Subnostr

In other words you're trusting proper software implementation and other Bitcoiners to verify for you. Double spend bugs have already happened in the past that passive node runners didn't detect on Bitcoin and can happen again. Only "manual verifiers" are relevant and unique in this regard and have a real argument. If you don't do this you are not much different from any Monero node runner.

The last part is basically: "Yea I'm strong because my friend lifts weights"

To keep to the analogy, while your one friend can help you lift something heavy once in awhile, that doesn't make *you* strong, and you're still trusting/relying on him to lift heavy things for you (relying on a few other Bitcoiners to verify for you AKA trusting)

BitcoinStu 1y ago

do you see how easy that was? Simple arithmetic. Now compare that to the logic required to attempt to verify Monero:

transaction.verify_pedersen_commitments():

transaction.verify_bulletproofs():

transaction.verify_ring_signatures():

have a look in the Monero python cryptography libraries for those functions. So much for simple arithmetic. They are vastly complex, certainly beyond my ability to understand. Maybe you're a better software engineer and cryptographer than me.

So your argument that "Monero can be audited too" is just simply invalid. It's not the same, apples and oranges.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Saberhagen The Nameless 1y ago

But what if you're the vast majority of Bitcoiners that never do that "simple arithmetic"

You just keep bragging to us that you can (but don't ever do it)

BitcoinStu 1y ago

I just fucking did it for you, lol. Run that script and see for yourself.

Saberhagen The Nameless 1y ago

I know and I see that. But it still doesn't avoid that the vast majority of Bitcoiners don't do this. They don't even run a node.

For those that do (and do so often) I already agreed they have a reasonable argument against Monero if they want the best possible verifiability/auditability