you literally have zero proof T was part of any "sting"
get help
lol
nah
Trump is a narcissistic moron. Certainly also corrupt.
But that's probably it. In todays politcal climate that has a certain innocence.
But don't be confused,
he doesn't care about you or anyone else either.
You're describing the hash war phase. The network will not work as advertised, but only for a certain period of time until either the state or the market capitulate. Here watch this: https://youtu.be/X_xgmVLyB94?si=UhSN5Cmjzbk9Tyvs
Right. As I said, its a legitimate threat until we get to that phase.
It's another front of state KYC/AML laws designed to undermine bitcoins censorship resistant properties.
And they're being generally successful.
Until there is public, determined competition between nation states for domination of the mining space its a very real threat.
The US is *quite* adept at leveraging its position in even hostile jurisdictions. There is no place on earth that both 1,takes bitcoin seriously enough and 2,hates the US enough that miners can feel secure enough to bring large hash online there.
And of course, one jurisdiction isn't enough. We need many.
So tbh, it's stupid to dismiss that attack vector.
Sure you'll probably still be able to eventually get your tx mined.
But the network will NOT function as advertised.
you can also make the argument that bitcoin ASIC centralization undermines the purpose of defeating state actors and central banks
And you TRUST someone elses code to verify your supply for you retard.
despite it being a transparent asset.
you're just too much of an idiot to realize you ALSO don't have 100% guarantee of supply
You're too much of a moron to understand what either I or Snowden are talking about.
Or how moneros cryptographic security is *at-least* as reliable as cryptographic assumptions you are ALREADY trusting.
have fun staying ignorant.
That would be intellectually inconsistent except I never complained about zk proofs. I don’t even know what that is lmao all I’ve said so far is that I’ve seen my tx inputs and outputs balance out. I have firsthand experience of supply soundness in Bitcoin with my transactions. Anyone could also just do a simple sum of all the addresses in bitcoin at any time. I can’t do that with monero. There is no need to check every single transaction when you can just sum the total supply at any given moment.
So nostr:npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2 is not technically wrong when he says that monero zero proofs or whatever requires you to trust that it works. And you can argue that other cryptographic properties in bitcoin require trust too. And that’s correct but that trust is not built on my understanding of complex software. It’s built on time and actual firsthand experience. I understand how they work and trust it because it has earned my trust. No amount of firsthand experience can change the supply soundness flaw in monero. And average sheeple are not going to magically start giving a shit about their privacy anytime soon. So I’ll take the supply soundness and practice privacy using tools like pay join and ecash.
Its perfectly normal to place trust in 3rd parties. nobody has the time to become an expert in everything and then personally audit all this stuff.
A big part of learning is ADMITTING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.
Its fine (ie, reasonable to me) to *trust* the ECDSA implementation in bitcoin. Obviously I do it too.
But it's retarted to trust ECDSA (without reflection or understanding) but then refuse to examine *other* well-established cryptographic primitives.
because reasons.
usually those reasons are "Team Bitcoin doesn't approve of those specific cryptographic primitives and Im a good team player. Look at my cool laser eyes."
You don't understand Pedersen commitments or know what zero-knowledge proofs are? You don't trust me when I say their probably *at-least* as reliable as the ECDSA sceme you're ALREADY trusting?
Fine, just say "i don't know or care and Im not going to look into it." At least that's intellectually honest.
Or just "I'm a moron and I trust what a block explorer tells me."
Everybody has to eventually place trust somewhere. But that doesn't mean you should shave your head and join the cult.
The absolute state of the bitcoin community
smdh
I have not moved any goalposts.
Just continued to call out your obvious inconsistencies.
You are the one changing the subject, not I.
if you dont have the ability to actually reflect on your fundamental assumptions you are a waste of time.
point is
you demand proof from me,
but trust other "maxis."
WITHOUT understanding or DYOR on *either* of the cryptographic primitives involved.
it is intellectually inconsistent and you arent a cypherpunk or a true bitcoiner.
just a team player unwilling to make the effort of critical thinking.
have a nice day.
You can always tell when a maxi has lost all actual fact-based argument.
Because they pull out a fiat chart of relative speculative value as if it was meaningful.
lol ok
You have no evidence your private key is the only key that can spend a utxo.
This property of bitcoin depends on the ECDSA encryption it uses being mathematically sound and the implementation being correctly coded
YOU *TRUST* THE BITCOIN COMMUNITY WHEN THEY TELL YOU THIS IS SO.
YOU ARE ALREADY RELYING ON CRYPTOGRAPHIC PRIMITIVES YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.
YOU JUST REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
"I trust bitcoin because it's transparent and don't understand math"
i think we can safely disregard your opinion.
By the EXACT same logic
you cant trust ECDSA to ensure that only your private keys can spend your utxos.
But you do.
Your whole argument is just
"I trust Team Bitcoin when they say ECDSA is secure.
But I don't trust Team Monero when they say range proofs are secure.
I don't DYOR.
I don't verify.
I just follow the prevalent groupthink of the team I like."
Frankly, you're a sorryass Bitcoiner.
Again, that is incorrect.
You trust ECDSA to secure your utxos and ensure only your private key can reassign them.
There is no plausible reason to trust ECDSA but mistrust Pedersen commitments.
That would be intellectually inconsistent except I never complained about zk proofs. I don’t even know what that is lmao all I’ve said so far is that I’ve seen my tx inputs and outputs balance out. I have firsthand experience of supply soundness in Bitcoin with my transactions. Anyone could also just do a simple sum of all the addresses in bitcoin at any time. I can’t do that with monero. There is no need to check every single transaction when you can just sum the total supply at any given moment.
So nostr:npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2 is not technically wrong when he says that monero zero proofs or whatever requires you to trust that it works. And you can argue that other cryptographic properties in bitcoin require trust too. And that’s correct but that trust is not built on my understanding of complex software. It’s built on time and actual firsthand experience. I understand how they work and trust it because it has earned my trust. No amount of firsthand experience can change the supply soundness flaw in monero. And average sheeple are not going to magically start giving a shit about their privacy anytime soon. So I’ll take the supply soundness and practice privacy using tools like pay join and ecash.
maxis are racist against zero knowledge proofs
This is just incorrect.
ECDSA was not standardized until 2005.
Relying on ECDSA without question but being suspicious of Pedersen committments is weird and arbitrary.
Nobody is arguing that napkin math isnt a sounder guarantee.
But it is intellectually inconsistent to bitch about ZK proofs when you are ALREADY trusting cryptographic primitives that are more complex.