Idk what a hebmean modem is but unless their modems restrict Mac addresses to their specific router then there's no reason you can't use your own router without double NATing.
In the worst case scenario, they require you use their own router modem gateway, you're way better off still using your own OpenWRT router and taking the slight double NAT performance hit for the gain in LAN and firewall security.
Its still horrible, dangerous advice. Like laughably bad pretty shocking to me.
"Cypherpunk" advising using proprietary spyware for your router instead of FOSS alternatives. Extremely dangerous advice from a place of complete ignorance and negligence. What a joke.
Horrible advice your ISP's router is insecure, proprietary spyware. You do NOT want anything untrusted on your local network, let alone your router. Use an OpenWRT router like the OpenWRT One. OpenWRT is free and open source software. No spyware, always up to date, and extremely customizable. Add opnsense if you need more firewall computing power, but that's it.
More space nonsense. Space has to be the biggest psyop in modern history. Something that effects the daily life of literally nobody but demands billions in military industrial complex funding to sustain its research and exploration.
Tail emission basically completely resolves security budget issues. Monero has been at its end of its emission curve for a while now. It's been proposed for Bitcoin but was never adopted because the 21 million meme is held to the standard of religious dogma.
No L2 scaling yet bus is unneeded for now. Main things devs are focusing on are FCMP++ next year then quantum according to Jeffro.
Monero being delisted and niche makes social attacks much less of a threat than the banking cartel controlled Bitcoin or Ethereum.
For decentralization you don't want nodes to be up on a laptop you need consistent uptime to contribute properly to the network. Otherwise it's leeching. Same for the NAT environment, laptop nodes are often using public wifi and such away from home which will have incoming connections blocked. An open p2p port on an always on computer is ideal. In that environment, getting large storage is inexpensive and a minor hindrance.
We don't need every light client running a node, just more non malicious IPv4 addresses running nodes than malicious ones. Monero already has a strong culture of node running since you gain network level privacy via Dandelion++ using your own node. With bitcoin you don't gain much since there's no dandelion stem on bitcoind, though its been proposed in the past.
Node running will never be normie friendly unless it's a dedicated pay and play device. In that case storage doesn't matter, once again, since HDD space is cheap. Upload bandwidth and CPU validation isn't cheap though so that's really the danger imo with scaling.
Also Monero isn't designed for nor is trying to be a mass adoption network where everyone's using it for every transaction across the globe. Bitcoin L1 certainly isn't either. Lightning self custodial + decentralized is still DOA with terrible recieving UX and expensive fees for LSP solutions like Zeus and Pheonix. Lightning currently STILL needs to make make custodianship or centralization concessions for UX even remotely comparable to Apple Pay or Venmo.
I think lightning is the best thing to come out of Bitcoin is 10 years though and hope there can be a holy grail solution created so monero can adopt it. It could very well still be possible.
https://monero.observer/monero-v0.18.4.3-fluorine-fermi-released/
Second latest update severely limits /24 subnet connections.
Yeah tx sizes are big, blocks are adaptable in size to compensate. This isn't an issue for storage as much as it is for bandwidth and validation CPU time in my opinion. I went into detail more in my other comment.
You're right about bandwidth that's the major concern. FCMP does make that worse, there will certainly be a time in the future when a scaling solution will need to be invented. I disagree time to download the blockchain will matter much its already multiple days, not much difference to add more days at that point IMO. Plus it's one and done.
I disagree that Tor nodes help much for decentralization. Mostly they're for client privacy. It makes it too easy to spin up thousands of unique looking onion addresses if your node is malicious. It used to be officially supported to open up the p2p port for onion addresses now it's just used for relaying transactions over hidden services https://docs.getmonero.org/running-node/monerod-tori2p/
The key to node decentralization is to make it difficult for malicious entities to spin up thousands. Ipv4 only and limited reselection of /24 subnets is huge for this https://monero.observer/monero-v0.18.4.3-fluorine-fermi-released/ this is much more effective than trying to limit block sizes to hopefully get more normal people running nodes.
Also mining centralization is the most dangerous centralization force for a L1 which we've obviously seen recently with the Qubic attack. P2pool adoption is pretty high at around 5% hopefully this increases. Node decentralization is inconsequential tot he attacks of mining centralization.
Yes. nostr:npub1lnms53w04qt742qnhxag5d6awy7nz6055flnmjkr6jg39hm86dlq7arrnt said "limited" not fixed silly.
For most its a consumerist cope. It's a way to try to sate the never ending desire for more material things under the guise of "protection" or "preparedness".
Scaling on layer one is awesome. It's the highest degree of security and easiest to use. It should be maximized. Storage is simply the cheapest component of computing. The real limiting factors for node running is processing power (cryptographic validations of FCMP++ transactions will become more difficult) and upload bandwidth (most residential ISPs still offer asymmetric upload speeds which are quite slow.
You can buy like 20tb of HDD space for a few hundred bucks, storage isn't an issue.
Bruh how do you think I got to Monero? I used Bitcoin on-chain and lightning extensively while also studying opsec. Doesn't take much time fighting the Bitcoin protocol to realize that there are better solutions that are easier and superior for transacting privately.
Pretty much all of us started out as bitcoin maxies.
Scary, man. It's a new age. This is always at the top of my threat model.
It's not a religion dude. Its an application layer internet protocol. Get real. You've not countered any evidence I've cited on this thread. If you want to be taken seriously drop the dogma and engage in an intellectually rigorous manner.
A key aspect of money is fungibility https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/money.asp which Bitcoin lacks due to the bifurcation of "tainted" UTXOs and "clean" UTXOs. Tainted coins can't be used on any exchanges and many merchants won't take them. Gold, cash and monero are all fungible. Every Monero UTXO has no traceable history thus mamingnit as fungible as a gold atom. Privacy is crucial for money.
Yeah man it's kinda sad.
You a day early?
People really gotta do their research on Monero. This blind opposition to it isn't rigorous and leads to embarrassment.
Monero is not money, its wannabe privacy token. Yet is has leaks and some users have been traced and arrested https://moneroleaks.xyz/
Lightning has comparable if not better privacy and is at least real money.
You can't convince me that Monero is money because it had 15+ Hard Forks and changed its algos multiple times. It also had two chain reorg attacks, it near impossible to be audited and has indefinite inflation.
As for Ethereum shitcoin? Its created out of thin air, centralized SLAVERY scam. The fact that fucking shitcoin is trying to integrate itself to Bitcoin does not make it better in any way.
Looked through that link you sent. The ones pertaining to fee fingerprinting are resolved in every wallet I can think of. Most don't even permit custom fees.
For Edge wallet, yeah you share your private view key which links your transactions together. This is an identical privacy tradeoff to Electrum which is a ubiquitous light wallet server used on nearly every Bitcoin wallet. The difference is in Monero only Edge wallet uses it and its well known in the community and in that software the tradeoffs that need to be commited for the enhanced performance.
The main point in that site that is a genuine attack vector is poisoned outputs in the ring signature. See nostr:npub16yesreyely5fkxyvas4xv223w7daf3zmqcrz5dw6yckk3azvrk3qaa90ll s attack of the poisoned outputs series for details on this and how to mitigate https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLk4xsazIq6TZUKDScrxFjhajOKTlHknRx
In summary, any UTXO that came from an exchange should be sent to a private wallet then sent to a new address before spending to add another ring signature between the one with a poisoned output from the exchange. This largely defeats the problem.
There's a major cryptographic upgrade to ring signatures next year called FCMP++ (Full Chain Membership Proofs) which uses ALL past outputs as the anonymity set instead of the current 16. This makes any deanonymization attack via outputs IMPOSSIBLE.
Lightning has incomparable privacy. It relies entirely on network level privacy which is already highly susceptible to timing attacks due to the hub-and-spoke model. Monero has both strong on-chain and network level privacy. Even if Dandelion++ is broken and a transaction is traced to having originated from a particular node, sender, reciever and amount privacy is still preserved. With lightning if a similar, and arguably easier, timing attack is performed than the entire transaction is revealed including amounts, sender and reciever. This is fundamentally weaker privacy and there's no convincing argument or even scenario in which this is stronger. Take that back, if Edge wallet is malicious and you're using Edge wallet (the easiest least private Monero wallet) and comparing that with an LND node spun up on a VPS accessed over Tor, paid in Monero with a node opened up to a smaller onion only peer, with a coinjoined or non-KYC UTXO THEN in this case lightning is better. That's the beat Lightning case and worse Monero case. In ANY OTHER case Monero has vastly better privacy its not comparable. While also being easier to use than Lightning mind you.
Monero does not have a limited supply and there is no guarantee that there is no hidden inflation, so it is not suitable for long-term savings.
In any case, Monero is a privacy tool and is not perfect either.
nostr:nevent1qqsgkjs320fmwja39y5pr9jv677vqpaw6x9mvgv03872c4lr0p78xws9nmumw
Monero does have a limited supply. It's limited to 0.6XMR added per block (average 2min per block) for infinity. This means the rate of supply increase trails asymptotically to 0 over time. This supply increase rate is already lower than gold and will continue to be so forever.
Also consider lost funds, which assuredly are a high chunk of total supply, making this supply increase rate either null or still net negative on total circulating supply.
Is gold not suitable for long term savings? If it is suitable than Monero crushes it with its superior monetary policy.
A limit is not a cap, you can have a programmed tail emission. That's still limited in its supply increase. Saying it doesn't have a limit is straight up deception and it's laughable that you cope about that.
This tail emission is essential for maintaining a low fee environment and high liquidity as the network scales, something that basically killed Bitcoins viability as on-chain cash after the blocksize wars.
Monero currently has no inflation bug: https://www.moneroinflation.com/, same as Bitcoin and no decentralized cryptocurrency project can make any assurance that there won't be in the future. You have to trust the cryptographic verification in either case. With Monero, you have more math obfuscating amounts, but the cryptography behind that is still sound and likely stay so forseeably.
Huh? Nodes are ipv4 only by default with measures in place limit subnet abuse and other means of Sybil attacks. It's assured that the node diversity is higher than in something like Bitcoin that permits incoming Tor connections for p2p connections and doesn't limit subnets or ipv6 only nodes.
For those with more limited network knowledge this lowers the barrier for entry for one entity with control of a client or datacenter to spin up thousands of unique appearing nodes.
Also bitcoins culture is way less "run your own node" focused. I'd posit that a higher percentage of Monero users run their own compared to Bitcoin.
Also, due to dynamic block sizes, monero can sustain orders of magnitude more on-chain activity than Bitcoin before needing a level 2. And lightning is EXTREMELY centralized. Even if used in the most sovereign way with LND behind Tor, you're still dealing with a hub-and-spoke node model which makes timing attacks easier. But regardless almost all volume is through custodians or LSP providers like Phoenix so that point is null.
Am I wrong in any of these counter arguments? If not how then does monero not stay decentralized in scaling? How do you even come up with that claim that's not even the main "monero is a shitcoin" cope.
Yeah I doubt I'd convince him. It's mainly for lurkers who read this and see how irrational his point of view is.