Monero's security model is reliant on the community trusting the devs who rotate the hash algorithm and use checkpoints because it doesn't have the security budget to remain censorship resistant or immutable if it comes under attack. This is a non starter against a state actor and defeats the entire purpose of proof of work.
There are many ways Bitcoin is vulnerable, but it's the only attempt being made at separation of state and money.
So what we should be really comparing monero to isn't bitcoin, but fedimint. Fediment can definitely offer greater privacy if you use a mint with a large enough anonymity set. Question is whether we can have fedimints that are more robust vs state attacks than Monero.
Yes, except Monero has stronger guaruntees over the total supply.
Seems like a trilemma...
Bitcoin: Self-custodial, NGU
Monero: Self-custodial, Private
Ecash: NGU, Private
Depends what you mean. If we assume the mint can be trusted...
Pro: Monero network is more resistant to direct physical attack from states considering node count and ubiquity of general purpose CPU mining.
Ecash is either a single mint operator, or a handful of people from a federation you can go after. Might be harder for a federation, but defnitely much easier than rounding up every single miner on Monero. You could try and reduce this vulnerability by having many mints, but that would be negative for anonymity set.
Con: Monero network is currently more vulnerable to a pure hash war VS the state.
This attack isn't possible with Ecash because no mining is involved, obviously...but it involves assuming the mint is and will always be trustworthy (wasn't the whole point of Bitcoin to remove or reduce trust?)
Did u learn on how eth was capture ? How those federation...hum..."open source, free federations" works ?
There are a bunch of those project on eth, like here w ecash. That won work for me.
Bitcoin begin to work like a eth project, L2, state investor...bs after bs.
We all know how that will end (it will end like those bullshat tokenisatiion project that those suit like).
Agree with you. There will probably be many rugpulls.
Rugpulls are not an issue. People will just change method of exchange. And get they saving taken. Money can still be save after that.
What i see is that those spy will have hard time w privacy chain focus now. And no return to those anon chain.
In 2024 people will learn what is to be persecuted by those spy. Devs have already learn. They already shifting to those anon title XD.
There still so munch devs that are not anon. They will learn the hard way, w help of the prosecuters. As for bitcoin it will wind down, price high but only use by those public credited people.
no more anon node or hardware. No more exchange without kyc.
This is a maturation of blockchains tech. Its good to see.
This is the way.
Mints can steal, not comparable at all.
There are various other risks with Monero, such as the continual hard forks, potential for node centralization etc. The comparison is more, can we have a fedimint where the overal trustworthiness of the federation similar to that of the Monero system of incentives. You could also make the same comparison to bitcoin, but overall trust in the base system is much higher than Monero.
And the answer would be: no
Sufficient trust in a mint would be centralization. This applies even to trust in several large mints.
I agree with your second point and Monerans have been avoiding my query on this, but i disagree with your first point about frequent hard forks. It's "how" it's done that is important, not how often. The HF's that take place are years in the making, focused on improving the single value proposition for XMR. They go through rigourous testing by skilled devs. The community can reject it, but rarely do because, and it bares repeating, they only have one goal. Privacy. No ETF's or corporate/state actors to appease, no mining conglomerates or electricity infra, no layer 2 scaling or smart contracts to integrate, no ordinals or Script externalities like BitVm.
This means only a handful of experts need to work on a given fork, itself trying to fix a potential problem, push the fix and move on with their lives, like with RandomX. Whereas with other projects you need to pass on the torch, audit Interoperability, and consult with veterans and stake holders.
Scheduled Hard forks in Monero are way less dramatic than in politics based Bitcoin and even less than in centralized upgrades like Windows going from one version to another.
Monero is so simple, it eliminates entire classes of issues that would make frequent hard forks "scary", whereas Bitcoin preserves old problems to keep legacy devs employed.
I'll let the original participants in this conversation continue it. My comment was based on the assumption that criticisms already brought up were true, so it will rest on the conclusion of taat discussion.
fed imment is just another word for middlemen.
Devs changes mean nothing without users agreeing and going along with those changes voluntarily
Monero only exists because users disagreed with changes previous devs made in the first place
This is the same for any proof of stake system. It's even true of the US dollar.
Bitcoin is solving a completely different problem.
I may or may not agree with PoS, but I don't have anything against people voluntarily entering or leaving those networks. The US Dollar is a bit of a stretch. Not an open permissionless system that anyone can just fork or leave. All other currencies are beholden to the US dollar too via force.
PoW is not flawless and neither is resistance to hardforks. There is no immutable law of the universe that prevents majority of BTCs increasingly diluted users (normies) from moving to more compliant and captured Bitcoin forks in the future, i.e. because it is regulatory friendly, and taking most of BTCs hashpower and value with them.
So does Bitcoin. If Quantum Computing breaks SHA-256, Bitcoins security model relies on devs switching to a post quantum algo.
Maitenance hard/soft-forks are not a feature unique to Monero development. What is unique is its hyperfocus and singular mission towards default privacy. Bitcoin has inconsistent narratives, memes and aspirations (NgU, MoE, Sov, is it for privacy or not, is it compliant or libertarian) all well and good in terms of competition in pure market terms, but the history of large unfocused projects and nations is not favorable. Small, lean and focused teams can win against giants, especially during a crisis the elephant too entrenched to respond to.
But hey, who knows, maybe one more fucking addressing scheme is what Bitcoin needs.
I think until we see an attack taking place from someone attempting to take over the hashpower, it’s impossible to tell if such an attack is practical on the #Monero’s network. I would agree that blockchains with SHA-256 algo and no other protection mechanisms are vulnerable to this type of attack because of the existing amount of hashpower that can be directed by a malicious actor but this scenario doesn’t apply to Monero. RandomX had been around for a while now and the only attempt we’ve seen at gaming the system is from Bitmain that released a “miner” which consists in a bunch CPU assembled in series. So saying that the security depends on devs changing the algo is to this date pure speculation. Also, we would need to factor the response from users in case of an attack against Monero. It’s likely that if Monero were to be attacked we would see a much stronger response from users than we will see in the case of a similar attack on #Bitcoin. Everybody has a CPU at home whereas the supply of miners that can be added to the Bitcoin network isn’t elastic. I’m not saying that Bitcoin is less secure than Monero but I’m skeptical of the claims saying that Monero isn’t secure due to its hashing algorithm.
If Monero ever comes anywhere near Bitcoin's level of power and influence, you'll find out very quickly why Bitcoin's security model is anchored in energy rather than market decisions.
As per the recent events, #Monero is being attacked to the same level than #Bitcoin is. Haven’t you heard of the multiple exchange delistings that had impacted Monero? The executive power has made it clear that #privacy isn’t welcome in #crypto and Monero is a prime target. So far I find Monero to be more resilient to these attacks but we shall see where we end up as we’re likely to see more attempts in attacking those networks.
Lol
