1. The RingCT point: “Every transaction proves inputs = outputs = zero”

Yes, Monero’s RingCT (with Bulletproofs+) cryptographically proves no hidden inflation at the transaction level without revealing amounts. That’s technically impressive.

But it’s not a free lunch:

• It relies on much more complex cryptographic primitives (Pedersen commitments, range proofs, linkable ring signatures) with a larger attack surface.

• These have had real bugs and fixes in Monero’s history (e.g., early RingCT inflation vulnerabilities patched, decoy selection issues).

• Bitcoin’s simple UTXO model + transparent ledger lets anyone fully audit everything in real time—no need for heavy ZK proofs that could break in subtle ways.

• Opacity means fewer people can meaningfully verify the system’s integrity. Recent example: Monero suffered an 18-block reorg in September 2025 (deepest ever), invalidating 118 transactions—harder to detect/prevent issues when everything’s hidden.

Transparency enables broader, trustless auditing. Privacy-by-default limits it.

2. “Monero isn’t decentralized—show receipts”

Easy receipts (as of January 2026):

• Exchange delistings → Monero survived 73 delistings in 2025 alone due to regulatory pressure (e.g., Kraken, Binance regions, others in EU/Canada). This centralizes access—fewer on-ramps, forcing P2P or DEXs, which reduces liquidity and accessibility for average users.

• Node counts → Bitcoin: ~24,000 reachable nodes worldwide (bitnodes.io data). Monero: Public nodes in the low thousands (monerohash.com shows ~7-8k distributed, but many Tor-only and harder to count/verify—far fewer than Bitcoin’s open network).

• Practical decentralization → Regulatory targeting hits privacy coins hardest, shrinking global reach. Bitcoin has spot ETFs, institutional custody, and no widespread bans—more resilient and decentralized in practice.

• Mining: Monero’s RandomX is CPU-friendly (decentralized there), but overall hashrate is tiny compared to Bitcoin’s (zettahashes vs gigahashes), making it theoretically easier to attack if targeted.

Monero’s mandatory privacy makes it a regulatory magnet, harming real-world decentralization.

3. Trust in cryptographic primitives

This is where his analogy completely falls apart.

• Bitcoiners trust the minimal set of battle-tested primitives → ECDSA, SHA-256, PoW—proven secure for 15+ years under massive scrutiny.

• Monero requires trusting more (and newer) primitives → ring signatures, stealth addresses, Bulletproofs, upcoming FCMP++.

• These add complexity and risk—larger code base, more potential for undiscovered flaws (see academic papers on potential de-anonymization via timing/chain analysis, e.g., 2025 IEEE work on ring signature tracing).

• Nick Szabo’s “social scalability” point: Transparent systems scale trustlessly because anyone (even non-experts) can verify and defend the network. Opaque systems require trusting the crypto works perfectly forever—no emergent defense from outsiders.

Bitcoin minimizes trust. Monero increases it by forcing everyone into complex privacy tech.

The number of people willing to trust this? Bitcoin: Trillions in market cap, institutional adoption, global nodes. Monero: ~$8B cap, strong but niche, heavily delisted.

4. The “Bitcoiners are the nocoiners of 10 years ago” analogy

This is just smug reversal—it’s bullshit.

• Nocoiners rejected digital scarcity entirely.

• Bitcoiners embrace it with the simplest, most robust design—fixed supply, transparent auditability, optional privacy (CoinJoin, Lightning, ecash like Cashu/Fedimint).

• Monero forces mandatory privacy on everyone, which sounds great until it gets you banned from exchanges and scrutinized by regulators.

• History shows simplicity wins long-term → Bitcoin’s minimalism has survived everything.

• Adding layers of complex crypto is the riskier bet—like trusting fancy fiat controls instead of hard rules.

People first focused on privacy first are resisting layered solutions that give privacy without the trade-offs.