This is a great response, and thank you for taking the time to do it!
I'm in agreeement with you on just about everything you mention. Just some points to your comment:
I know that much of the Monero community likes to tout the functionality of Monero as obviating the need for an L2, but I disagree and think we will want (and then need) an L2 sooner rather than later, even if just for the ephemerality of transactions that it provides, scaling aside.
Hopefully this doesn't turn into (a) a never-ending dream like Ethereum's PoS or (b) a contentious hard-fork splitting XMR.
In this scenario Bitcoin simply couldn't handle the transaction load anyways, so I'm not sure the argument has weight. Bitcoin is already hard-capped on throughput many days, so this nightmare scenario for on-chain usage is somewhat pointless as a comparison.
Not at the base layer, of course not. However, Bitcoin has already begun scaling in layers and LN could theoretically handle this throughput. Maybe I should have specifically called out that Bitcoin would utilized layered scaling while Monero (currently) couldn't.
I couldn't let this slide, as this is an absolutely abysmal way to end what was a legitimately excellent critique and set of thoughts around Monero. The idea of laughing at people for being poor as some supposed incentive to pull Monero users "over to Bitcoin" is one of the many reasons I find the Bitcoin community at-large repulsive.
You left out the ", privately"! This comes down to fundamentally understanding Bitcoin as a money rather than a technology, which is how I imagine most Monero fans see the two networks. When it comes to storing value for a long period of time, you need to do this in the hardest asset possible, regardless if you think the tech of another asset is better. The harder asset is unquestionably Bitcoin when compared to Monero. If you choose to store your wealth in XMR, you are losing value to Bitcoin over time, simple as that.
If you choose to store your wealth in XMR, you are losing value to Bitcoin over time, simple as that.
The longer the tail emission goes, the less the inflation is. The benefit is security of the network.
Arguably Bitcoin will be much more prone to volatility because the hard cap is unprecedented in the history of money (remember that nobody knows how much gold exists, but we can predict some rate at which it is unearthed).
Manipulation, panic, hoarding is much easier with a hard cap, just from a human psychology perspective. Constant emission is predictable and cozy in comparison.
reply
The benefit is security of the network.
No one can say this with certainty for another decade or so, when we'll start to really find out if the fee market on Bitcoin is enough to make up for a significantly smaller block subsidy.
reply