mister_monster on Nostr: Well, youre probably going to get at least one "Monero" but I figure I'll say it ...
Well, youre probably going to get at least one "Monero" but I figure I'll say it again. That's the only coin I'll shill because it's the only one worth shilling.
I will add, Mimblewimble as an architecture/scheme is the only thing in existence today that comes close to truly solving scalability issues with bitcoin. You should look into it. I've said this a lot around here, to solve the issues with bitcoin you need to have the same security guarantees as bitcoin without the requirement of keeping any and/or all historical data. Mimblewimble *almost* achieves this. Actually, it does achieve it as originally specified, with the downside that you get absolutely no programmability, no multisig, no time locks, nothing. To get those a trade off was made, and tiny little proofs from each transaction must be kept, called kernels, that are present in all MW implementations to my knowledge and in the reference implementation, Grin. If this issue can be solved while keeping those programmability features, you've got bona fide space money.
I will add, Mimblewimble as an architecture/scheme is the only thing in existence today that comes close to truly solving scalability issues with bitcoin. You should look into it. I've said this a lot around here, to solve the issues with bitcoin you need to have the same security guarantees as bitcoin without the requirement of keeping any and/or all historical data. Mimblewimble *almost* achieves this. Actually, it does achieve it as originally specified, with the downside that you get absolutely no programmability, no multisig, no time locks, nothing. To get those a trade off was made, and tiny little proofs from each transaction must be kept, called kernels, that are present in all MW implementations to my knowledge and in the reference implementation, Grin. If this issue can be solved while keeping those programmability features, you've got bona fide space money.