Nostr Web Client

> Only a select few can arguably claim they have better privacy on Lightning. Vanishingly few Lightning users are transacting privately and non-custodially.

I do not understand this argument. To me it completely misses the point: I argue that self-custodial lightning has better privacy than custodial lightning and your response is "yeah but most people prefer custodial lightning." So? Who cares if most people prefer something inferior? Why does that matter? *You* (or anyone who wants good privacy) can choose the *better* solution. You are not subject to the choices of others.

> Correct me if I'm wrong but your whole forecast seems to rest heavily on technological advancement remaining stagnant over time. Historically we see the exact opposite.

I don't think my argument relies on that assumption. Making blocks dynamic in size with the hope that someday technology will solve all the problems it brings <-- that seems like wishful thinking. Limiting their size to a small value seems like a far better idea: it pushes adoption of layered scaling while also penalizing spam attacks.

> Dynamic block size means fees will always stay low even with increased adoption

I think monero is pitched between the horns of a dilemma: if blocks get big and fees stay low then it means miners do not have to worry about orphan rates, which means mining is centralized. If blocks get big and mining is *not* centralized the miners *do* have to worry about orphan rates, and that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks so that propagation and validation is faster and the orphan rate is smaller. If that miner-selected limit ever applies, you get the worst of both worlds: rising fees *and* large blocks.

> meaning more sovereign usage and better operability with L2s

You're not sovereign if you're not running a node

> Tail emission means we don't have to roll the dice on tx fees securing our blockchain in the future

You do: monero uses permanent inflation mixed with a fixed issuance of 0.6 XMR or less. Permanent inflation means the XMR issued is designed to constantly deflate in value. So at some point 0.6 XMR will have no material value. It will be worth less than 60 cents of today's money. Consequently, miners will need another source of revenue. You're rolling the dice that one will exist.

Saberhagen The Nameless 11mo ago

>"I do not understand this argument. To me it completely misses the point: I argue that self-custodial lightning has better privacy than custodial lightning"

It matters because it's complexity prevents most users from ever using Lightning privately+self-custodially. Essentially you're saying it has the potential to be very private, but what does that matter when it comes to how vast majority are using it? It's similar to why PGP failed to get broader adoption. UX means only you and and a handful of people are using Lightning that way.

>"Making blocks dynamic in size with the hope that someday technology will solve all the problems it brings"

I showed you a chart of tech advancements since inception of Bitcoin. Bitcoin blocksize hasnt even kept up conservatively.

Seems all for nothing at the expense of usability: ~60,000 node runners. ~50-100 million Bitcoin users. Apparently vast majority of Bitcoiners won't ever run a node even if they can.

Also Bitcoin is relying on this "wishful thinking" too to some degree since Lightning doesn't even scale globally without 100MB+ blocksize.

>"that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks"

Not sure I understand what you're saying. Why would they do this? Penalty of increasing blocksize decreases with more use. Those doing that would just be leaving money on the table.

>"You're not sovereign if you're not running a node"

So you're conceding 95%+ of Bitcoin/Lightning is not sovereign? I think it's safe to say there are way more Monero node runners as a percentage of users than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has far more users, but the difference in total nodes is only a factor of 2x-6x vs Monero depending how you count them.

>"So at some point 0.6 XMR will have no material value. It will be worth less than 60 cents of today's money. Consequently, miners will need another source of revenue."

Ok, but doesn't that mean Bitcoin will be in an even worse state?

No block reward at all + sparse/no mining tx fees because almost everyone would be using an L2 at that point for almost all their transactions.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Super Testnet 11mo ago

> Essentially you're saying it has the potential to be very private, but what does that matter when it comes to how vast majority are using it?

It matters imo because people who seek really good privacy ought to have the motivation to take a few extra steps

> It's similar to why PGP failed to get broader adoption. UX means only you and and a handful of people are using Lightning that way.

So? Anyone can still do it if they want to.

> I showed you a chart of tech advancements since inception of Bitcoin. Bitcoin blocksize hasnt even kept up conservatively.

Good. Relatedly, here's a chart of Moore's law: https://gist.github.com/supertestnet/2d41e7533e51cebf9f557587d349aa60

It seems it stopped applying sometime between 2003 and 2013. I'm glad bitcoin didn't go with the wishful thinking option.

> Seems all for nothing at the expense of usability: ~60,000 node runners. ~50-100 million Bitcoin users. Apparently vast majority of Bitcoiners won't ever run a node even if they can.

The ones not running a node are probably ignorant or don't sufficiently care about self sovereignty -- *yet.* But still, if you aren't running a node, you aren't self-sovereign, because the people who run the nodes set the rules.

> Also Bitcoin is relying on this "wishful thinking" too to some degree since Lightning doesn't even scale globally without 100MB+ blocksize.

It does: https://x.com/peterktodd/status/1813928457946153056

>"that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks"

Not sure I understand what you're saying. Why would they do this? Penalty of increasing blocksize decreases with more use. Those doing that would just be leaving money on the table.

Because the larger the blocks, the harder/longer they take to validate, therefore a miner can undercut his competitors by mining a smaller block that gets propagated/validated before the big blocks do. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

>"You're not sovereign if you're not running a node"

So you're conceding 95%+ of Bitcoin/Lightning is not sovereign?

I doubt it's 95% but yes, if you're not running a node you aren't self sovereign and most LN users do not run a node. That is no reason not to do so yourself. You're not a lemming. You don't have to be like anyone else.

> I think it's safe to say there are way more Monero node runners as a percentage of users than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has far more users, but the difference in total nodes is only a factor of 2x-6x vs Monero depending how you count them.

Yeah, probably. But we'll see if that continues to be the case if monero ever becomes popular. I doubt it because of the choice to allow dynamic block sizes.

> Ok, but doesn't that mean Bitcoin will be in an even worse state?

I don't think so. "Actually 0" seems better than "trending toward zero." It guarantees you never overpay miners and thus unjustly rob users.

Saberhagen The Nameless 11mo ago

>"It matters imo because people who seek really good privacy ought to have the motivation to take a few extra steps"

The easier you make it to attain, naturally, the more users will achieve it. Defaults and usability matter. Probably another reason DNMs decided to go with Monero, and why things like Signal, Session, and SimpleX are more popular than PGP.

>"So? Anyone can still do it if they want to."

Sure, if you want to end up like PGP, continue down that path.

But I don't think even you believe what you're saying as I always see you talking about BOLT12 and the improved UX it brings to Lightning.

>"Good. Relatedly, here's a chart of Moore's law. It seems it stopped applying sometime between 2003 and 2013. I'm glad bitcoin didn't go with the wishful thinking option."

I didn't mention Moores law specifically, or Kryder's Law, or Nielsen's Law. Still doesn't explain why Bitcoin hasn't made any effort to keep up with advancements made since then even being conservative with it. Monero is doing fine and has ~100x leeway before starting to run into trouble. Not to mention L2s FCMP will enable soon. Do you think Monero is going to 100x in usage in a short time? You sound more bullish about Monero than me 🤣

>"It guarantees you never overpay miners and thus unjustly rob users."

It's impossible to "rob users" in a network you voluntarily join. Due deligence lies on the user. This is like saying gold miners are "robbing" people holding gold. No one is forcing people to use Monero. They obviously think the value it offers them is worth more than the meager inflation it has.

Bitcoin just shifts it's inflation to tx fees. The more often you use Bitcoin the poorer you get. Probably explains the hodl mentality.