pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @028559d218 10 Mar \ on: Monero Explained monero
No Premine: Monero did not have a pre-mine or instant mine, promoting a fair launch where coins were distributed equitably from day one.
  • If the transactions are 'untraceable'... how do we know the coin had a 'fair launch?'
    Layer One Privacy: Monero integrates privacy at the protocal layer, meaning all transactions are private by default, not merely an opt-in feature or dependent upon a second layer.
  • Private assuming the user uses their own node... not to mention TOR and or a VPN (and my understanding is that a good VPN is better).
    Fungibility: All Monero coins are indistinguishable from one another, ensuring true fungibility. This means you don't have to worry about the "taint" from previous transactions, as each coin carries no history.
  • This isn't true. Let me explain: If the exchange sees that the Monero was 'coinjoined' (and basically every Monero transaction is a coinjoin) they won't accept it. Monero doesn't solve the 'taint' issue from Coinjoins, as all Monero is effectively tainted and that's why many exchanges don't accept it.
    Confidential Amounts: Transaction amounts are obfuscated to thwart tracing by amount.
  • In the real world however... if you know the transaction amount occurred at that 'point of sale' at 'that time' (being on video in a certain location at that point-of-sale terminal, for example at a gas station or grocery...) how is the 'amount' hidden?
  • It's true that the UTXO 'input' size might be hidden... but isn't it possible to correlate a transaction with a real-world timestamp?
    Dynamic Blocksize: Transaction volume is not restriced by an arbitrary cap, ensuring your transactions are processed quickly and inexpensively.
  • Transactions cannot be processed "inexpensively" indefinitely... if there's real demand for the blockchain. Eventually transactions get more expensive... and/or the block-size increases requiring more hard-drive space to run a node. And if the block-size changes too much the healthy fee-market never develops.
    User Experience: Monero offers an intuitive user experience where privacy features are automatic, requiring no extra configurations or knowledge.
  • Except use TOR. And use a VPN. And don't use a Sim card (otherwise your phone's IMEI may be traced to you by cell towers) and stay on airplane mode at all times...
  • And stay off of public wifi (unless you're on a VPN) and make sure to pay for the VPN in a non-kyc way.
  • And your access code or password (for the VPN) make sure that doesn't get leaked or compromised either because if it is everything else is for naught. Doesn't this mean that privacy is a little more complicated?
    Wide Acceptance: It's accepted by many online vendors due to its privacy and fungibility, offering users a practical option for transactions where privacy is paramount.
  • I'm not sure I believe this so let me explain. I believe the best, most liquid most useable crypto-to-goods-and-services platform is bitrefill which doesn't take Monero.
  • Proton (which recently introduced a Bitcoin wallet) doesn't accept Monero either.
  • So I'm not sure which online vendors you're referring to... unless it's DNM but if you don't want to buy drugs then... ?
  • And if you need 'absolute privacy' why not just be a "Lightning Sender" over a non-kyc node-on-a-phone, using a VPN with LN-proxy? Isn't that really good privacy?
    Cost-Effective Transactions: Monero's transaction fees are typically lower than many alternatives, making it appealing for users mindful of costs.
  • There's no free lunch. Bitcoin's costs are low too right now (usually 1 sat/vb) and the more users the higher the cost (for both XMR and BTC).
    Stealth Addresses: Monero employs stealth addresses to cloak the transaction's destination, ensuring that the receiver's wallet address remains private.
  • I agree with this - Bitcoin would benefit tremendously from stealth addresses. Only a few wallets support them (wasabi?) and they would benefit everyone if well-implemented.
    Ring Signatures: Each Monero transaction is obscured within a group of others, making it nearly impossible to trace the true source or destination of funds. Because this is a weak point in Moneros default privacy, this is being improved to include every transaction that has ever occurred rather than just hiding in a crowd of 16.
  • Which, as I understand it, requires a hard-fork complicating the chain and its usage among individuals and exchanges. You can't just 'not update' after a hardfork (otherwise you're not using the "official" monero) and from reading r/monero what I gather is the hardfork update may be years away and noone knows when. This seems problematic to me yes it may be more private but there are real tradeoffs.
    ASIC-Resistant PoW: By using Cryptonight, Monero's Proof of Work is designed to be resistant to ASICs, encouraging mining with general-purpose hardware and supporting decentralization.
  • How do we know the number of Monero-pools? How do we know if they're centralized or not? Furthermore if any CPU can be used to mine... couldn't a large number of CPUs come online at any time to potentially 'attack' the chain? Would the users know enough, at the right time, to 'defend' it?
    Open-Source Development: Monero benefits from over 240 developer contributions, funded by community donations, ensuring transparency and community involvement.
  • With all due diligence... r/monero has been somewhat negative on developer progress. Not to mention there was a substantial 'hack' of developer funds or donations??? Does that call into the issue of transparency, some r/monero are still really upset about it.
    Network Invisibility: Monero's Kovri project encrypts and routes transactions through the I2P Invisible Internet Project nodes to protect your from network monitoring.
  • Is that available for Bitcoin too? Does it currently exist or is it still in development?
    Store of Value: While not as widely recognized for its value retention as Bitcoin, Monero's focus on privacy means users gain genuine utility rather than speculative value.
  • I'm not sure that 'store of value' can be so easily separated from utility. Case in point... Lightning. If the 'number goes up' the same number of sats in a Lightning channel (for example acquired privately) now have more 'purchasing power', effectively increasing the liquidity of the channel. Also there's just more utility in using something 'more valuable'.
  • Something you didn't address that I can't get a concrete answer on... is the possibility of an 'inflation bug'. I'm not saying there is one (maybe there isn't) but isn't Monero much harder to verify the supply of at any one time?
  • More than anything else this gives me pause with regard to Monero's potential as "global money"... because if traders businesses and savers can't have 100% complete and total confidence in the supply remaining transparent... will anyone trust it? When the price is "really volatile" (like Bitcoin's) isn't the transparency of supply especially important?
  • If the supply were ever manipulated why would the hacker expose the exploit and would it be detected?
Honest questions.
write
preview
this territory is moderated
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @expatriotic OP 11 Mar
This comment is a classic example of someone throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Let me address the key points:
  1. "How do we know Monero had a fair launch if it's untraceable?" - The launch was publicly verifiable. The blockchain was transparent at genesis and the code was open source from day one.
  2. Your "you need your own node, TOR, VPN" argument misses the point. With Bitcoin, even with all those tools, your transactions are still visible on-chain. With Monero, privacy is built-in.
  3. Your "all Monero is tainted" argument is backwards logic. When all coins are private, none are discriminated against - that's the definition of fungibility. Some exchanges don't list Monero because of regulatory pressure, not technical issues.
  4. The point-of-sale correlation attack you describe would work against ANY cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin. The difference is with Bitcoin, they'd also see your entire transaction history.
  5. Your dynamic blocksize criticism ignores that this is a deliberate design choice to balance fees and throughput.
  6. "Wide acceptance" - There are numerous Monero-accepting merchants and services. Just because Bitrefill doesn't accept it doesn't invalidate the hundreds that do.
  7. The "inflation bug" concern is theoretical and applies to Bitcoin too - both require trusting the code. Monero's supply is verifiable through other means.
  8. Your hard fork comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Monero upgrades work. The network upgrades are scheduled and coordinated, not chaotic.
I could go on, but most of these criticisms apply equally or more severely to Bitcoin, while ignoring Monero's fundamental privacy advantages.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 11 Mar
Thank you for your comment.
Let me speak to some of what you said... understanding that I approach this conversation in seriously good faith.
I have spent 'hours' on r/Monero reading and looking, searching, asking questions (rhetorically of course I don't have a Reddit account) and none of the issues that you've brought up are actually getting addressed.
Bitcoin transactions are not visible on chain. I use Lightning every single day, and my Lightning transactions aren't visible not to mention I can open new 'Lightning nodes' on a phone that's a brand new node pretty quickly?
It's not that 'monero is tainted'... it's that governments don't accept 'coinjoined' coins to include Monero in many cases. No it's not a technical issue it's a regulatory one. Having said that... even if a 'coin is tainted' you can still open a Lightning channel with it, and send from it with excellent privacy to an exchange and the exchange has no idea what the sending node is, or the channel-opening UTXO if you're the sender.
No this may not be "perfect" but it's faster and cheaper than on-chain anything.
When you pay with Lightning... how do they see your transaction history?
I don't agree with the 'tail emission' of Monero. Why? Because it sounds like there was little/no incentive for the miners to 'keep mining' and so the 'tail emission' was added later.... to make sure the miners continued in the absence of a dynamic fee market?
I don't deny that Monero is used in DNMs... I just have no interest in them. I'm interested in regular commerce and saving, plus buying gift cards to the extent available to pay for occasional day-to-day expenses. How many coffee shops, bars, and restaurants accept Monero in Europe? I mean I guess its some... but it's hard enough to get them to accept Bitcoin introducing them to something else would confuse them even more.
As far as an 'inflation bug' I need to do more research on this. However I have every reason to believe that Bitcoin's supply is easily verified through command-line. Monero's? Even the people on r/Monero aren't sure when they get to talking about it.
As far as hard forks are concerned... there are comments on r/Monero about how slow/uneven/uncoordinated the planned upgrades and hardforks are. When they take place... what they entail... and even who's doing them? Do i want Bitcoin which is super hard to change to store wealth... or something which is planning on 'changing' to try to onboard merchants where they have to contend with a hard fork?
I personally believe that privacy is more nuanced... and when and if Monero gets the 'hard fork' plus something like Lightning I'll be interested. However those things don't exist yet.
After all, just from a practical standpoint, how am i to send 5 sats worth or the equivalent with Monero instantly like I can on Stacker News?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @expatriotic OP 11 Mar
FYI - https://www.moneroinflation.com/
Lightning transactions may be private, but they're anchored to Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. Every channel opening and closing transaction is permanently visible, creating immutable fingerprints that can be analyzed. With Monero, privacy exists at the protocol level - there's no transparent base layer to compromise your privacy.
You mention creating new Lightning nodes on phones, but this glosses over the technical complexity required to do this securely. Most people use KYC versions of the LN or custiodial due to UX issues with the LN. Monero's privacy works automatically without requiring expert knowledge of channel management, routing, and proper node configuration.
The distinction between exchanges rejecting Monero for "regulatory reasons" rather than "technical issues" actually proves Monero's effectiveness. Regulators pressure exchanges precisely because Monero's privacy works too well to be easily surveilled.
When you pay with Lightning, your channel opening/closing transactions are visible on-chain. Chain analysis can link these to your identity, especially if you've ever used KYC services. With enough data points, your Lightning privacy can be compromised. Not to mention that if LN was a perfect privacy solution, I think it would be getting attacked more like Monero getting the boot from a lot of exchanges (the bounty to crack it) and the Samourai Wallet devs and Tornado devs. When it REALLY works, they come for you.
This wasn't "added later" - it was part of Monero's original design to ensure long-term security. Bitcoin faces a potential security cliff when block rewards diminish and must rely solely on transaction fees. And Monero is STILL deflationary because even with a tail supply, the percentage that that tail represents compared to the total will keep declining. And it helps to replace coins that were lost due to entropy such as people losing access... I've heard really fascinating arguments about the tail of Monero vs Bitcoins hard stop. I'd argue a hard stop is actually not going to be great for bitcoin, but that's down the road.
Monero's supply is verifiable through mathematical proofs. It's just a little more complex of a process than verifying the supply of bitcoin.
5 sat payments aren't that interesting IMO... But Lightning's capacity for micropayments is a separate innovation that could theoretically be built on any base layer.
The fundamental difference remains: Bitcoin bolts privacy features onto a transparent system, while Monero builds privacy into its foundation. This architectural difference creates entirely different security and privacy models.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 11 Mar
Monero's privacy works automatically without requiring expert knowledge of channel management, routing, and proper node configuration.
I respectfully believe... that these things aren't that complicated. There isn't much... 'node configuration' involved? People just want decent money that isn't confiscated, censored, or inflated away by a central bank. In other words, privacy for better or worse for most people is an afterthought...
And while I agree that the 'opening transaction' is public... what happens within the Lightning channel isn't published anywhere. For example... opening a channel, swapping out through to on-chain (depleting the outbound liquidity) then closing the channel and discarding/donating the UTXO to a developer (LOL). Anyone tracking that UTXO... has nothing to go by? Your 'new' UTXO has no previous on-chain record right?
I'm not an expert on this stuff but there a lot of sophisticated tools that essentially accomplish the same things.
"Not to mention that if LN was a perfect privacy solution, I think it would be getting attacked more like Monero getting the boot from a lot of exchanges (the bounty to crack it) and the Samourai Wallet devs and Tornado devs."
I'm not sure that Samourai Wallet's privacy was necessarily that great... I think if those guys had not 'poked the bear' the governments wouldn't have come after them. They were really outspoken about just how much they wanted criminals to use their services.
I mean talk about post a target on one's back... what were those guys thinking?
I could absolutely be wrong (we all could be) but I am very skeptical that the declining block reward will be an issue for Bitcoin for a very long time. With ongoing adoption, large institutions, individuals, and even countries (imo) there will always be on-chain demand even if most of it right now is speculation/jpegs.
Eventually most of the on-chain demand IMO will be opening and closing Lightning channels in order to spend (or splicing channels to make them bigger or smaller) and the demand for this will be more than enough.
"5 sat payments aren't that interesting IMO... But Lightning's capacity for micropayments is a separate innovation that could theoretically be built on any base layer." I respectfully disagree... Lightning is doing something traditional payment methods absolutely cannot do and that's instant micropayments. Even other 'cryptos' can't because they are not proof-of-work so their tokens don't really count (my opinion).
reply