Nostr Web Client

Let's talk about Monero:

1. Bigger block sizes means running full nodes (which is how you verify the network AND SET THE RULES) will eventually be prohibitively expensive for all except large corporations and governments

2. Mining XMR relies exclusively on CPU power. Since CPU's are abundant and everywhere, it is much easier for corporations and governments to acquire massive amounts of CPU power than it is to acquire massive ASIC power. They could easily acquire far more CPU poer than than what regular folks might have combined.

3. When put together, the conclusion is that as more people use XMR, the more its blockchain will bloat until only governments and corporations can run full XMR nodes, where only they can change the rules of Monero as they please. If that doesn't work, they can also purchase massive amounts of CPU power and permanently do a 51% attack on the network; changing transactions as they like.

4. Since corporations and governments will BOTH own the majority of CPU power in the Monero network AND run the majority of full nodes; they can decide the rules of the network AND use their dominant hash power to change transactions as they please, effectively controlling Monero entirely.

#Bitcoin is the only solution.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Saberhagen The Nameless 10mo ago

1. Counterpoint: No one is going to want to run a full node for a network that they can't afford to use. The more Bitcoin is used the more expensive it becomes to use.

2. Both are double edged swords. CPU mining also means it's more accessible to honest users and potentially more distributed. General purpose CPUs also mean more plausibly deniable that you're mining anything (less power, less heat, less noise, no one knows you're buying it to mine)

3. Your theory doesn't factor the rate/magnitude of adoption and technological advancements. Two other possible outcomes: Niche adoption so it ends up not mattering - not everyone is going to use Bitcoin/Monero (most likely outcome imo even for Bitcoin), or massive eventual adoption but at a pace where tech can handle it.

4. Only two pools are required to 51% attack your chain as well. A lot of hashpower is also concentrated on easily state coerceable/confiscatable mining farms. You guys are the largest project, but only have 21,000 nodes for 80-110million users. The ratios aren't very good. In comparison, look at Moneros size vs node count were not very far behind at 13,000 and were MUCH smaller. Both projects have a lot to work on.

2. "Police raid a concealed #Bitcoin mining operation, initially mistaking it for an illegal marijuana farm due to the heat signature"

https://twitter.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/1721359382745874489

4. https://bitnodes.io/

https://monero.fail/map

Clippycoiner 10mo ago

1. That is why the Lightning Network was invented. True, as more people use Bitcoin, the blockchain will become more expensive for the average Bitcoiner to use, but the blockchain isn't practical for day-to-day transactions anyway, and it prioritizes security of the network over transaction speed. Also, there are workarounds along with Lightning that aim to offload transaction fees (such as batching transactions, Taproot, Segwit, etc.)

2 and 4: There are two things to keep in mind with the Bitcoin network: 1) the ability to easily run a full node determines how decentralized the network is, since nodes. decide. the rules. 2) Because Bitcoin's mining relies on hardware of which their sole purpose is to mine Bitcoin (ASIC computers), then the manufacturers of this hardware are economically disincentivized to do anything that would harm the security of the network.

3. But it does matter, in the winner-take-all game of money, if more and more people adopt your currency or not. Monero might have better base-layer privacy, but what would it mean if adoption stagnates or decreases, and Monero loses its purchasing power over time?

Also to mention, Monero as a whole comes with critical tradeoffs that Bitcoin doesn't suffer from; such as:

1. Less network security due to ASIC resistance, which makes it easier to mine and also attack Monero

2. More centralization risk due to bigger block sizes, which would make running a full node (which is also crucial for network security and setting the rules of the network) more expensive for the average user.

3. Less adoption, networking effects, first-mover advantage, familiarity, and liquidity

4. Again, because Bitcoin mining relies on expensive hardware that is exclusively designed to have one function, and only one function (ASIC computers that can ONLY mine Bitcoin), and Bitcoin mining is extremely difficult due to its hashrate; the manufactureres of this hardware, the users of it, and even governments that may seize it are always financially DISINCENTIVIZED from doing anything that would undermine the security of the network, such as peforming a 51% attack.

Saberhagen The Nameless 10mo ago

1. You need to be able to settle on-chain for unilateral exit even with Lightning. If fees are so high you can't feasibly exit you can't enforce your sovereignty. That and your channels will get wiped out when you're force closed. Lightning is difficult to use in a sovereign way which is why something like 90% users are on custodians which defeats the entire point of Bitcoin. It is also not good for larger payements. Failure rate grows with the value of a transaction. Even ignoring those things, if everyone is going to be using lightning, who is going to pay miners to secure the chain? Miners don't get fees from lightning transactions.

2. Monero is arguably more decentralized in mining than Bitcoin since almost anyone can do it. You can even mine on old phones. As far as running full nodes it's in the same ballpark as Bitcoin despite having a much smaller network. You also didnt address how ASIC mining makes you stick out and ASIC-resistance doesn't.

3. There isn't a winner-takes-all. It has never existed. Even with gold there are other precious metals like silver. There isn't one fiat currency either. Once major brands fade into irrelevance. There is only constant competition. The market is never settled and is constantly reevaluating. Monero is taking over in the only relevant market to Bitcoins value prop; black markets - the only market you can transact in without the rules of a central authority.

Of course. Everything has trade-offs. There are ONLY trade-offs. Bitcoin comes with it's own:

1. Harder to fight back against an ongoing attack since ASICs are in short supply.

2. More centralization with more adoption due to high fees (no one is going to run a node for a network they can't afford to use). Also more expensive. Just in a different way.

3. No privacy, weak fungibility, open to blacklists and targeted censorship by miners, will be expensive to use if adoption grows, and not as nimble to adapt

4. >"...governments that may seize it are always financially DISINCENTIVIZED from doing anything that would undermine the security of the network, such as peforming a 51% attack."

Hearn error. The government is the most irrational market actor there is. They ban popular things all the time. That's the entire problem with government. It's incentives aren't aligned with the market since they have a monopoly on violence and don't have to compete.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Hearn-Error

Hanshan 10mo ago

nice story bro

almost like nobody had ever thought of these points before 🙄

Ryu Santiago 10mo ago

>newcoiner shitting on monero

kek