5 ms·

Which is its biggest weakness. Lightning over Bitcoin is decently anonymous, too. Given that is just a layer-2 technology and can be developed further and evolu

Which is its biggest weakness. Lightning over Bitcoin is decently anonymous, too. Given that is just a layer-2 technology and can be developed further and evolutes outside of Bitcoin protocol changes, makes it more flexible and has shorter innovation cycles. And outlawing bitcoin has become basically impossible after the large amount of ETF inflows. Monero is nice technology, but I think the ship has already sailed for Bitcoin (and L2 solutions like lightning).

rglullis 6mo ago
Isn´t the experiment in El Salvador proof that Bitcoin does not work as a currency? If you think it isn't, then do you have any measurable pass/fail test for it?
- littlecranky67 6mo ago
  El Salvador is the worst example, as they have been bribed by the IMF to get rid of bitcoin. I would also wan't to learn how the situation in El Salvador would be any different if they adopted Monero instead - I think it would be the same outcode. I am not a bitcoin-as-currency evangelist. I see it more as digital gold, and gold is not a currency today. It will have its role as a store of value and fallback unit of trade that keeps government currencies in check - another pillar in financial checks-and-balances.
  - neonstatic 6mo ago
    > El Salvador is the worst example, as they have been bribed by the IMF to get rid of bitcoin. So the 'true cryptocurrency' hasn't been tried yet, eh? ;)
    - littlecranky67 6mo ago
      That was not my argument at all. First I said, I don't see bitcoin as currency at all. Second, major nation states have always tryed to use their power to force other nations to use their currency (petrodollar, cough). This is nothing specific to crypto, but something also specific to traditional fiat currencies. Any high-volatile asset such as bitcoin is IMHO not suited as currency. The good news is, with the bitcoin taproot upgrade and latest lightning standards, you can actually issue stablecoins over bitcoin's taproot asset protocol, and send it over the existing lightning network. My bet is on stablecoins-over-lightning as currency, and bitcoin as store of value. One blockchain to rule them all, other chains not need (for financial transactions at least).
      - KaiserPro 6mo ago
        Bitcoin takes to long to settle, and whilst its settling will need some sort of escrow service to take the risk out for small retailers and consumers. Plus the global transaction rate would also stop it really being useful for day to day spending for a country.
        littlecranky67 6mo ago
        You replied to me but did not address lightninng. Lightning settles instantly. And you DO transfer bitcoin.
        rglullis 6mo ago
        > And you DO transfer bitcoin. No, Layer-2 systems only transfer cryptographically signed IOUs between nodes. Settlement only happens when these IOUs are cashed out, and to cash out you need a transaction in the blockchain layer, so the point about latency still stands.
        KaiserPro 6mo ago
        THis is the issue, until its settled in the chain, then you are down to trusting the 2nd layer. Anything offchain has a whole bunch of issues that are either naively or deliberately obscured by the fact that it _eventually_ writes to the blockchain. The exchanges that offer instant settlement are circumventing trust by doing the settlement for you. You get speed, but not security that they have done what they have said they have.
        rglullis 6mo ago
        Well, to be fair to OP: small business and retailers are also not getting "real" money when they accept payment via credit cards from Visa/MasterCard. To be honest I think the issue here is not due to speed of settlement, but layer-2 is not an acceptable substitute because it does not allow reversability. For the merchants it's good that they are getting the money right away, but most consumers will not dare to pay anything via layer-2 networks simply because they won't have any recourse in case they want to undo the transaction.
  - rglullis 6mo ago
    > they have been bribed by the IMF to get rid of bitcoin And the US government is being bribed by Silicon Valley to adopt crypto... > I am not a bitcoin-as-currency evangelist Then why all the talk about Lighning and the dismissal of Monero?
    - littlecranky67 6mo ago
      Because lightning uses Bitcoin's blockchain, which is the most secured (as in energy) and the most common (as in market cap) and probably the most accepted as in regulation. Plus, you can use bitcoins taproot asset protocol to issue stablecoins and send them over lightning. No other blockchain needed - which in my opinion, renders monero obsolete or at least a very niche product.
      - rglullis 6mo ago
        - Lightning is not fully anonymous. It can still be traced by the participating nodes. - Ethereum's blockchain consumes less energy, is more decentralized, it's a lot more resistent to any form of attack and it can also host fixed-supply coins. - Market cap is a meaningless metric, it's at best circular logic and at worst it's just a "one billion flies can't be wrong" argumentum ad populum. - It baffles me how the Bitcoin enthusiasts talk so much about ideology and freedom, but get completely silent about the fact that most mining operations are done in countries with oppressive regimes, financed or subsidized by dictators with access to cheap fossil fuels.
        littlecranky67 6mo ago
        > Lightning is not fully anonymous. It can still be traced by the participating nodes. "Fully anonymous" is a strong term. Even cash is not fully anonymous. I would give monero that it is more anonymous than lightning because it is a core design principal. There is a spectrum to anonymity, however. As public enemy number one, such as Snowden or BinLaden, your anonymity requirements are different than a citizen buying illegal erectile dysfunction medication online. If you consider the new features added in lightning over the past 24 months such as trampoline payments, blinded paths etc. - you will find that lightning is anonymous enough. Plus, you can increase anonymity in the client implementation at the expense of higher transaction fees (longer paths, more trampolines). Lightning's BOLT12 standard, which is currently finalized, will increase anonymity even further. > Ethereum's blockchain consumes less energy, is more decentralized, it's a lot more resistent to any form of attack and it can also host fixed-supply coins. Thats is factually untrue. First, ethereum famously had a human-coordinated rollback with a controlled restart organized between devs and node runners over Discord. Second, Ethereum is not decentralzied at all, because that is a core property of proof-of-stake: There is no way at any given time that you can be sure that the majority stake is not already in a single entities (or colluding group) possesion - and would thus have absolute control. It is therefore never guaranteed at any given time, that the network is decentralized. > Market cap is a meaningless metric, it's at best circular logic and at worst it's just a "one billion flies can't be wrong" argumentum ad populum. Price is ultimately what determines the value of anything. It is absolutely far from meaningless, as the market cap is also a big factor if a crypto asset can be outlawed or banned. Given how many investors in the west already own bitcoin, there would be a massive outcry if it is suddenly outlawed. I say you could outlaw Monero tomorrow and the mainstream media wouldn't even cover it. > It baffles me how the Bitcoin enthusiasts talk so much about ideology and freedom, but get completely silent about the fact that most mining operations are done in countries with oppressive regimes, financed or subsidized by dictators with access to cheap fossil fuels. You mean, such as the United States? Because the US (especially Texas) is one of the biggest miners of bitcoin currently.
rationalist 6mo ago
> decently anonymous "decently"? It's either anonymous or not. And the lightning node operator can see the transactions, so no, it's not anonymous.
- littlecranky67 6mo ago
  Anonymity is not binary 0 or 1. There is a difference in there is a one-in-a-million chance that you made a payment, is not the same as there is a one-in-three chance you did the payment. You can define anonymity to be a one-in-a-billion chance, and all lower odds as "not anonymous". But that is not applicable in the real world.
  - rationalist 6mo ago
    > Anonymity is not binary 0 or 1 I disagree. Either someone is known or they are not known.

rglullis 6mo ago

Isn´t the experiment in El Salvador proof that Bitcoin does not work as a currency? If you think it isn't, then do you have any measurable pass/fail test for it?

littlecranky67 6mo ago
El Salvador is the worst example, as they have been bribed by the IMF to get rid of bitcoin. I would also wan't to learn how the situation in El Salvador would be any different if they adopted Monero instead - I think it would be the same outcode. I am not a bitcoin-as-currency evangelist. I see it more as digital gold, and gold is not a currency today. It will have its role as a store of value and fallback unit of trade that keeps government currencies in check - another pillar in financial checks-and-balances.
- neonstatic 6mo ago
  > El Salvador is the worst example, as they have been bribed by the IMF to get rid of bitcoin. So the 'true cryptocurrency' hasn't been tried yet, eh? ;)
  - littlecranky67 6mo ago
    That was not my argument at all. First I said, I don't see bitcoin as currency at all. Second, major nation states have always tryed to use their power to force other nations to use their currency (petrodollar, cough). This is nothing specific to crypto, but something also specific to traditional fiat currencies. Any high-volatile asset such as bitcoin is IMHO not suited as currency. The good news is, with the bitcoin taproot upgrade and latest lightning standards, you can actually issue stablecoins over bitcoin's taproot asset protocol, and send it over the existing lightning network. My bet is on stablecoins-over-lightning as currency, and bitcoin as store of value. One blockchain to rule them all, other chains not need (for financial transactions at least).
    - KaiserPro 6mo ago
      Bitcoin takes to long to settle, and whilst its settling will need some sort of escrow service to take the risk out for small retailers and consumers. Plus the global transaction rate would also stop it really being useful for day to day spending for a country.
      - littlecranky67 6mo ago
        You replied to me but did not address lightninng. Lightning settles instantly. And you DO transfer bitcoin.
        rglullis 6mo ago
        > And you DO transfer bitcoin. No, Layer-2 systems only transfer cryptographically signed IOUs between nodes. Settlement only happens when these IOUs are cashed out, and to cash out you need a transaction in the blockchain layer, so the point about latency still stands.
        KaiserPro 6mo ago
        THis is the issue, until its settled in the chain, then you are down to trusting the 2nd layer. Anything offchain has a whole bunch of issues that are either naively or deliberately obscured by the fact that it _eventually_ writes to the blockchain. The exchanges that offer instant settlement are circumventing trust by doing the settlement for you. You get speed, but not security that they have done what they have said they have.
        rglullis 6mo ago
        Well, to be fair to OP: small business and retailers are also not getting "real" money when they accept payment via credit cards from Visa/MasterCard. To be honest I think the issue here is not due to speed of settlement, but layer-2 is not an acceptable substitute because it does not allow reversability. For the merchants it's good that they are getting the money right away, but most consumers will not dare to pay anything via layer-2 networks simply because they won't have any recourse in case they want to undo the transaction.
- rglullis 6mo ago
  > they have been bribed by the IMF to get rid of bitcoin And the US government is being bribed by Silicon Valley to adopt crypto... > I am not a bitcoin-as-currency evangelist Then why all the talk about Lighning and the dismissal of Monero?
  - littlecranky67 6mo ago
    Because lightning uses Bitcoin's blockchain, which is the most secured (as in energy) and the most common (as in market cap) and probably the most accepted as in regulation. Plus, you can use bitcoins taproot asset protocol to issue stablecoins and send them over lightning. No other blockchain needed - which in my opinion, renders monero obsolete or at least a very niche product.
    - rglullis 6mo ago
      - Lightning is not fully anonymous. It can still be traced by the participating nodes. - Ethereum's blockchain consumes less energy, is more decentralized, it's a lot more resistent to any form of attack and it can also host fixed-supply coins. - Market cap is a meaningless metric, it's at best circular logic and at worst it's just a "one billion flies can't be wrong" argumentum ad populum. - It baffles me how the Bitcoin enthusiasts talk so much about ideology and freedom, but get completely silent about the fact that most mining operations are done in countries with oppressive regimes, financed or subsidized by dictators with access to cheap fossil fuels.
      - littlecranky67 6mo ago
        > Lightning is not fully anonymous. It can still be traced by the participating nodes. "Fully anonymous" is a strong term. Even cash is not fully anonymous. I would give monero that it is more anonymous than lightning because it is a core design principal. There is a spectrum to anonymity, however. As public enemy number one, such as Snowden or BinLaden, your anonymity requirements are different than a citizen buying illegal erectile dysfunction medication online. If you consider the new features added in lightning over the past 24 months such as trampoline payments, blinded paths etc. - you will find that lightning is anonymous enough. Plus, you can increase anonymity in the client implementation at the expense of higher transaction fees (longer paths, more trampolines). Lightning's BOLT12 standard, which is currently finalized, will increase anonymity even further. > Ethereum's blockchain consumes less energy, is more decentralized, it's a lot more resistent to any form of attack and it can also host fixed-supply coins. Thats is factually untrue. First, ethereum famously had a human-coordinated rollback with a controlled restart organized between devs and node runners over Discord. Second, Ethereum is not decentralzied at all, because that is a core property of proof-of-stake: There is no way at any given time that you can be sure that the majority stake is not already in a single entities (or colluding group) possesion - and would thus have absolute control. It is therefore never guaranteed at any given time, that the network is decentralized. > Market cap is a meaningless metric, it's at best circular logic and at worst it's just a "one billion flies can't be wrong" argumentum ad populum. Price is ultimately what determines the value of anything. It is absolutely far from meaningless, as the market cap is also a big factor if a crypto asset can be outlawed or banned. Given how many investors in the west already own bitcoin, there would be a massive outcry if it is suddenly outlawed. I say you could outlaw Monero tomorrow and the mainstream media wouldn't even cover it. > It baffles me how the Bitcoin enthusiasts talk so much about ideology and freedom, but get completely silent about the fact that most mining operations are done in countries with oppressive regimes, financed or subsidized by dictators with access to cheap fossil fuels. You mean, such as the United States? Because the US (especially Texas) is one of the biggest miners of bitcoin currently.

rationalist 6mo ago

> decently anonymous "decently"? It's either anonymous or not. And the lightning node operator can see the transactions, so no, it's not anonymous.

littlecranky67 6mo ago
Anonymity is not binary 0 or 1. There is a difference in there is a one-in-a-million chance that you made a payment, is not the same as there is a one-in-three chance you did the payment. You can define anonymity to be a one-in-a-billion chance, and all lower odds as "not anonymous". But that is not applicable in the real world.
- rationalist 6mo ago
  > Anonymity is not binary 0 or 1 I disagree. Either someone is known or they are not known.