Super Testnet on Nostr: > Only a select few can arguably claim they have better privacy on Lightning. ...
> Only a select few can arguably claim they have better privacy on Lightning. Vanishingly few Lightning users are transacting privately and non-custodially.
I do not understand this argument. To me it completely misses the point: I argue that self-custodial lightning has better privacy than custodial lightning and your response is "yeah but most people prefer custodial lightning." So? Who cares if most people prefer something inferior? Why does that matter? *You* (or anyone who wants good privacy) can choose the *better* solution. You are not subject to the choices of others.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but your whole forecast seems to rest heavily on technological advancement remaining stagnant over time. Historically we see the exact opposite.
I don't think my argument relies on that assumption. Making blocks dynamic in size with the hope that someday technology will solve all the problems it brings <-- that seems like wishful thinking. Limiting their size to a small value seems like a far better idea: it pushes adoption of layered scaling while also penalizing spam attacks.
> Dynamic block size means fees will always stay low even with increased adoption
I think monero is pitched between the horns of a dilemma: if blocks get big and fees stay low then it means miners do not have to worry about orphan rates, which means mining is centralized. If blocks get big and mining is *not* centralized the miners *do* have to worry about orphan rates, and that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks so that propagation and validation is faster and the orphan rate is smaller. If that miner-selected limit ever applies, you get the worst of both worlds: rising fees *and* large blocks.
> meaning more sovereign usage and better operability with L2s
You're not sovereign if you're not running a node
> Tail emission means we don't have to roll the dice on tx fees securing our blockchain in the future
You do: monero uses permanent inflation mixed with a fixed issuance of 0.6 XMR or less. Permanent inflation means the XMR issued is designed to constantly deflate in value. So at some point 0.6 XMR will have no material value. It will be worth less than 60 cents of today's money. Consequently, miners will need another source of revenue. You're rolling the dice that one will exist.
I do not understand this argument. To me it completely misses the point: I argue that self-custodial lightning has better privacy than custodial lightning and your response is "yeah but most people prefer custodial lightning." So? Who cares if most people prefer something inferior? Why does that matter? *You* (or anyone who wants good privacy) can choose the *better* solution. You are not subject to the choices of others.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but your whole forecast seems to rest heavily on technological advancement remaining stagnant over time. Historically we see the exact opposite.
I don't think my argument relies on that assumption. Making blocks dynamic in size with the hope that someday technology will solve all the problems it brings <-- that seems like wishful thinking. Limiting their size to a small value seems like a far better idea: it pushes adoption of layered scaling while also penalizing spam attacks.
> Dynamic block size means fees will always stay low even with increased adoption
I think monero is pitched between the horns of a dilemma: if blocks get big and fees stay low then it means miners do not have to worry about orphan rates, which means mining is centralized. If blocks get big and mining is *not* centralized the miners *do* have to worry about orphan rates, and that incentivizes them to place *their own* limit on the size of their own blocks so that propagation and validation is faster and the orphan rate is smaller. If that miner-selected limit ever applies, you get the worst of both worlds: rising fees *and* large blocks.
> meaning more sovereign usage and better operability with L2s
You're not sovereign if you're not running a node
> Tail emission means we don't have to roll the dice on tx fees securing our blockchain in the future
You do: monero uses permanent inflation mixed with a fixed issuance of 0.6 XMR or less. Permanent inflation means the XMR issued is designed to constantly deflate in value. So at some point 0.6 XMR will have no material value. It will be worth less than 60 cents of today's money. Consequently, miners will need another source of revenue. You're rolling the dice that one will exist.