pull down to refresh
121 sats \ 17 replies \ @fiatbad 6 Feb \ on: Monero territory monero
Digital scarcity becomes worthless if we allow ourselves to value anything outside of the 21 Million Sats in Bitcoin. By adding Monero, you just devalue yourself.
That said, I can respect people who believe a different digital scarcity is "better" than Bitcoin. For example, B-Cashers who own zero BTC. This group makes more sense than someone owning BTC alongside XMR.
There are tradeoffs to everything. BTC makes tradeoffs in order to be the best at what it does. This means we have to live with some negatives.... we should NOT go off and "have-our-cake-and-eat-it-to". You find a way to make Bitcoin work for you.
Don't own two different digital-scarcity tokens, and don't support others who do either. Pick one, and die on that hill. If you want to pick XMR, fine. I respect that choice. But if you own BTC "just in case" also, then you're being disingenuous and lack virtue.
reply
People forget that 'privacy' is the sum of both on-chain and off-chain privacy.
Can't have one without the other, and real meat-space flesh-and-blood privacy is at-least as important as on-chain and equally as multi-faceted.
And in addition to that, the privacy of the overall electronics really matters too, because the 'base' internet wasn't built with privacy in mind neither cell-phones.
I have yet, really seen any use-case or set of circumstances where Monero shines taking into account privacy in the 'real-world' involving real purchases and transactions. There is so much more to privacy that just whether it appears in a 'block-explorer' and the anonymity set (tiny for monero) is really crucial.
reply
Regarding your "privacy is the sum of both on-chain and off-chain privacy" comment - you're actually making the case for Monero here. Bitcoin's transparent ledger means your privacy depends entirely on perfect off-chain practices. One mistake and your entire financial history is exposed forever.
Real-world use cases for Monero are abundant - it's literally replacing Bitcoin on darknet markets because Bitcoin's traceability has led to arrests. This isn't theoretical - the FBI, Europol and other agencies have successfully traced Bitcoin transactions while failing to trace Monero.
Your point about "meat-space privacy" with cameras everywhere misses something crucial: financial surveillance isn't just about physical spaces. When you use Bitcoin, you broadcast your entire financial history to anyone who cares to look. Your balance, spending habits, and financial connections become public knowledge.
The "anonymity set" in Monero isn't "tiny" - it grows with every transaction through ring signatures, stealth addresses, and RingCT. These features work together to ensure that no one can determine who sent what to whom or how much was sent.
The fact that government agencies have put bounties on breaking Monero's privacy while successfully tracing Bitcoin transactions should tell you everything you need to know about which one actually works for privacy.
reply
One mistake and your entire financial history is exposed forever.
I... don't really agree with that.
If you have 'one Bitcoin' today and pay with it for a small item (a stick of gum or a cup of coffee for example) then sure yes I guess you are revealing your financial history in the process. The 'change' amount etc etc + on-chain history.
But Bitcoin isn't designed to be used that way. Otherwise every transaction can and will be traced to every other transaction, potentially for a set of users.
Base layer Bitcoin really isn't practical for small transactions, or even day-to-day transactions because it takes several 'blocks' to get enough confirmations, which is time consuming and the fees while low now will most likely rise significantly as utilization and education increases.
How i envision using Bitcoin (and how I've used it in person) is almost entirely through Lightning. Open the Lightning channel (preferably after a coinjoin) using a 'node on a phone' and go spend. Sending privacy on Lightning is very good... and with tools like wrapped invoices, LNAddress, Bolt 12 so is the receiver privacy if used intelligently.
That way the fees are much, much less than 'on-chain' the transactions are instantaneous, and the privacy is much improved there is no 'blockchain' of Lightning transactions at all... maybe the opening and closing transactions but after that?
I made this post for a trip-report after a visit to Lugano, Switzerland spending Bitcoin-Lightning wherever I could... and it worked great. I used my own node and channels I opened and it did everything it was supposed to. I wanted to make sure I wasn't blowing smoke... and that lightning 'actually worked' in the real world.
reply
Your comment misses the fundamental issue with Lightning's privacy model.
Yes, if you use Lightning perfectly - with your own node, after a coinjoin, with wrapped invoices, LNAddress, Bolt 12, etc. - you can achieve decent privacy. But this requires expert-level knowledge and perfect execution every time.
The problem is that Lightning's privacy is bolted on as an afterthought, not built into the protocol. Your opening and closing transactions are still permanently recorded on Bitcoin's transparent ledger, creating immutable fingerprints that link to your financial history.
Lightning Network's total capacity is only ~5,000 BTC - that's just 0.002% of Bitcoin's total supply. This makes it completely inadequate for large-scale private transactions. For context, the Lazarus hack alone was ~15,000 BTC worth - the entire Lightning Network couldn't handle even a third of that.
You're right that base layer Bitcoin isn't practical for small transactions - that's why Lightning exists. But this creates a multi-layered privacy approach where you must maintain perfect operational security at every layer or risk complete exposure.
With Monero, privacy isn't optional or dependent on perfect user behavior - it's mandatory at the protocol level. One transaction, one set of privacy guarantees, regardless of user expertise.
Your anecdote about using Lightning in Lugano is great, but it doesn't address the fundamental privacy weakness - that Lightning channels are anchored to a transparent blockchain. And many people open these channels with KYC bitcoin using services like Strike or Cashapp...
reply
"Yes, if you use Lightning perfectly - with your own node, after a coinjoin, with wrapped invoices, LNAddress, Bolt 12, etc. - you can achieve decent privacy. But this requires expert-level knowledge and perfect execution every time."
I agree with this completely, the level of study and curiosity... required to get all the moving parts right and manage privacy-risk is considerable. Lots of different technologies and techniques and it takes some 'looking' to find all the resources.
This is going to sound controversial... so bear with me. But I don't think that completely untraceable transactions for everyone for everything everywhere is what makes the world a better place. Transactions that are very private especially if conducted carefully is one thing. Every transaction completely private without exception... it seems to me it keeps the door wide-open for abuse or crime JUST my opinion.
I absolutely do NOT agree with the KYC requirements at most/all exchanges... but I think that's more about slowing Bitcoin's adoption as money threatening the dollar or Euro, rather than how or if the governments care how you spend. For any of this stuff to grow mainstream, we need tax reform on daily purchases and at that point Bitcoin is stronger money and capital and more private if used carefully... although it's not perfectly private.
Our legacy financial transactions are transparent to government if they look/get a search warrant for example and they are transparent to 3rd parties anyway. Bitcoin is an improvement already.
There is no way Lightning could handle that many BTC all at once. That's like 1.5 Billion? We would need way more users, liquidity and education about Lightning to get that big. I'm not sure that expectation is reasonable yet... considering the relatively few number of people who have even used Lightning.
As far as 'perfect privacy'... correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to run a Monero node anyway to be private?
I don't really see it. I understand what you mean, it just doesn't hold water to me.
Is the Dollar less valuable (ignoring that it is ultimately worth 0 for a minute) because people use Yen in Japan? Yes, actually, if people used Dollars in Japan it would be more expensive because of demand. But that doesn't mean it is undervalued. That means organic demand sets it's price (to the degree that can be true with a fiat currency). A money that has artificially created demand is overvalued.
And that's all it is, price discovery. Demand for Bitcoin will be what it will be, demand for whatever else will be what it will be. Refusing to use things that are useful in your life reduces value to you, and hoping that people choose to do that is a futile endeavor. It's not having your cake and eating it too, its using what's available to you as needed. We should do that. I shouldn't force myself to live with negatives I don't like. It's my capital. There's nothing virtuous about hamstringing yourself.
reply
That's a good position I've never heard before and it does make sense, I own both but that's to provide liquidity, I can create offers on robosats or retoswap and generate yield while the market participants need on-ramps and off-ramps to move from one asset to the other
reply
It's difficult enough to find places to spend Bitcoin, vendors and merchants who know enough about it to accept it and for good reason.
Adding Monero into the mix... honestly it just feels like a lost-cause. As far as i can tell, the liquidity is poor, name-brand is anemic (people have never heard of it, education about Bitcoin is hard enough already) and at the end of the day anonymity-set in the "real world" matters a tremendous amount.
If you're that "one" person "paying with Monero" at the gas station (or other location where you want privacy?) how on Earth is it going to be private? In the real world there are cameras everywhere.
reply
Your "lost cause" argument misses what's actually happening in the market. Monero is actively replacing Bitcoin in environments where privacy matters - not because of marketing, but because of necessity.
The "cameras everywhere" point fundamentally misunderstands financial privacy. Physical surveillance is one thing, but Bitcoin exposes your entire financial history to anyone with an internet connection. With Monero, your transaction history remains private regardless of physical surveillance.
Monero's anonymity set isn't static - it compounds over time as your outputs appear as decoys in other transactions. Each ring signature increases the statistical uncertainty about which outputs are being spent.
This isn't theoretical - government agencies have placed bounties specifically on breaking Monero's privacy while successfully tracing Bitcoin. The IRS paid $625,000 to crack Monero and failed, while Bitcoin users continue to be prosecuted through chain analysis.
The "nobody's heard of it" argument actually highlights Monero's value proposition. Not everyone wants their financial activities broadcast publicly. As regulatory pressure increases on transparent blockchains, Monero's true fungibility becomes increasingly essential.
reply
Would you ever use cash to buy something privately despite the fact that the dollar is going to zero against bitcoin? Of course you would. Use monero is no different except it's digital cash. You can hold bitcoin and spend monero.