Haha this wasn't just about privacy, the OP was talking about spam even, and I thought youd agree with anything not trying to spite anything. Here's a challenge come back when XMR has a LN and we compare?
Discussion
I was talking about a lot of past notes that I didn't add as context. But in general, I am challenging my own beliefs on some of these issues to be sure I'm not missing anything. I didn't even expect to have a Monero discussion here, but that's why I post things I'm thinking like this. I usually get exposed to other perspectives. Competition is the best way, as far as the Monero vs. Bitcoin thing goes.
> this wasn't just about privacy
Figures -- he'd like to compare monero to bitcoin on every metric except the one it's for.
> Here's a challenge
I recommend doing my challenge before you issue a counter-challenge. Looks a bit sus.
> the OP was talking about spam
Your post contradicted itself on this point. The statement "spam exists [on monero]" is incompatible with the statement "only monetary transactions." The fact that few people bother to bypass your filters is probably just because few people care about monero.
The statement "small, 300kb blocks" is incompatible with the statement "dynamic to increase." Imagine if I pointed to a block like this one from two days ago (https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000000463103ac48ed3c8887e59ba7d0078683c4fa4913e7b) and said it proves that bitcoin has "small, 500kb blocks" but that they are "dynamic to increase to 4mb." The statements are incompatible because the first implies they can't increase and the second explicitly says they can.
The reason why the first sentence implies they can't increase is this: if you don't adopt that implication, then you're just commenting on the lack of usage in a particular block. Which is a pointless observation. Just because a particular block doesn't take up the max size doesn't mean the max size is temporarily lower. Monero's blocks do not have a max size, which is a centralizing force, and as for the "penalty" for creating large blocks, that's what fees are for. If monero had any volume, huge blocks would make it even more centralized than it is today.
> no mining centralization
Very funny
> compare monero to bitcoin on every metric except the one it's for
yes monero is not just for privacy, and you are comparing LN to Monero. never ask super testnet why he doesn't like comparing bitcoin (onchain) to monero (onchain) ! (he won't answer)
> doing my challenge before you issue a counter-challenge
doing your challenge to compare LN to monero requires a LN-monero so by waiting the development implies finishing you challenge
> Your post contradicted itself
nope it totally matches up. Monero has 1/400 of the mkt cap of bitcoin and 1/10 of the tx count, why does it not have 1/10 of the spam and way lesser than that? people care to transact more on Monero, thus it may even flip btc on that metric, but it will never have more spam than btc, that means filters work.
> incompatible
Bitcoin has a ruling dynasty that determines that blocks shall be big, for **free**, Monero has a mathematical limit that forces blocks to be small, but **punishes** increase taking away your profit. seems very compatible
> Very funny
never ask a bitcoiner what is a "p2pool" and why is it increasing (they won't answer)
> why he doesn't like comparing bitcoin (onchain) to monero (onchain) !
I do like comparing them, and I often do so
I'll do it again here:
Monero's ring signatures offer similar privacy protections as coinjoins do, with a few caveats:
(1) monero's ring signatures are non-interactive, which is way better than a coinjoin
(2) monero's ring signatures are limited to 16 people in the current protocol, which is way worse than a coinjoin
> doing your challenge to compare LN to monero requires a LN-monero
No it doesn't. I'm comparing LN to "on-chain" monero and I'm saying LN -- as a well-designed off-chain protocol -- offers superior privacy features than "on-chain" monero. I look forward to LN-monero existing maybe someday in the future, but the nice thing is, you don't have to wait! You can have LN-like privacy "right now." Use lightning. It exists and works.
> why does [monero] have [so much less] spam?
I don't know but if I had to guess it's because no one cares to spam it
> monero...forces blocks to be small, but **punishes** increase
This is a contradiction. If they are allowed to increase, they are not forced to be small.
> never ask a bitcoiner what is a "p2pool" and why is it increasing
I don't know what p2pool is or why it is increasing. Care to share?
This is sort of where I'm at as a solution. (Lightning and maybe ecash at some point). I'm questioning the assumption that base chain transactions for Lightning/ecash stuff need the same level of privacy. To be fair, my understanding is that I may need to handle a lot of Lightning node stuff myself for the privacy? It seems like using Strike or whatever would expose me to them if they care to track me.
So the main agreement is that: no one cares to spam monero, but a lot of people care to transact on it for monetary purposes (about 10% of bitcoin daily count) meanwhile a lot of people care to spam and inscribe data on btc, but not use it for monetary means that much, even when adding LN to the mix (XMR always stays on top with about 50% of volume on markets like shopinbit, mynymbox, silent link, coin cards, etc...)
Context on the "no spam" thing: https://monero.observer/monero-punks-inscribes-first-nft-collection-monero/
What context does that add that wasn't added before from the mordinals github link I shared?
It has a neat timeline. Everything happened so quickly
The point is: it's easier to do in a smaller community where there's more lenience with the development team.
That's shown in the github link as well since the development team of Mordinals themselves lost interest, 2 years ago they left it abandoned, but no one lost interest in transacting on the network since it continued growing without spam
Sure. After the reactions from the network and the fact that: "shitcoins on monero" doesn't have nearly the same market as "shitcoins on bitcoin", I would abandon it too.
My point is that pretending that if monero had the same size (and perhaps expressibility) as Bitcoin, things would be better. I just think this is wishful thinking.
Depending on who you ask they may see a better market for "shitcoins on monero" than "shitcoins on bitcoin" since they also get the privacy features, someone even forked monero to create a shitcoin for shitcoins on monero (zano)
But of course it's a smaller network my point is it's still neat how the tx volume and the node count are so high while keeping it monetary mainly, that means every transfer is an uncensorable, untraceable, self sovereign money transmission