Looks like you didn't actually pay attention to what you were replying to or formulate a reply, but still wasted time with a reply notification. Are you trying to argue in bad faith?
Discussion
Looks like you didn't read the reply's response to what I wrote originally and assumed it was a coherent rebuttal to my points. Do you want to mind your own business?
I'm not reading this but as you can see I'm replying anyway. Let me know how much dopamine you get out of this notification
I am more than willing to make a statement on why I think Monero is better than Bitcoin, & or lightning if that’s what you want but you gave no refutable points.
You just said it was a shitcoin without stating reasons why you think it is.
Please give me your fair, & objective refutation, & I will try my best to give my reasoning unless you want me to say my thoughts first.
Well, I would direct you to this about the privacy claims of Monero: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04299
Secondly, the fact that it has an unlimited supply makes it by definition abundant and not scarce. Scarcity is one of five primary attributes of money.
So, if XMR can't be private and it can't be money, I don't think it would be a very good private money. But like I said before, I don't care to talk about Monero any more than I care to talk about the Nira from Nigeria.
My entire gripe was the fact that people want a monetary asset to be private, it can be psuedononymous but never private because of how money functionally works. The currency layer(layer 2) is the layer with which velocity, transferability, and anonymity should exist. The same way cash does for the dollar (prior to 1971). I study economics, and I know more than average about coding. This crowd seems to skew too heavily toward the coding cleverness than the economic ramifications of what a digital money MUST have to be a viable option for the future.
You're linking an out of date paper from 2017 lol
Everything mentioned in it has long been resolved
Monero is scarce it just doesn't have a fixed supply. Economic scarcity implies only that it is not available in limitless supply and is in demand.
Okay, leave the economic definitions to me. Scarcity is based on supply not demand. Just because I have only made one painting due to the demand of one customer doesn't mean the painting is scarce as I can create as many as I'd like with the rising demand. Monero is not scarce.
Secondly, you said you would give your reasoning with your refutation. Out of date isn't a reason. Which fork of Monero has fixed all of these issues? Specifically the 0-mixin Txns that are identifiable.
Monero is scarce. It's limited in supply at any moment AND under demand.
I think you're confusing me with someone else. That was my first comment in this thread I have no clue what you're talking about claiming I was going to give a "refutation"
If you're the economics guy please leave the Monero talk to me because you clearly have zero clue. A standard ring size is now enforced by the protocol and has been for a very long time. There are no 0-mixin transactions. And all this long defunct criticism only ever applied to sender privacy.
yeah my bad, since I was asking someone specific questions I assumed they were responding not someone not even in the conversion.
the point made earlier was that 0-mixin coins still exist and therefore reduce the privacy of future transactions with those coins. either way, I don't care about that shitcoin and I am tired of talking about it. have a good one.
Dude everyone responds to everyone unsolicited. It's Nostr. You did so yourself under Simplified Privacys thread. But whatever its fine.
All those old 0-mixin coins have to do (which had to be done manually and intentionally by those users in the first place) is make a single transaction and their sender privacy is no longer exposed.
Hi, that’s probably me y’all are talking about I was at my fiat job.
I’ll reply when I get home 👍.
If you read the pdf (I skimmed it), it mentions RingCT which is the current protocol it drastically improved privacy over the prior protocol, and the newer protocol coming within the next few years Full Chain Memberships will further improve upon Monero's privacy.
It appears the original website discussed older Monero standards but the pdf appears to mention changes after 2017.
It does not have "unlimited" supply, the supply growth is fixed, Monero's supply grows by 0.6 xmr every 2 minutes through tail emissions.
Monero's scarcity mechanism like Bitcoins is lost seeds, people dying with coins, faulty hardware, etc. but unlike Bitcoin it issues new coins into circulation to offset those lost coins.
People who use monero view Monero as the digital equivalent of physical cash.
Monero isn't an "asset" it's a currency, and like any currency you need a constant, and stable supply of it in circulation to be used, that's why people spend monero because they know they can get more later on.
That being said Monero is more scarce than Bitcoin for The next ~16 years.
Okay, so currency has to be based on an asset to maintain a valuation beyond speculative usage. Monero has no underlying asset on which it bases its value. Also currency doesn't need a constant stable supply. That's just how the dollar maintains its place. Currency is only needed insofar as it eleveates a financial commerce bottleneck. With Gold being so heavy, paper currency was used as a trade medium to increase trade velocity. With Bitcoin, lightning increases trade velocity through by passing the approximate 10min block time. It also is onion routed increasing anonymity and obfuscating the number and amounts of transactions. Monero is in a technical sense unlimited in supply but in a real sense more so not limited by a supply cap. The constant changing of protocol also lends to not ever having very wide adoption because you can never build anything on top of the shifting sands of the protocol.
Currencies are a medium of exchange.
Neither does Bitcoin, or The U.S. Dollar.
Having a constant stable supply of currency helps it maintain liquidity, and velocity, currencies that appreciate in value don't circulate as easily.
Monero has a block time of two minutes with funds being unlocked after 10 confirmations (20 Minutes) whereas Bitcoin (On-Chain) can take hours to days, if the network doesn't reject it, Bitcoin lightning has a lot of issues, Custodial wallets to function, needing wallet to be open to recieve funds, Bitcoin locked up in channels, poor channel management can cause funds to be lost, etc.
Monero has no supply cap but that does not mean it's "unlimited", it follows the issuance principle of tails emissions which is a constant, and predictable supply increase.
Momero protocols changes on an as needed basis, Bitcoin Soft Forks, & Hard Forks also, the main difference is Monero is more open to forking to tackle issues with monero, and innovate.
Monero is used just as much if not more in most peer 2 peer marketplaces where multiple cryptocurrencies are accepted, Bitcoin has the better legal infrastructure but Monero has actual underground market growth.
I am not going to go back and forth about economic inaccuracies. "Constant stable supply" is not a thing in the world of currency that is infinitely divisible. There is no problem with liquidity in bitcoin. Custodial wallets aren't needed in lightning. Receiving funds in an invoice payment system necessitates the wallet to be open. Or just use a web socketed Bolt12 address or a lightning address and your wallet software is always on. You don't "lose funds" due to poor channel management either. They just return to your on chain address if your channel closes. Again, I don't care about monero and it was outside of the scope of my criticism of the original post. A protocol that never ossifies is not useful. And without a supply cap it is not useful as currency without a peg to a money.
Lightning users who have lost funds watching their on chain wallets for those refunds after reading your propaganda 
cool, link me one instance and I'll conceded. But technically there's no way a lightning contract "loses" funds. You simply force close the channel, the funds return to your on chain address. What I find is people like you don't use things correctly, don't have access to your on chain addresses, you don't have a self hosted node active, or have watchtowers for any counterparty risk. You say things like:
I lost my Bitcoin when I used lightning!
"what happened?"
well Ididn'tb write my on chain private key down, I deleted my wallet then my channel partner force closed while I was trying to move funds!
-So in short YOU did that yourself. You threw away the combination to your vault and expected to be able to access it.
Points 1&2- yeah custodians can rug you, this can happen with literally anything(yes with XMR)
Points 3&5- if you cheat, your channel peer gets compensation. If they cheat and you don't catch them for 2 WEEKS using a lightning wallet, watchtower, lightning node software, yes you got your money stolen. That seems reasonable because if you do catch them they risk node access, all of their channel funds, and reputation.
Point 4- yeah, don't let people use your computer and route over tor.
Yes, I conceded that if you try to steal your peer's funds, you DO lose your funds. My bad, I should have stated that caveat.
lol, and again, read the thread. some force closed channels were returned to their on chain address. the other 4 channels in question were still open and active channels that were later collaboratively closed. and a nice telegram scammer to throw into the mix. no funds were lost.
did you read the thread or just the headline? no funds were lost. they returned to the on chain address when the channel force-closed. (By the way Alby was a custodial node service so, not a great example of a sovereign use of lightning.)
Ok, I didn't read the whole thing on the alby one but waiting 14 days for your funds to return to you is a bit ridiculous isn't it?
I mean conventional banking only takes 3 to 5 days, so in the mean time onchain liquidity is frozen up waiting for lightning to resolve itself.
Personally, I enjoy on-chain.
Force-closes are extreme circumstances. and the HTLC has a lock to avoid scams. giving someone 2 weeks to see they were being cheated is a feature not a bug. in most cases the collaborative close is used and you get on chain funds as soon as the txn is confirmed. it would be much quicker if threat actors weren't a concern in the real world. having the entire financial record on chain at the rate cash or credit is used would need storage the size of a Colosseum to verify. keeping rapid transactions off chain for velocity and on chain for settlement is the best way to keep a system decentralized.