Inflation is a form of confiscation, and therefore all cryptocurrencies that have hidden inflation risks, such as Monero, and cannot guarantee a fixed supply cannot exactly be called hard to confiscate.
Discussion
That's ridiculous. how does supply increase deprive anybody of their property?
this is a BIG stretch, even for you.
and
we've been over this a thousand times.
if you actually want to understand how monero supply is guaranteed look at the methodologies here
moneroinflation.com
Could be a page created by the fed or any other central banks propaganda office
yeah because that's the thing that the Fed does 😂
they're always on the forefront of cryptographic advancements
and it's a great use of their time to do sophisticated cryptographic breakdowns to prove there's no supply inflation in a coin worth 8 billion.
An increasing supply will devalue every token currently existing. Simple economic principle.
Otherwise Dollars wouldn’t inflate
Yeah by like 0.6% this year and trailing to 0% given infinite time. Harder than gold still which increases about 1.5% a year with mining.
A fair tradeoff for the benefit of perpetually inexpensive transactions and strong mining economy. As private medium of exchanges go the competition is really only gold and I've just proven Monero beats that.
Show me the economists that call gold mining theft.
Lol. This is state Bitcoin maximalism.
Monero's maximalism does not understand mathematics or hidden inflation, which Monero's own website warns about.
The problem with monero is that the people around it have no fucking clue about economics. Extremely sad
simple but unfortunately wrong. xmr is free market money whereas dollars are monopoly issued money which means the monopolist can charge any price he wishes (e.g. he prints a 50 pound note which in reality costs only 10 pennies). this is called seigniorage, is payed by the taxpayer and the reason for systemic price inflation. increasing units of dollars alone don't cause price inflation. since xmr is free market money, there is no seignorage and therefore no price inflation.
I'm not sure if you're a not but. Your argument would mean that mining more copper out of the ground wouldn't cause the price of copper to drop (the other side of the coin of prices of everything else going up) cause there's no seigniorage. It was all supply demand.
that's right. it's a product of the free market. mining more copper out of the ground doesn't cause price inflation. due to the free market and diminishing returns (remember, it's a market, not a monopoly) the copper mines cannot profit through seignorage and only dig up copper when there's market demand. digging up copper requires proof of work (you have to pay for energy consumption, machines, tools, workers). you don't profit from any seigniorage. you dig for it because there is market demand which you clear by digging up copper. and by investing your money in digging copper (and not spending it on other products which would cause prices to rise) you haven't caused any inflation at all.
It still devalues copper.
If your pricing things in copper all your prices have increased.
not increased, but stable, which is what you would expect from money. prices would only increase in very rare situations where you suddenly and unexpectedly experience an event like a massive amount of extraterrestrial copper entering into the earth atmosphere. bitcoin and monero don't suffer from this as long as the monetary policy stays untouched. both in btc and xmr the monetary policy is known to everyone in advance who voluntarily enters the system. and since monero inflates only in absolute terms (0.6 instead of let's say 0.6%) both systems have hard caps in the long term. even xmr people don't seem to understand that having an absolute number of unit inflation is no inflation at all in the long run.
boy are you going to be upset when you finish learning about Bitcoin...
You only need to stop being emotional for10s and think to understand it.
If you own $1m and then I give (print) $1m to every American but you, I stole from you since your dollars will buy nothing.
This is how inflation “steals” from you.
Exactly, but you know Monero is like political parties, they don't reason. Monero is a good privacy tool, but it doesn't have Bitcoin's determinism in terms of supply.
In fact, Monero is vulnerable to what is called hidden inflation. If it happens, you'll never know.
Meanwhile Bitcoin is the one that actually had an inflation bug exploited.
Such hard money, very determinism, much safe, so superior.
WOW
Monero’s major problem is the mining algo, it’s easily exploited by governments with easy access to massive datacenters.
Monero could adopt PoW algo, but then it would be vulnerable to double spending attacks by Bitcoin miners.
This makes the value tend to 0 vs Bitcoin, only useful as a “privacy” tool.
you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Monero is proof of work. it uses a different algorithm than Bitcoin.
also
you don't know how easy it is for governments to exploit large data centers.
Dude, datacenter CPUs/GPUs can mine Monero.
They can’t mine Bitcoin efficiently, you need ASIXs.
and?
BTW youre wrong about GPUs.
randomX leverages CPU architecture to mine, making anything else pretty much useless.
Who owns the CPUs?
people who want to use Monero.
Wrong.
Corporations own the most CPUs.
The moment double spending Monero becomes more profitable than renting CPUs the network is gone.
that's assuming a lot.
but you're correct that there's more CPU power in the hands of data centers and big corporations then there are among private citizens.
but saying that it's easier somehow for a 3rd party to decide to focus all that to attack the monero network,
but for some reason it's *harder for a 3rd party to attack known Bitcoin miners? (that are centralized and rely on cheap energy to survive)
its trade-offs.
personally I'm glad we have both.
Fwiw, this would make a person bullish on the new X9. Can you help me understand why the Monero community fought ASICs for so long?
I've heard that the X9 is barely more efficient than average off the shelf CPUs,
and LESS efficient than top of the line CPUs
we're still fighting ASICS unless there's been some changes I don't know about 😂
The general idea is to keep hash power as decentralized as possible. to do that you need anybody and everybody mining, so using off the shelf hardware is the natural approach.
homeboy is right that large data centers with lots of compute make this less secure.
but that compute is already being used for economic purposes, I don't think anybody actually knows what the friction would be in getting lots of it on the Monero network for an attack.
We are almost there.
When (not if) governments attack the mining industry, node runners can use the ultimate layer of defense, changing the algo consensus forcing a new type of machine to mine new blocks.
This renders the attack as useless since their seized miners can’t mine anymore.
So any attack becomes asymmetric in favor of the network.
While both Monero and Bitcoin can trigger this defense, it won’t work for Monero.
Why?
You can play this wargame in your head.
Federal government buys all Google’s CPUs to attack Monero, after Monero node runners trigger the change the seized CPUs can go back to their usual business.
In Bitcoin’s case ASIXs can’t be used for anything else, so they become expensive electrical waste.
you haven't thought it through.
what you're talking about is a hard fork.
for starters, good luck getting the node runners or ANY significant part of the Bitcoin network to follow a hard fork. any suggestion that there would be a fork would split the community and crash the price.
so either the attack would succeed because the fork didn't get any support or was irrelevant,
or the attack would fail because there was a fork.
either way the Bitcoin network gets fucked. which I assume is the point of attacking it. I don't think we can assume they're attacking because they want control of the network, maybe they just want it gone.
tldr, there is NOT asymmetrical risk in executing a mining attack.
BUT they dont have to do that and they probably wont.
they just have to write letters to mining companies and threaten them with regulatory burden until they comply.
otoh
there are no mining companies to write letters to on Monero. so the most likely source of mining pressure actually doesn't apply at all.
and if it comes to the nuclear option, monero has already forked twice to arrive at the current mining algo. theres absolutely no reason they can't do it again. AND the project is easier to come to consensus than Bitcoin.
it would still be traumatic for the community no doubt, but less so because they dont rely on institutions anyway.
the main difference is there isn't an ASIC industry ready to go.
this could be a legit problem, in the extremely unlikely scenario that you're talking about.
So are you telling me the solution is to save money in a network that can be attacked by a few Google datacenter?
you have no idea how many "data centers" and what it would take to bring those online to attack the network. You're just making it up.
so youre telling me it's better to save money in a network that can be attacked by letters from lawyers ?
Wtf are you talking about, Monero was successfully 51% attacked on August 2025.
that isn't true.
they didn't get 51% and Bitcoin is just as susceptible to this kind of attack as Monero is.
if someone makes a shitcoin and uses it to pay miners extra rewards to mine to their pool and then their pool does reorgs on the chain,
this is something ANYBODY can do at any time on any chain. it isn't unique to monero.
You're also not responding to the point that I made.
They mined blocks on the side then released the new branch forcing a block reorganization.
This is how double spending attacks are executed.
ok.
any large pool on any PoW chain could do this.
That’s why you need 6 blocks to consider a transaction as valid.
If they can keep the attack for long periods of time, they render your settlements useless.
You need those confirmations because PoW is probabilistic. Any entity with a large share of hashrate, even if it's less than 51%, can selfish mine and force block reorgs on any PoW coin. Their successful attempts increase the more hashrate they have, but it doesn't require anywhere even close to 51% to start disrupting the network.
Agree, the problem is for how long can the attacker sustain a “longer” branch.
1 hour of desync is accounted in the design, a full week is no bueno.
Then at 51% their branch will accumulate more PoW over long periods of time.
Exactly Qubic couldn't sustain it. Even during the attack you just had to wait for more confirmations.
My point was that for example Foundry alone could selfish mine Bitcoin already and it would be the same situation as Qubic and Monero. They have about as much hashrate as Qubic had at it's peak as with Monero. Just because they haven't done it yet doesn't mean they don't have the ability to. Incentives make it unlikely, but selfish mining inverts incentives. It's more of an economic attack.
several companies accepting Monero insisted on 15 confs during the attack.
it depends on the specifics of the attack I'm sure, but it seems like 6 conf on Bitcoin is excessive.
in the case of this specific attack, the transactions that were reorged out reverted to the mempool and settled later.
but the attacker *could try to double spend by spending, reorging and then broadcasting a conflicting transaction in hopes that it gets mined before the first.
monero doesn't have RBF.
but timing a transaction in hopes that your pool is going to get lucky with a reorg,
and then get lucky again with a rebroadcast transaction seems like a pretty poor bet.
and exactly what is this transaction for and how is the double spend not detected immediately...?
does not seem particularly useful. I think these kinds of attacks are mostly useful simply if you want to destroy confidence in the chain.
so in this particular case, I would say the attack was a failure.
6 conf on bitcoin is overkill
several companies accepting Monero insisted on 15 confs during the attack 😯
it depends on the specifics of the attack I'm sure, but it seems like 6 conf on Bitcoin is excessive.
in the case of this specific attack, the transactions that were reorged out reverted to the mempool and settled later.
but the attacker *could try to double spend by spending a tx, reorging and then broadcasting a conflicting transaction in hopes that it gets mined before the first.
monero doesn't have RBF.
but timing a transaction in hopes that your pool is going to get lucky with a reorg,
and then get lucky again with a rebroadcast transaction seems like a pretty poor bet.
and exactly what is this transaction for and how is the double spend not detected immediately...? does not seem particularly useful.
I think these kinds of attacks are mostly useful simply if you want to destroy confidence in the chain.
so in this particular case, I would say the attack was a failure.
This attack was a demonstration performed by a “good actor”, they didn’t intend to double spend.
You are right, these attacks resemble a DDOS , they are less dramatic than expected but they still destroy confidence in the resilience of the network.
If Monero ever becomes an important monetary system these attacks will be real and more common.
it was just a publicity stunt.
they didn't manage to destroy confidence.
it's just something that people interested in POW vulnerability should know about.
there's nothing about Monero that makes it more (or less) susceptible to this.
well
obviously it's easier to do on smaller POW networks
saying "monero is vulnerable to hidden inflation" is like saying "bitcoin is vulnerable to having your coins stolen". both sentences imply the same message (the cryptography behind those techniques might be broken).
Wow, that's really shaking things up 😂
I challenge you to create a sidechain like Liquid but with all the properties of Monero, then you'll understand what I'm talking about.
unfortunately liquid is not only a graveyard and useless but it is not even a sidechain. it is just a company which collects bitcoin and issues its own coin. if liquid was a sidechain then wrapped btc on ethereum is a sidechain as well. liquid has no proof of work and they can rug you at any time. it's not more worth than a fedimint.
Wow, I see you're completely unfamiliar with how Liquid works.
it is a federation of (by the way *unknown*) key holders where a majority has to approve if you want your real money back and where you have no way of unilateral exit. this is how fedimint works and which could be built on top of monero as well if you like this model. everything else (their blockchain without any pow which makes it meaningless) is a distraction.
you still don't understand about monero's supply verification?
it's true that it doesn't have bitcoins determinism in terms of supply.
that is a true statement, you cannot sum the UTXO set on the back of an envelope like you can with Bitcoin.
but it's NOT true that if it happens you would never know.
there *might be some conditions where you wouldn't know.
I challenge you to describe what those conditions might be.
remember that with every transaction it is proven that the sum of the inputs and the outputs equal zero.
"confiscation" means somebody takes possession of property
nobody is taking possession of property in his or your example. That's why you changed the wording to "steal."
and it still doesnt apply.
are Bitcoin miners "stealing" from you? are they confiscating your property?
Do you understand how dilution works?
Bitcoin miners are stealing by diluting ownership, the difference is that they can’t go beyond the 21m max supply.
for the rest of your life they are diluting your ownership.
it is not theft because you consent to it.
it isn't any different with Monero.
You won't achieve anything. The difference between Bitcoiners and Monero people is that Bitcoiners don't go to their community to sell our product 😂
You're only right in the technical sense that nothing is physically taken from you. Its just stolen purchasing power. The thing people actually want
Bitcoin miners are stealing your purchasing power every 10 minutes.
We know. But we also know how much and when it stops.
In fact we know it so well that we literally use the terminal value as a meme.
What's Montero's?
.6 units every block.
we also know and make memes about it.
pro tip
when there is consent, it isn't theft.
Sure and terminal amount at t=infinity?
OK I agree theft is the wrong word. You're just getting poor forever
That's just poor economic understanding.
did everybody get poor under a gold standard?
a hard cap is not a requirement for strong money. no economist in the history of the world has EVER argued that it is a good idea.
You are right that no economist has in the past. Because the perfectly scarce alternative didn't exist. Now you are competing.
What's happened to the less good stores of value so far
oh I absolutely think that they might use Bitcoin as an SOV.
just like people use Manhattan real estate as an SOV.
That's great, but it's not money.
No its just the minimum requirement.
and with a hard cap it won't grow beyond that.
nobody uses finite, valuable real estate as money.
No its not the supply inelasticity that prevents real estate from being used as money. I know you know the characteristics of money
there are other reasons also sure
Ok so your argument can't be bitcoins limited supply prevents it from being money because its like real estate.
So the only good argument I've heard from monero is fungibility. Maybe
Cause I'm not sure if layer 2/3/4 solutions create enough fungibilty.
Whereas monero has to be adopted by people even though its going to have a lower purchasing power compared to bitcoin forever.
Which implies a weaker security in terms of energy used.
we already see people not using Bitcoin to transact. bitcoiners are stingy because generational wealth.
this is directly because of the capped supply.
also since there's no supply inflation, only people that *spend it* pay for the security budget.
this further incentivizes hodling.
so whether we say it's like real estate or not, because of the capped supply, people are not going to use it as money. it is in the incentives.
Its Gresham's law. Bad money drives out good.
You don't spend bitcoin cause you have other options. But that's a market inefficiency.
Eventually supplies don't accept other forms of money.
But that's also where a more efficient market cab be made because spending would have to be more valuable than your money.
Instead of the current inefficient use of capital
it isn't "market inefficiency." it's the way people are.
there have always been other MOEs that people have used.
which is yet *another problem with the hard cap. it creates the need for an inflationary L2 for transactions so that they don't have to spend their UTXOs.
suppliers have their own needs. they don't want to spend their UTXOs either.
a hard cap incentivizes *literally everyone* to actually transact on another layer.
and eventually Saylor says " here use this e-cash from my bank"
or the Fed says "here use this CBDC, we'll start you out with $1,000 when you download your wallet."
and in 10 years you're back in inflationary fiat banking, backed by Bitcoin UTXOs.
1 if you're going to argue its just how people are then why would the current system be broken at all. Sov real estate and gold, moe dollar.
2 layer 2 are not inflationary. Lightning does not create more bitcoin. People can choose to create paper on top of any system.
3 its not the hard cap that incentivises higher layers its block size, latency and risk. In bitcoin you can trade security for speed by using lightning but not risk rehypothication
Ecash has more custody risk but adds privacy.
There will also be debt built on top eventually.
The point is that it can always fall back to layer 1 which garuntees security and hard cap.
Unless you believe .7 monero in 2min blocks is the perfect amount humans will ever need forever for all use cases, you will need a layer 2 too
we aren't talking about technical reasons that drive the creation of a L2, we're talking about macroeconomic conditions that do.
LN solves some of the technical problems but obv doesn't address the macroeconomic ones, if anything it makes them worse. because now the network is divided up and there's friction moving between on chain and LN.
so a hard capped underlying layer means there WILL be a liquid secondary layer. All other ways of transacting are not going to just magically disappear. people will want Bitcoin, but once they get it they don't want to spend it. they want to spend something else.
and it's obvious, we already see it happening.
after all, this is a primary reason the gold standard was abandoned.
I don't know if 0.6 units every 2 minutes is the sweet spot or not. but it's definitely better than 0 and better than an increase as % of circulating supply.
If your argument that the roughly 3% inflation gold necessitated a second layer because it was too scarce means both bitcoin and monero needs a layer 2
I think you're wrong in every part of it.
You seem to be pretty indiscriminate in your terminology so lets clarity what you mean
When you say the friction between lightning and base and it exaserbates macro economic issues what specifically do you mean?
Also what is a liquid layer.
What is the liquidity you're referring to?
"liquidity" refers to how quickly money can move to where there is demand for it. That's all.
The lack of liquidity under a gold standard was a primary reason why there was demand side deflation and severe liquidity shocks, creating the famous deflationary spirals.
if you divide up the money supply between different layers (and there's friction moving between them) that reduces the liquidity in any one place.
so a "liquid layer" is one where money can easily flow to where it is needed without friction.
The Assholes Who Run the World leveraged those liquidity problems to get off the gold standard and take complete control of the money supply.
but that doesn't mean that those problems are completely dismissible.
a hard cap is a knee jerk reaction to their fiat insanity. it is not good monetary policy.
So here s the problem you just contradicted yourself in the first 2 lines.
If you define liquidity as the speed at which money can move and you argue that deflationary shocks (I'm assuimg you mean great depression) was caused by the slow movement of gold that can't be.
At that point the dollar certificate was 40-55% backed by gold and moved across the monetary system at the speed of telecommunications.
Usually the argument about liquidity is about the flexibility of the money supply.
People argue that golds supply growth wasn't elastic enough.
when the banks run out of money that is also money not being able to move where its needed.
we can call that "flexibility" if you prefer.
The point is if you have zero supply inflation, liquidity shocks are magnified.
there's no decentralized way to solve the problem, the best we can do is pick a small stable number to cushion liquidity shocks.
but you're right. "how quickly" isn't the most important characteristic.
OK let me try to steelman your argument.
Company a has liabilities due soon and must be financed. It usually does so by taking loans from a bank which is repaid by the proceeds from the final good they produce.
There's a extrinsic shock that suddenly made company b unable to repay their loan to the same bank.
Because of this the bank is unable to finance company a at the same rate.
In a elastic money supply a government can increase the ms to increase the amount of currency units to reduce the cost of capital and stabilize prices so that company a can finish their production and the damages of company b failing is minimized.
If you want to avoid a gov as money supply creator a bank could also just increase their own currency units
Essentially you moved the risks of failure out of bank a into the currency in both cases.
Sound right?
That's certainly a thing that could happen.
not sure what you mean "risks of failure out of bank A into the currency in both cases"
I don't think it quite addresses the point that we're talking about, the entire system and how it's going to avoid liquidity shocks, demand shortages and deflationary contractions on a hard money.
but for the sake of the discussion we can go with this 👍
Cause if you can't make money to lower the price of capital either company a has to pay a higher rate and or the bank has to realize the losses from company b failing.
The price suppression from money supply changing means that the currency now has more units than before compared to a underlying collateral so its more likely to fail or if its fiat the purchasing power of the currency gets debased.
Well isn't this what you're referring to in terms of a liquidity shock? When company a is unable to finance its production due to the money destroyed? Deflationary contraction is just this situation rippling through an economy right?
What do you mean by demand shortage? Demand of what?
gotcha.
I think this example is specific to liquidity shortages and solvency. it doesn't quite describe a deflationary contraction, although this scenario would ripple out throughout the economy in the case of a deflationary contraction.
there's just more different assets, institutions and examples to bring up to describe "deflationary contraction" more completely.
maybe another way we could clarify what I mean and tie it back to the Lightning Network
suppose your bank has illiquid assets (bonds or real estate something) that it could sell at a loss to cover their liquidity crunch. so they're technically solvent but they have a liquidity problem. so the network is divided and the friction causes a liquidity problem.
(not saying that onchain versus LN is this bad, just saying it's *like this)
"demand shock"
I just mean the other side of the equation from "liquidity crunch." demand goes down, reducing liquidity. the pattern could begin with negative demand because of a crop failure or a pandemic or whatever.
OK for your collateral example I think you're misunderstanding the real issue of liquidity.
In our current system there's 2 main issues.
1 collateral rehypothecation, there's more claims on the collateral say mortgages cause bonds have more issues. There's more claims on the dereivarive instruments from the mortgage than the value of the underlying real estate.
2. The value of the underlying is fundamentally a stream of future dollar's. Which is all debt.
The problem isn't that illiquidity is some artificial aberration from the market. Where the price of the distresset asset is wrong.
Its that given the increased risks in the market caused by the shock your assets are actually worth less. The market would clear just fine if prices could adjust.
The reason we can't is that market clearing Price of all the debt based assets would be 0, or very close.
So in your example they actually aren't solvent system wide because as liquidations happen all the leverage which is more than the assets that got liquidated would cascade.
In my example company c can't get a loan and fails because company a couldn't pay their debts.
Your interpretation is that this is a market failure but what it really is that these companies are really actually insolvent at the new cost of capital. They're supposed to fail.
Demand of what would fall?
Demand of. capital increases during liquidity shocks. Demand of real goods and services also unaffected in first order effects.
I literally don't known what you mean
also correct that the lack of liquidity under gold probably means that Monero isn't inflationary enough to be a base money without an L2.
but I never expect to see that happen. (in my lifetime anyway)
So you're not expecting things to actually ever change? Are you just blackpilled?
when the internet started to get traction in the '90s, we all thought it was going to usher in a new Renaissance. decentralized trustless information! freedom!
instead we got mobile phones and social media. 30 years later and we're still trying to free the internet. (a decentralized trustless protocol that anybody can participate in)
Bitcoin is just like this.
everything's moving in the right direction, but it's going to take much longer than anybody thinks.
The revolution didn't start with Bitcoin and it's not going to end with it either.
Right cause we stopped using the internet in the last 30 years and we've moved on
you missed the point
we 99% use it in a 3rd party permissioned way
Yes were you hoping technology would get rid of stupid lazy people?
It's always a minority that cares enough about anything to deeply understand it.
The internet made it easier for people who want to self host things to be able to do so compared to before. It also shakes up the previous set of winners so that they lose to a new set of winners.
In relation to bitcoin its that the new money let's people who care about self sovereign money have a better shot than before. Its also going to shake up who the winners are.
Most people will do neither.
But overall they are better off than before
If inflation is always bad and makes you poorer then bitcoin should have started with 21,000,000 coins as to not make you poorer?
You could make the argument that all the bitcoins already exist just not released in this point in time. So all the economic calculations are based on the 21 million. The unreleased bitcoin don't make your current amount a smaller ratio of the known total.
Whereas all other systems without a finite supply means your total ratio falls over time.
except that unmined, unreleased Bitcoin doesn't "already exist" in any meaningful way.
you could say it's priced in, sure. but how would that not also apply to Monero's tail emission?
Because the terminal supply of monero is infinity. So the value would be 0
"terminal supply" is a mathematical abstraction which doesn't have any bearing on the real world.
The supply of Monero is never infinite. at any point in time it is algorithmically determined.
It absolutely has bearing in the real world. Its how you make economic decisions on your sov.
The expected loss of purchasing power from increasing supply is a major component of it
lol no, sorry but that's not really credible.
I'm not saying that it plays zero role in economic calculation, but in our discussion its a blip.
today Monero is inflating slower than Bitcoin is. and it will continue that way until the next having. nobody is looking at that and making their primary economic calculation about that.
an algorithmically determined inflation rate of 0.6% and decreasing every block is a blip.
The only people who are fretting about it are Bitcoin maxis who want to use "21 million only" as a purity test and fail to realize it's bad monetary policy.
In about 17 years it will be on 21coins. Inflation yes, but not really a concern I would say, in a practical way.
Just remeber how compounding works. 2% means you double the supply every 36 years (technically cloaset to 35)
All else being equal you've essentially lost 50% of your purchasing power in your working lifetime
I understand why inflation is bad and how it affects purchasing power. What I am saying is all inflation is not equal. The Fed printing money to devalue your savings is not the same as a protocol that allows a small amount of inflation to pay miners to secure the network which benefits the entire network. Amount of inflation and what that inflation pays for matters. And if that inflation is agreed on and known it is not the same as unknown amounts and unknown periods with no benefit to the network overall (ppl using USD). So my point is it’s not all the same thing. Like a sip of wine is not the same as drinking a barrel of wine.
Sure if your whole argument is its better than fiat. Yes
My argument is more why would people choose it when it makes them poorer than the alternative.
Because supply is only have the equation of value the other half is demand. If bitcoin demand goes to zero so does value doesn’t matter if terminal supply is fixed.
That's the same for all goods and services.
The point is given a demand for money and the choices available. Even if you had a random distribution. You would end up with all the value in bitcoin as the value of monero gets inflated away
The demand for both is not equal hence bitcoin is currently doing down in value (even with fixed supply) and Monero is going up in value (with tail emissions). And gold value is going up with inflation from mining. These things are not static. The market determines the value.
Are you looking at like the last 5 min?
There's a clear trend in the prices over the last 10 or so years and its not in moneros favor.
I'm talking about the large arc of time type of movement where the noise smooths out.
Bitcoin has a 7% gain on Monero over 5 years. Not that impressive.
See for yourself
Over 10?
Point is returns are diminishing if you expect Bitcoin to perform over the next 10 years as it did in its first 10 years you’re gonna have a bad time.
Don’t get me wrong I love Bitcoin I’m just not blind to its flaws
Fiat returns?
What other returns are there? What do you pay your bills with?
When bitcoin goes up in fiat
PURCHASING POWER!!! YEY!!
when anything else goes up
FIAT RETURNS!!! BAD!!
😂
Then I disagree I expect the fiat returns of the next 20 years to be much higher than the first 20
Take me to your hopium dealer 😮💨💨
That would be great if true but I wouldn’t bank on it.
You expect fiscal conservatism from world governments? With the us at over 100% debt to GDP? Japan over 250?
And with multipolarity and at least continued economic warfare?
I don't see how you can believe Fiat printing won't be exponential
No I just don’t expect bitcoin to go up 129,000,000% in the next 20 years 😂 or Bitcoin to be the sole beneficiary of said printing.
hopium quit smoking it
It won't be the sole beneficiary just the largest.
Let me weaken the argument a bit. I believe the diminishing Fiat returns will be false. There will be too much printing for that to be the case.
Though I do have a greater than 30% or odds that the dollar as it is dies in the next 20 years so 129m% returns may be tame
I see your 129m% and raise you 100 gazillion %
gotta run, good chat ❤
It's not stolen purchasing power if the network scales to more powerful participants. The U.S. Dollar shows us this on the global money supply. Massive monetary expansion with very little natural inflation (prices are down compared to the total).
Most of the pain and stolen purchasing power comes through institutions not raising wages appropriately, exploiting labor markets need to work; not the money printing.
Can you find the info about inflation bugs in Bitcoin's histroy, or should I help you with that? Then you can compare it with Monero.
Yeah Bitcoin had an infamous one early on. Monero has never had one discovered.
It's not the same thing; Monero may suffer from invisible inflation.
You're right, it's not the same thing.
One (BTC) happened in reality, thankfully very early on so the chain was rolled back (such decentralized, very censorship resistant!) and things moved on.
The other (XMR) lives rent-free in your head to you can justify your pig-headed stubborness to yourself.
I'm not gloating about the early inflation bug in 2010 because the technology was new. But then there was another inflation bug in 2018... And that's a skill issue.
At the moment, only Bitcoin had this problem. But, as always, "Monero is bad". :)
The difference is that bitcoin inflation bugs can be detected, while monero bugs cannot.
The monero website itself warns you that if you need a verifiable supply, you should use Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is one fee market crisis away from "can not guarantee a fixed a supply".
Fee market crisis means when security budget can not be properly maintained through fluctuating and gameable fee markets.
monero is more bloated as well, making it less decentralized
Inflation is theft, not confiscation, and what makes it theft is that one party is doing at the expense of the other.
In #monero not only does a second party not exist, but the participants willingly use the system even while knowing about the EXTREMELY NEGLIGIBLE BY THE WAY inflation baked in.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Confiscation implies it is unwanted inflation, when you use Monero you agree that the use comes with it inflation TO PAY MINERS to do the WORK to SECURE the NETWORK so that can hardly be called confiscation. And if it can then Bitcoin also has confiscation until 2140, since Bitcoin DOES HAVE INFLATION for the next 114 YEARS!
The problem is that a hidden inflation bug occurs.
Why do you think Monero's design wasn't considered in Liquid?
Or why has no one considered a drivechain with Monero's properties?
Or running Monero on an L2 with BitVM?
It is more complicated to verify supply because of the private nature but not impossible. The emission schedule and block rewards can be verified. At the end of the day transparency and lack there of has different risks and trade offs. Which is why I use both not just one or the other.
Monero has a use case, it just isn’t store of value
you can't store value, but I'll be charitable in interpreting your message. bitcoin isn't performing anymore. in fact it lost enormous purchasing power in monero terms the last two years. what is even more notable: xmr was delisted from the biggest exchanges during this time while bitcoin was shilled by the president of the usa and blackrock 😂
Life is long
And bitcoin isn't money, it's not fungible.
Layer L1 has a fungibility problem that was solved in layers L2 in exchange for maintaining decentralization.
Monero, on the other hand, is more fungible at the expense of decentralization. If everyone uses Monero, a node can only be run by large operators.
We have to be honest about the advantages of each, otherwise it's a sectarian conversation.
Wtf 115 respuestas? Lol
Monero isn't trying to be Bitcoin.
It is cash without a central bank.
That's all its trying to do, and it does that job very well.
I can't take any "bitcoiner" seriously when they make up nonsense arguments like this.
The monero people are doing fine, they don't care if you use it or not because they use it as money rather than a pyramid scheme.
Hey, use Monero if you want, but leave me alone, you guys are so annoying, you Monero cultists 😂
Let's see if you think I care what you think haha
There are more bitcoin than monero coins, and there will continue to be much more bitcoin than monero for decades.
You don’t understand monero.
Don't try to sell me your product, I'm not going to buy it 😂 🫂
I don't use it, I just understand its use case.
And the monero people I've come across aren't pushing their coin, they're pushing the idea of privacy over how people use money if they're pushing anything.
99% of the time I see monero bros arguing about this stuff it's because of some lies being spread about monero from a bitcoiner and they're literally just setting the record straight.
The number must go up forever bitcoiners are the ones who push shit down our throats constantly.
There are NO PoW coins that run on fees alone. and if Bitcoin were to somehow manage it with 1MB blocks fees would have to be $100 per txn to match the current subsidy.
Bitcoin will have a tail emission or become unusable for the average person.
Monero is ahead of the game (as usual)