funny how almost every narrative bitcoiners tell and claim to be unique can be also applied to monero.
monero had an anonymous founder, no pre-mine and has proof-of-work.
i wonder why NGOs like #HRF are so bitcoin-centrical. sunk cost fallacy?
Discussion
So we are two already who wonder why HRF and nostr:npub1trr5r2nrpsk6xkjk5a7p6pfcryyt6yzsflwjmz6r7uj7lfkjxxtq78hdpu are promoting BTC as freedom tech, which offers no privacy at all and chose a path clearly against self custody.
They are either stupid or malicious.
yes, I'm pondering this for a long time. you know, i'm not entirely against bitcoin. it's not a scam, it can be useful, although i personally think that monero is superior. my question is more like: is it about bitcoin or freedom here? and if the latter, why are they aggressively promoting only bitcoin and not #monero as well? is tor bitcoin? is a vpn bitcoin? is linux bitcoin? is a custom ROM bitcoin? is bittorrent bitcoin? in the end, what it's all about? I really enjoyed nostr:nprofile1qqs9336p4f3sctdrtft2wlqaq5upjz9azpgylhfd3dplwf005mfrr9spzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuendwsh8w6t69e3xj7spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kueg6g89xw 's book but every chapter ended with how only bitcoin can help to bring the change which unfortunately muddied things a bit and eventually made the book look like a brochure...
i am also not against bitcoin at all, but recommending it as freedom tech is completely misleading and putting people at risk. Not mentioning much better solutions is malicious.
Everybody is free to convert its XMR back into BTC later if they want.
%98 of bitcoiners are bitcoiners because of it's number go up technology.
If Xmr makes similar ROI, they'd like it too.
yes, i think so. but at this point I'm not sure at all if this narrative about ngu does still hold true. bitcoin doesn't pump as hard as it did in the past for a long time. maybe this is the reason why they went for compliance, threw their ideals overboard and started worshipping spooks like saylor or fiat-mobsters like larry fink and "daddy" gensler.
Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC you might agree w/ that book.
BTC's still biggest crypto there's, NGU might keep holding.
I think what happened is that market's hunger and lust of pumping an asset found BTC to be the asset to pump a lot to infinity. BTC's nation/jurisdiction independent store of value function got out of control. Turns out there was a financial market need of a digital native finite store of value digital native asset like BTC.
Not that I think it'll happen but BTC can wipe the floor of whole crypto market w/ a couple of protocol updates thnx to it's head start and popularity.
How about the initial idea of Satoshi? It didn't have any value for about a year. Satoshi left without spending his coins too. Then there's the low time preference of halving every 4 years or so for over 100 years.
Monero took a sh$tcoin and changed the supply parameter. How long did that take? A day? A week? (It took litecoin about 8 hours I hear). Monero also took a high time preference to mine out the coins in like 7 years.
They are not the same.
the initial idea of satoshi was great but if you mind taking the trouble and reading some of the debates on the bitcoin talk forum there were some really serious concerns about the openness of bitcoin from the very early day on. you will find public talks about how at least the sender and receiver information could be hidden but satoshi didn't know how to implement it. maybe the tech back then didn't exist. yes, he didn't spend his coins. but this does nothing good, does it? it brings uncertainty. in fact it could be seen as a possible risk if at one point +1 million coins would awake which were considered lost before. the halving period was chosen purely arbitrarily. if it was 2 years or 8 years bitcoin wouldn't be worse or better. it's all about the public known information and predictability. this also doesn't have anything to do with low or high time preference. even if it would, low or high time preference is neither good nor bad. what is low or high time preference is subjective, depends on human individuals and can't be measured in any way. it's unimportant how fast the coins are mined. even in bitcoin 94% of the total supply is already mined. the 6% spread over the next 120 years really don't matter. as i already mentioned, it's all about predictibility. these informations were known to the public from very early on. on top of that monero has tail-emissions, so feel free to mine monero, have luck and always get 0.6 XMR + fees :) (though I'll say I don't have a strong opinion on that one. it may be OK during the bootstrapping phase).
cheers
If Satoshi left, and you don't know who they are, how are you so sure the creator of Moneros protocol isn't Satoshi? Especially suspicious when hes outlining almost an exact prototype of Monero in detail in conversations on old Bitcointalk forums.
Private, fungible, targeted mining censorship resistant, and cheap to transact. You are right they are definitely not the same.
I doubt it. But it might make nice story to tell.