You are wrong. The reason Bitcoin is so expensive to transact on is because of it's fixed blocksize. Monero has a dynamic blocksize, so even with the same demand it would adjust and would be just as cheap to transact as right now.
Discussion
Ah ok it would be impossible to run a node (imagine behind TOR) if Monero had a lot of transaction going if its dynamic
Not necessarily.
That all entirely depends on the rate of adoption.
Average internet speed continues improving every year.
1 terabyte wasn't even available/affordable. Today it's no big deal. You can also find a 1 terabyte microSDs for $20-$30 and its the size of your pinky nail. Consumer tech constantly improves. So does protocol level efficiency. Monero transactions have been shrunk ~80% with bulletproofs since it was created
Last time I synced a bitcoin node behind tor it took me a week with fiber.
Not everybody as access to fiber or unlimited bandwidth.
Sure, but not every single person in the world needs to run a node either. Decentralization is not binary. And at this moment in time it is much easier to sync a full Monero node than a Bitcoin node. It's a fraction of it's size. You can also prune to make it even smaller.
Yes but to prune you first need to sync.
Not everybody has to run a node, but to be part of that network at least having the layer 1 synced is a minimum for me.
I like that with bitcoin you can add different services to it, I like the creativity of bitcoin devs.
Monero looks like a monolith to me I don't find it interesting even if it's privacy may be good.
You can runand store a Monero node more easily than you can a Bitcoin node, so I don't see how that helps your argument.
I don't understand what you mean about the different services part.
If anything Bitcoin is less creative because of it's ossification it has remained largely the same since it was created. Monero has many more interesting features it has implemented over time like bulletproofs and dandelion.
But to each their own.
For now yes , but if Monero had a lot of users it could not scale because of the big blocks.
With bitcoin you have fucking lightning network , and other layer2 that are continued to be built (element, statechains, ark, DLC markets)
By the way Nostr was built by the bitcoin community also
"If". Pure hypothetical. Fact is none of that is true *right now*, and may never be true. All depends on rate of adoption, consumer tech advances, and protocol level efficiency gains.
Bitcoin can't scale by your metric either and neither can lightning.
"Lightning Network -- Fundamental Limitations" -Paul Sztorc
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations
Yes, I know Nostr was built by Bitcoiners. Not sure what your point is.
Yes it cannot scale yet. But its open source, it's a work in progress.
We just need to assure layer 1 survives until we find a solution.
If that is your view, ok that is fine, but then I can just say the same exact thing about Monero: "Yes it cannot scale yet. But its open source, it's a work in progress."
It can't scale because of the big blocks? I don't follow the reasoning here, I'd like to understand what you mean.
Monero blocksize is dynamic , if there was a lot of usage, it could become unusable. Especially for a nomad, someone using tor, someone without access to high speed bandwidth .
Yes, this is a possibility, especially considering that every block must be checked for transactions that have happened since last sync.
But, I'll quote you:
> Yes it cannot scale yet. But its open source, it's a work in progress.
We just need to assure layer 1 survives until we find a solution.
Looks like everyone's in that boat. I'd say that right now we are running into scaling problems with Bitcoin and not the problems you speak of in Monero. Monero as a community has demonstrated itself amenable to implementing improvements, Bitcoin has so far demonstrated the opposite, it's a point of pride among Bitcoiners that they will not accept a hard fork.
Every time you fork, a set of people as to make decisions. Its bad for decentralization.
I think it's better to use bitcoin script to bring scalability and privacy to bitcoin users that opt-in.
This prevent bugs on L1 and avoid us forking every months.
What's wrong with forking?
Scripting is not going to expand throughput of the blockchain.
Forking is bad because it splits the market / community . Like with bitcoin cash, our merchants and applications lost a lot of users.
It erode the value and recognizability of the currency.