pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 7 replies \ @expatriotic OP 7 Feb \ parent \ on: Monero territory monero
That's not the point though. The point regarding fungibility is NOT whether you CAN get someone to accept it. It is regarding the traceability of bitcoins.
That yes, I CAN see it's history.
I don't use exchanges either. And I mine bitcoins... So it's not an issue for me. The point I'm making is that monero is different in character. Even IF you had gotten it from an exchange, or terrorist, none of that would be clear to someone observing the chain.
If on-chain, you feel traceability is an issue for your utxos, then use coinjoins.
From my perspective at the protocol level it is fungible. A value in can later be converted as a value out. When people play with Bitcoin to search for "rare" coins, there are just adding new rules which are not on Bitcoin but exist in their world.
Similarly even if banknotes have identifiers and hence can be traced this doesn't undermine it's fungibility, since in the real world nobody care in most cases.
Fungibility issues may be raised among Monero people, but IMHO it is a weak argument. As a criticism UX of Lightning is more convincing (still LN UX gradually improves over time).
reply
I agree with this.
reply
Paying for fungibility via coinjoining which Samourai Wallet devs have literally been indicted for by the US DoJ seems silly when monero has this by default...
And in a high miner fee environment it's even worse.
reply
Monero has been de-listed from almost every exchange... so the lack of 'fungibility' Monero people attest to isn't a 'Bitcoin' problem.
It is a governance and educational problem.
If Bitcoins are coinjoined and the exchange won't 'accept' them, then the same exchange probably won't accept Monero at all because every Monero transaction is coinjoin-like. And if the 'history of Coinjoins' is an issue for that exchange, then using Monero isn't a solution as it won't be accepted anyway.
As far as the fee-issue is concerned, Blockchains don't scale on-chain. Any blockchain sufficiently used while remaining compact enough for regular people to run nodes will require off-chain scaling and 'higher fees' will result during 'high usage'.
Those fees, however, will still be less than a cup-of-coffee and vastly cheaper and more efficient than traditional finance, especially considering the disinflationary qualities of Bitcoin.
In short, off-chain scaling was always going to be required and that's why Lightning is so remarkable, and in my opinion overall works very well.
reply
On Monero's exchange delisting - This isn't about fungibility problems with Monero, it's about regulatory pressure. Exchanges don't delist Monero because it doesn't work; they delist it because it works too well. The privacy features that make Monero truly fungible are precisely what regulators find threatening.
The "coinjoin-like" comparison misses the mark completely. Monero's privacy isn't an optional add-on like coinjoin for Bitcoin - it's baked into the protocol with ring signatures, stealth addresses, and RingCT. These work together to ensure that every transaction is private by default. You can't "reject" Monero transactions for being private the same way some exchanges might flag coinjoined Bitcoin - with Monero, privacy is the default state.
Regarding scaling and fees - yes, all blockchains face scaling challenges, but Monero's dynamic block size actually adapts to network demand, unlike Bitcoin's fixed size that necessitated Lightning. Monero's fees have historically remained much lower during congestion periods, making it more practical for everyday use.
As for Lightning Network being "remarkable" - it's an interesting solution but introduces its own problems with channel management, liquidity constraints, and routing complexities. Monero's approach of handling transactions on-chain with built-in privacy and reasonable fees is simply more straightforward.
reply
I see your point, but can't agree as at the protocol level there is fungibility. There is no difference between the numbers in inputs and outputs. People may interpret these numbers as rare satoshis but these are rules not related to Bitcoin.
A higher miner fee environment is a better argument IMHO. But then we will have tools using payjoin, Ark, etc to batch payments and add privacy on top of Bitcoin.
reply
Fungibility is a spectrum. Monero has is full stop. Bitcoin... Sure, it's debatable since you're clearing debating it.
reply