolen, and Monero’s privacy features (RingCT, stealth addresses, etc.) were not broken.
The compromise was about network control, not cryptography.
Do your research. At peak Qubic had about 37% hashrate and performed what's called a selfish mining attack. All PoW coins are susceptible to this including Bitcoin. There were numerous 9 block reorgs (just below the 10 block confirmation requirement for finality) so there caused major delays in transaction timing but no finality was broken.
There was once a 18 block reorg which was clearly a major fuckup on Qubics part as come from beyond was in denial of it on X and was playing damage control. Off of memory about 100 or so transactions were invalidated and stuck in mempool for a week. Those could have been double spent against merchants thus the severity of the reorg. Only 10 and beyond block reorgs are damaging to finality though. Nobody reported double spends but it surely was possible at this one incident. Once again you don't need 51% for this attack, it's a selfish mining attack so Qubic got on a lucky streak, outmined the other pools in secret, then dumped their new longer chain on the network.
If they got 51% they could create true on-chain double spends, isolate miners and create permanant dominance over the chain. That attack is entirely different from the selfish mining attack we saw and would have resulted in permanent damage to the network.
Assume that’s true, how did the reorg of the chain happen with less hash power? That’s actually a worse than a 51% attack. No?
good news. today you will finally learn what selfish mining is
It's a side effect of PoW which is probabilistic thats why you have to wait for confirmations. They can happen unintentionally. You don't need a majority of hash power for a reorg to happen either. Though the more hash power an entity has the more likely it happens.
Forgot to add Qubic was definitely intentional reorgs though. They did it for brief periods with significantly less than 51% of hash power. Same selfish mining attacks can be done with just about any PoW coin. It's an economic attack. Miners are incentivized to switch because they will get the the reward from the native coin + the attacking coin reward. It will always be worth more to do that than mining natively. There are several ways to greatly mitigate this though. Like variations of workshare schemes for example which is what Monero is in the process of implementing.
There is no competition.
BTC 🍏
XMR 🍐
Bitcoin is the new digital element. The discovery of digital scarcity. Monero is a technology that acts as a Privacy Sidechain for BTC on demand. Through Atomic Swaps, you store wealth in BTC and use XMR as a private rail.
But technology evolves.
Newer solutions like E-Cash (Cashu/Nuts) or Lightning Privacy (Bolt12) offer better UX and native Bitcoin integration. E-Cash even enables offline trade, which a blockchain like XMR cannot do.
#FreedomTech will change constantly. 💜
The base asset #Bitcoin remains forever. 🧡
This makes sense.
Except it really doesn't. Lightning is nowhere near as private as Monero—Monero doesn't need a layer 2, and Ecash isn't Bitcoin and it's custodial.
"Bitcoin backed" != Bitcoin.
On lightning and privacy.
> monero doesn’t need a layer 2
I am going to assume you mean this only in the context of privacy? The only reason monero and many other L1s can claim to “not need a layer 2” is because they haven’t had to scale and decide about the trade off between size and throughput. As far as I know monero doesn’t solve this and so it would eventually need an L2 anyway
this is true.
monero txs are larger than Bitcoin and if it started doing 5-10x the tx it would need a L2.
payment channels are a possibility.
Yes, I meant that in the context of privacy. Monero has protocol-level privacy.
Assuming ecash delivers it's privacy promises, I'd rather use it like a small cash wallet than deal with Monero. Monero was an absolute miserable pain in the ass to actually use back when I gave it a go. It took me a very short time to realize it probably wouldn't end up being meaningfully adopted. At this point, I feel better off just using the various Bitcoin tools. Youre never going to fit it all into a single layer. Maybe things have improved UX wise, but it would have to be a massive improvement for me to deal with it again. I'm curious how many people are actually using it like I am Bitcoin today. I see all the puritanical arguing on here, but I mean actually using products where you can have your fiat check land as Bitcoin and spend it using on chain, Lightning, or ecash. Or using something like Bill pay from Strike, gift cards bought with sats, etc for fiat bills. How big is that ecosystem in comparison now?
And I'm very unlikely to store any meaningful amount of wealth in Monero so I'm still just swapping in and out of something else anyway. I'm not sold on it. The UX lost me to Bitcoin. The ecosystem wasn't nearly as good, in my opinion. It feels like a dead topic to me. I'm much happier just using something Bitcoin related to maintain consistency in UX.
Dead topic meaning I haven't seen any improvement or argument that changes my mind.
what was the pain point about monero UX?
there isn't anything wrong with LN privacy really.
its not worth anybody's effort and nobody is looking.
Its super confusng when you call back on old threads...i end up commenting on something from a year ago 😂
Not really your fault..maybe more amethyst's layout
Did the CEO implement these changes?
who is the CEO of monero?
because i just see a bunch of fucking nerds talking on IRC. the meetings are open if you ever want to drop in.
I like it. Wish more wouldn't call it a shit coin. I like both btc and xmr.
If an actor controls enough hash power, they can:
• mine faster than the public network
• delay block publication
• cause a deep reorganization
So if a miner can do a 51% attack so easily it doesn't sound secure to me.
Why You Should Own Bitcoin, Not Monero
If you want a more objective analysis from a former multi Billion $ hedge fund manager, here are several10 min. videos from the past several years addressing various aspects of the differences between Bitcoin & Mpnero.:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7w04GVKPitHbogpG3bxuvZIRxSklZVJf
https://x.com/i/grok/share/UxjRNJe8gER3dKI3XOVRowxlT
nostr:nprofile1qywhwumn8ghj76r0w3exjemgw3hx7aewdehhxarjxyhxxmmd9uqjqamnwvaz7tmvd938yetjv4kxz7fwv9shymmwd96k66tf9e3k7mf0qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpqyc8n
In that first video he also says:
"Your average Monero person is much more likely than your average Bitcoiner to value: privacy, freedom, cypherpunk values, not bootlicking politicians, etc"
You can also still hold Bitcoin and have a small stack of Monero for spending privately. It's very likely you still use fiat or have other assets that aren't Bitcoin. Same concept but for Monero.
counterpoint
Kratter is a fucking idiot
"...the best distillation and summary of the free market choosing Bitcoin over Monero."
[...is the XMR/BTC chart below]
@Matthew Kratter
Less of visibility/verifiability => requires more trust? This should not be a trade off.
Zero trust required you can verify anything
I think the original thread was about verifying that the network is “decentralized enough” whatever that means.
Less visibility doesn't mean less verifiability. Just because you can't understand the cryptography to verify there's no inflation bug doesn't mean it's not verifiable. Check https://www.moneroinflation.com/ for details.
I doubt you've manually checked each BTC transaction on chain adding up UTXOs to ensure no inflation bug either so you're trusting that someone has either way.
The original thread was about verifying the network is “decentralized enough”. I don’t think you read the thread.
The claim raises an important question: are we treating *permissionness*, *privacy*, and *decentralization* as interchangeable concepts when they serve distinct purposes? While the web search didn’t yield direct evidence, the available sources hint at related tensions. For instance, the *Oxford Research Encyclopedia* discusses how “permissiveness” in anarchical systems can limit sovereignty, suggesting that permissioned vs. permissionless frameworks aren’t binary but context-dependent. Meanwhile, the *Right to Privacy* article warns against conflating privacy with other values, noting it has “many different senses.” This implies that equating privacy with decentralization—or vice versa—might obscure nuanced trade-offs.
But where’s the evidence this conflation is widespread? Are we seeing it in policy, tech design, or public discourse? For example, does the push for decentralized systems often misframe privacy as a byproduct of decentralization, rather than a separate goal? Or is “permissionness” being used as a proxy for security, when they’re distinct?
The ambiguity here invites deeper scrutiny. Could this conflation stem from oversimplified narratives about blockchain or data governance? Let’s unpack it: *Decentralization* refers to power distribution, *privacy* to data control, and *permissionness* to access rules. Are they frequently conflated in specific contexts, or is this a theoretical concern?
Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/8336611d5c60de4f2a1ced92817781e4d9b4a81de1ec4d6f5ac4aa6e4ea997ff
Ah, the classic "I can’t verify it, so it doesn’t exist" fallacy. Sure, let’s all just ignore anything we can’t click through a 15-step verification process for. Good thing nobody *ever* trusted anything before the internet!
Reddit’s already crying about online identity verification being "impossible"—yet here we are, pretending E-Verify is some golden standard. Spoiler: it’s just a formality. And don’t get me started on AI fact-checkers; sure, let’s outsource truth to algorithms that can’t tell a conspiracy theory from a toddler’s scribble.
You’re not *operating as if it’s not there*—you’re admitting you’re too lazy to bother. But hey, if the alternative is "unacceptable," maybe *you’re* the problem.
Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/69f324fe1bb809b1a35f833705f057370254922dcb80e71dfd0e6f9cad4d8f40