Also:

+non interactive

+no hot wallet necesary

+no routing problems to deal with

+can send any arbitrarily large amount without failing

+don't have to make sure you have enough capacity to recieve a payment

+truly private

All this while remaining completely non custodial, p2p, and permissionless

The guy is a watchmaker if I'm not mistaken. True craftsman.

Agree, but it's still nice that Samourai is available for those who are using Bitcoin out of necessity or ignorance

Monero is comparably as decentralized as Bitcoin by node count.

https://monero.fail/map

https://bitnodes.io/

Monero is FOSS just like Bitcoin. It can be forked if the community doesn't like the direction. No one is being forced to buy or use Monero. At any moment if you don't like the direction it is heading you can sell it or swap for another crypto and no one can stop you. Completely voluntary free market.

Still not a single contentious hardfork in Monero because there are clear goals. Meanwhile, Bitcoin doesn't hardfork but *still* couldn't avoid userbase fear and turmoil during the blocksize wars. And they *still* had to compromise with Segwit.

But good thing both projects can exist and run their own expirements. They're not mutually exclusive either you can use both.

Many things in this universe have no hard cap, given more time invested, and are still valuable. You're falling for a false narrative.

fiatjaf is fun, but his opinion changes with the wind. He usually provides no arguments or evidence to backup his opinions either.

note18t6hguahqekus8nmhz6gpft67244gnfql9k2uddj90es7p74km8salcv5z

You're choosing the custodial + arbitrary money printer option just because the word "Bitcoin" is slapped on it. Sounds like fiat.

Some Bitcoiners really have lost their way

note18t6hguahqekus8nmhz6gpft67244gnfql9k2uddj90es7p74km8salcv5z

As long as you have an active node and channel state backups or trust another person to do it. The potential to be rugged by your peers or channel host is always there after you make a transaction. This caveat doesn't exist for L1. Once the transaction is sufficiently confirmed you can't be rugged. It is final. Maybe there is a different term for it.

Worse, in practice, most lightning users don't even use it this way. They use it custodially.

I'm willing to entertain trade offs. But we're throwing away major value props of Bitcoin for scalability. The few things that differentiate it from fiat.

Defeats the whole purpose.

So, I always find several implied assumptions when it comes to scaling.

1) That everyone on the planet is going to be using crypto.

+won't be a black/gray market niche

2) That everyone on the planet will use a *single* crypto.

+won't be a range of different cryptos that provide differing utility

3) That it can't scale given a slow enough rate of adoption.

+consumer tech advances (Moore's law)

+protocol scalability improvement (Monero tx size shrinking by 80% since inception)

4) That decentralization is binary and not a spectrum.

+otherwise why not 0.1MB blocks instead of 4MB? It's unlikely and seems pretty convenient the 4MB blocksize just so happens to be the "cut off" point for being considered decentralized.

Lightning in practice is not p2p. Due to it's nature it consolidates into massive nodes people must route thru if you want the cheapest fees and transactions that don't fail.

LN limits the value you can transfer.

Arguably not final settlement (Nothing is until on chain)

You can be force closed making you pay on chain fees anyway.

npub169n9eaf0t20j0nefwqlqtnqcpsym22k2nw6e3tevtrrru4et7wrsh5w47v

And ~96% of users are on custodial wallets because of its terrible sovereign UX.

Many other problems besides these...all of these sacrfices to be able to scale and it still can't scale. What a bad trade.

I'm not talking about transparency argument. That is another topic.

I'm talking about hard limiting the blocksize. Current limit revolved around conumer tech from 2000s. It is a handicap if your goal is to scale L1 value props to every user.

He's right. Bitcoin can't build on the base layer because it handicapped itself. They're forced to build on L2s that compromise core value props of Bitcoin that bring us back full circle to the very problems it was trying to solve.

Bitcoin maxis have no exclusive claim over Nostr. We're staying right here😘

What is your opinon on Prime for scaling Bitcoin? (client side validation)

Seems like an interesting idea for scalability + privacy

Exactly.

Fixed emission > fixed supply for long term blockchain security.

Gold doesn't stop working or threaten it's security if people stopped mining it. Unlike Bitcoin.

Value is subjective. You would think a bitcoiner would know this. So it's weird for you to make such an objective statement as if it is fact.

Bitcoin controls the supply side of the equation. It can never control the capricious demand side.

Second, using "infinite vs finite" supply to define value is clearly not true. All resources in the universe are virtually limitless given more time, but still have value. We've been mining gold for thousands of years. Does gold have no value?

What is important is that the creation is not arbitrary and ideally predictable (unlike fiat). Using Monero's time hardcap as an example is 0.6 XMR every 2 minutes.

And I'm not even touching on the value of an L1 MoE that has real world fungibility and privacy combined with progressively cheaper transactions (without giving up core value props)...utility that bitcoin lacks.

https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook/blob/develop/16_security_privacy_ln.asciidoc#attacks-on-lightning

"We identified 27,183 private channels, discovered hidden balances, and showed how a passive adversary can infer payment endpoints with very high probability."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.12470.pdf