> "Would you mind explaining how I might do a full audit of the total Monero supply using range proofs?" You’re assuming that auditability prevents fraud. But

> "Would you mind explaining how I might do a full audit of the total Monero supply using range proofs?" You’re assuming that auditability prevents fraud. But let’s be real—Bitcoin’s transparency didn’t stop Mt. Gox, QuadrigaCX, or FTX from losing billions. It didn’t prevent wash trading, exchange manipulation, or fractional reserves. The only entities that have truly benefited from Bitcoin’s transparency? Government agencies (who use chain analysis to track transactions). Surveillance firms (who monetize the data). Monero’s cryptographic approach ensures users can verify the supply without exposing transaction details. That’s privacy done right. You don’t need the entire world to verify a global balance sheet—just a mechanism to ensure nobody is inflating the supply. Bitcoiners accept this principle for Lightning, but somehow reject it when Monero applies it natively. > "Bitcoin is optimized for storing large amounts of value over long durations. The transaction fees are independent of size, and it has a capped supply with a predefined issuance curve." A store of value is only as good as its security model. Bitcoin’s security relies on mining incentives, which depend on: Block rewards (shrinking over time) Transaction fees (which must rise dramatically to compensate) If mining incentives collapse, what happens? Attackers buy up cheap hashrate and reorganize the chain. If that happens, Bitcoin’s “store of value” narrative dies instantly. The argument that “fees will just rise” assumes demand remains constant, but history shows that rising fees reduce adoption. > "The difference between gold and Bitcoin is that gold doesn’t require a constant value transfer to miners (in the form of inflation or fees) in order to be secure, gold can just sit in a vault." Gold doesn’t have an ongoing security budget, but it also isn’t programmable money. The analogy breaks down the moment you realize Bitcoin needs continuous incentives for miners to secure the network. Bitcoin's security becomes fragile if transaction fees alone don’t sustain mining, especially in a state-level attack scenario. > "If more people use Bitcoin, the fees go up, making self-custody impractical. But that doesn’t matter—Bitcoin will still win as a savings tool for the wealthy, corporations, and countries." What was the point if Bitcoin’s final form is just a savings tool for the rich? If most users can’t afford on-chain transactions and have to rely on intermediaries, we’ve just recreated the banking system with extra steps. And since Bitcoin’s ledger is public forever, it’s not just a savings tool—it’s a perfect surveillance database. Will Bitcoin actually stay decentralized and usable? Or is it just becoming the world’s best compliance-friendly, trackable savings account? Because right now, the trend isn’t looking great.