Nostr Web Client

The measurement analogy breaks down when you realize:

1 BTC =/= 1 BTC because it is not fungible irl - unique histories mean each bitcoin is not indistinguishable from the other, they are taintable, and potentially have differing values. 1 meter must = 1 meter

21 million as a standard is also not true either. Yearly lost coins can never be accurately accounted for. It's not a fixed unit. It's like a meter that is ambiguous or constantly changing.

These are not my arguments. I'm just trying to follow your line of logic.

Ultimately, Bitcoin has certain properties that make it excel for certain use cases. Then there are a few alts, like Monero, that have properties that are better suited for other use cases that Bitcoin or other L2s cannot achieve or are less ideal. Unless Bitcoin hardforks, which would invalidate the strengths of it's previous use case. The abstracted nature of L2s sacrifice one or more of L1 core aspects like self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, finaly settlement, etc.

tek 2y ago

1 BTC = 1 BTC as one piece of art equals another identical fake twin. Their history could be different but if the result is the same, blaming differencies can fall into a delusional spiral.

The measurement analogy would break down also when tecnology and innovation take place and you can fit more inside your unit. It is not a fixed unit that is correct. As much time is not a fixed unit when you travel in space. It is just something anchored to our perception that create a sense of objective reality.

You cannot have a fixed unit, you need to decide in this case whether it is inflationary or deflationary. Inflation is to take away value from other existing unit and it is fixed inside the protocol of Monero. While deflation in bitcoin is just a consequence of human error.

I choose possible deflation against programmed inflation.

I do not undermine Monero technology, I look up for it. It is just not needed another coin to do the work.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Saberhagen The Nameless 2y ago

It's more that users won't want to deal with the risk of tainted funds because of increasing regulation. Tainted coins might not be accepted or undervalued elsewhere for the same reasons. So people will either refuse them and ask for coins with "clean" histories or they will accept tainted coins for a discount:

https://news.bitcoin.com/industry-execs-freshly-minted-virgin-bitcoins/

For Monero this bifurcation is not possible because there is no history. It doesn't have the problem of splitting between tainted and clean coins within itself like Bitcoin. 1 XMR = 1 XMR. It is either all accepted or it is all banned. In either scenario it is fungible.

Monero has less inflation than gold, likely not even enough to make up for yearly lost coins, so could be argued to be deflationary. While it doesn't have a limited supply like Bitcoin, it's issuance is fixed and predictable, unlike fiat money.

For a Store of Value, p2p digital commodity, it is reasonable to choose Bitcoin over Monero for that use case.

But for a Medium of Exchange, p2p digital cash, Monero is the more ideal fit. Private, fungible, and tx fees a fraction of a penny.

No other coin can copy Monero and get the same adoption. Monero is already king of privacy coins. Just like Bitcoiners bring up the power of network effects, the same could be said of Monero's adoption.

tek 2y ago

I just say that only time will tell. Won't change my position but thank you for the discussion, I surely understand it better now, you know your things!