A fixed supply, in practice, is a slowly and forever dwindling supply (lost or burned coins). The tendancy for anyone rational will be not to spend because the future value is expected to appreciate indefinitely. Hodl mentality. Bad for price discovery, money lending, stablility, etc.
A tail emission (inflation that asymptotically approaches 0%), in practice, is closer to a fixed supply (small inflation rate replaces lost and burned coins)
Look up "Ideal Money and Asymptotically Ideal Money" by John Nash and consider this perspective and that gold also has a tail emission.
Never seen a Monero bro say Satoshi was an idiot ever. Matter of fact some speculate Satoshi is Nicolas Van Saberhagen (correctly or not).
Monero bros have an issue with a sect of Bitcoin maxis who are complacent and dishonest with the state of bitcoin's privacy, fungibility, corporate ASIC mining farms becoming centralized, custodial lightning solutions, future security, etc.
The old cypherpunks always emphasized the importance of privacy and p2p digital *cash*. Aside from a subset of bitcoiners (who usually get along with monero bros and vice versa), many handwave away privacy, de-prioritize it, or don't care at all. Imo Monero is more cypherpunk in its vision and carries that original torch.
LN still has a long way to go for privacy, particularly for recievers, but as of last week, route blinding was introduced which will help a lot
https://twitter.com/BitcoinPierre/status/1640689711692800002
I've read about interesting proposals using zk-rollups, but know very little on the subject.
#BringBackThinkingAdversarially
#[0]
Was thinking the same thing for awhile. Good idea.
Do you understand every line of code? or any code at all? Then it is a blackbox to you. You're trusting others. Impossible for any bugs to occur that no one foresaw? As we all know, bugs don't exist on software /s
"That's the whole point of Bitcoin, every thing is out in the open, the code behind the issuance, the schedule, even the math behind the hashing"
Everything said here applies to Monero. Are you endorsing Monero?
My monero node is validating the supply right now according to you.
All you can do is lob insults and emoji spam.
When you type in a command to your node to audit supply are you doing that work yourself? Or are you typing in a couple keys and hitting enter? What is essentially a blackbox to you is spitting out a number that you are assuming is correct. There could be 42 million bitcoin out there and you would have no clue, but because of an implementation error or bug it could be telling you otherwise.
Cannot tell if legitimately ignorant or being intellectually dishonest. Either way nothing I can do about it.
It's undeserved lack of charity. Bitcoiners take anything not bitcoin as an attack on them even when goals are different.
If Bitcoin focused on privacy and fungibility there would be no need for Monero and it wouldn't exist. So this is the outcome. Then maxis get upset when it is built into another crypto that focuses on these goals specifically. Bitcoin purported solutions are always half-solutions. If bitcoin tries doing everything well, it will do nothing well.
Like I said, if bitcoin figures out how to do it better, I will use it.
Thank you.
Let me give this one final shot.
You bitcoin node. Me monero node.
I can't manually verify. You *dont* manually verify.
Same, same.
What difference in practice? Both trusting node to correctly validate for us.
Lol, you just keep dodging. I've been holding the same point throughout this whole conversation that you don't address.
Just admit you don't have any good arguments against what I said. Goodbye.
When has there ever been one money in all human history? The freer the markets the more kinds of money you would expect (although they could gravitate to one but never completely).
Different valid design choices based on goals and you uncharitably call them narratives. All while citing the "one money" bitcoin maxi narrative.
If you think of Monero as trying to be private p2p digital cash it makes perfect sense. If you think of it from a one money, place to store value, absolute scarcity that is competing with bitcoin perspective, than ya it doesn't surprise me why you came to that conclusion.
Are you going to refute my central point or go off on semantics?
Are you having a node validate this for you or not?
What are you talking about? You are a bitcoin maxi NPC spouting buzzwords. Monero is proof of work.
At least do a bit of basic homework if you are going to trash it.
If trusting a node to validate supply for you is fine, what is the problem when monero does it? Are you concerned of the complex math involved? (20+ year old cryptography)
You can't simply sum UTXOs like bitcoin. But, in practice, no one takes advantage of this anyway, they just run and trust a node to do it, so what does the real world difference come down to?
Hey, I'll take it.
If what you say is true, I would still be impressed that it even has 10% of bitcoins nodes vs their market caps.
Manually means manually. You aren't taking advantage of bitcoin's transparency by typing in a command. Go ahead. Read and tally every UTXO on the blockchain by hand let's see if it balances out and implementation is correct. In practice, no one does.
Remember, you are the one touting it's transparency as it's strength, while not taking advantage of it, not me.
I understand the trade-offs of both and use both. You are the one who seems not to.
L2s always come with trade-offs like the aforementioned Cashu - loss of custody or centralization tendencies, etc.
I don't think it is diminishing like you say. If there is a use case for private and self-custodial digital cash, Monero is still one of the few to meet that criteria. Non-KYC does diminish the risk, but other parties you transact with still have full view into your stack (if you don't conjoin).
If Bitcoin figures out a way to have on-par or better privacy, without loss of custody, and cheap txs, I will use it.