Shopinbit and other real businesses wrote on X that Monero is used as payment more than Bitcoin + Bitcoin Lightning Network

Lol oh I see call me upset to see if you can get a rise out of me.

Honest people don't resort to childish tactics, they approach about topics from a place of veracity and attempt to delve into them with genuine curiosity.

There isn't a serious bitcoiner that doesn't accept Monero.

You don't understand clearly what I've told you. This is a system of incentives, a "game" in the parlance of game theory. The outcomes are very much predictable, I'm not guessing here or making an argument on behalf of something or against something, I'm only making an educated observation. You can take what I've said and try to understand it deeper, or you can default to defending something you're emotionally attached to, but the incentives are the incentives and the outcomes are predictable.

Can you pronounce E T F?

No?

How about gfy?

Multiple logical contradictions. On one hand you say the supply cap has been reached, but then the next sentence you explain how every block creates new XMR. Both statement can't be true. You also assert that without a block subsidy the incentive to mine vanishes, which ignores transaction fees.

Monero has no supply cap. It will inflate indefinitely. That is a fact. You never achieve "all coins in circulation"

Bitcoin is not a better long term store of value than Monero. This is actually a much more interesting one than most arguments on this topic so I'll go in depth as to why.

In game theory, there's a problem called tragedy of the commons, and within that concept there's the idea of the "free rider", I don't know how in depth you dive into game theory stuff but you should understand it intimately because all networks involving multiple agents are pure game theory and you can't understand peer to peer networks without it.

Anyway, in Bitcoin, there's a cost to maintaining the network, without which a sat has no value whatsoever. This cost is entirely borne by those transacting in it, ultimately *the recipients* of it (just like how business taxes are borne ultimately by the clients of said business), and in this game, hodlers are free riders. This is, of course, assuming a capped supply of just under 21 million coins. And so, the incentive pressure is for everyone to become hodlers, you get to store your value at the expense of more frequent users, and the logical conclusion of course being that very few people transact and those that do pay for maintaining the security on behalf of those who don't.

The only possible outcome of such a scheme is that nobody transacts, miners don't get paid, they quit, security drops and the network, and therefore your holdings, lose value. This is, of course, entirely a consequence of the hard cap, and Monero on the other hand with it's tail emission means that hodlers pay through debasement of their holdings for their share of the security of the network that gives their coins value, and since it's debasement, they pay in proportion to the value they get from the network. In the long term, Monero is the better store of value counterintuitively precisely due to the tail emission, the thing that is cited as the reason it is inferior as such.

As far as the anonymity set (reducing Monero's privacy because you have a smaller group to hide in) this is not really a problem because of the fixed ring size, but it can be exploited in certain ways, but with full chain membership proofs which are Coming Soon™ to Monero, it will no longer be an issue.

Biden's situation is very interesting. Is this the first time the public is basically VETOing the selected candidate?

We should do more of this.

I was following Vance but don't know much about the man. I found at least a couple of positive statements from him on Twitter, but didn't find much related to Bitcoin. At least he was/is against the vaccine mandates.

ah yes

popping noises

What happens when Germany runs out of Bitcoin to sell at a discount?

Asking for a friend...