Self sovereign = self custodied? Seems from your original phrasing maybe not, now that I look at it more. But if not, it just seems highly doubtful from numbers I’ve seen thrown around.
Discussion
thinking about anonset so selfcustodial transactional usage.
and technically we should divide out onchain and LN as separate anonsets.
Transactional I’m guessing you mean not for fiat (or not kyc probably equivalent in this case). No clue but sure it’s small. Holding is still primary use, and probably selling for fiat on exchange for most self custody coins I would imagine.
Guess I misunderstood your original point a bit. Carry on
hmmm
exchanging for fiat nonkyc would probably count
since it can be challenging for chainanal to determine if the utxo is a self transfer or not.
but yeah
monero transactional privacy is better
and its probably not even close.
I think I’ve read most of the arguments about this topic by now (never properly studied monero, and don’t plan to anytime soon). Was just surprised by my misunderstanding of the original statement.
Monero base layer mathematically more private, external considerations like size of network and number of users argue for BTC combined with privacy practices (coinjoins or lightning etc) could arguably make BTC more private in practice though.
And seems like you’re arguing here that the _effective_ size of network (aka anonset) is smaller than most admit.
About right? Hope that made sense.
yeah sounds right.
if Bitcoin was default private and the effective network size was most of the network, that would be awesome