HanShan on Nostr: Ok this is a whole pile of horseshit again from this asshole. Lets get into it shall ...
Ok this is a whole pile of horseshit again from this asshole.
Lets get into it shall we?
>> The dynamic block size makes it not decentralized, because if it has a massive adoption only big companies will be able to run the nodes.
Come on... Really? Your gonna preemptively start a block size debate? Now?
So far Moneros dynamic block size has done its job excellently, allowing miners to produce larger blocks when theres a spike in network traffic. It incentivizes miners and helps users get txs mined.
"maybe someday theres a centralization problem" applies to many things and you dont know how its going to work out.
generic block size FUD, not imaginative or interesting.
>> It has a hidden and unsolvable inflation problem due to its technology (ring signatures), it is one of the reasons among others why Liquid did not adopt ring signatures
JFC. Shut all the way the hell up. You are just making shit up here.
There is no "hidden and unsolvable inflation problem" that ring signatures cause. Liquid has implemented Borromean Ring Sigs on their network.
So just go back to school.
https://glossary.blockstream.com/borromean-ring-signatures/
>> There is no consensus or stability in the network, Monero has had numerous hardforks throughout its short history to introduce new features which hinders its adoption as a store of value or currency.
huh? Monero has NEVER had a contentious hard fork. whats your evidence theres "no consensus"?
this is the same argument that btc maxis use for premature ossification of the network.
Ossification vs adding functionality is a nuaced discussion that's been happening for a while.
This is just "i think it would be better without new features"
GFY
>> it has tail issuance, which while low, nothing guarantees given the history of hardforks that this will change in the future.
this is just a rehash of your objection about hard forks and not actually a separate point.
oh, also "which means always using your node"
using you own node is always a good idea.
but lets be accurate, If you connect to an adversaries node
without hiding your IP and broadcast a transaction
obviously they know you broadcasted that transaction.
But if you did it through Tor, what good is it anyway?
Running your own note is always best, But Monero still protects your privacy better then Bitcoin does if you're not.
>> but the reality is what it is and the adoption of monero is what it is and the price of monero is what it is.
Got it
Monero is the most used *as money* crypto outside BTC and the price is consistent but you want fiat NGU 😭
put on your big boy pants own that you just want more fiat
and dont know squat about monero and freedom money.
Lets get into it shall we?
>> The dynamic block size makes it not decentralized, because if it has a massive adoption only big companies will be able to run the nodes.
Come on... Really? Your gonna preemptively start a block size debate? Now?
So far Moneros dynamic block size has done its job excellently, allowing miners to produce larger blocks when theres a spike in network traffic. It incentivizes miners and helps users get txs mined.
"maybe someday theres a centralization problem" applies to many things and you dont know how its going to work out.
generic block size FUD, not imaginative or interesting.
>> It has a hidden and unsolvable inflation problem due to its technology (ring signatures), it is one of the reasons among others why Liquid did not adopt ring signatures
JFC. Shut all the way the hell up. You are just making shit up here.
There is no "hidden and unsolvable inflation problem" that ring signatures cause. Liquid has implemented Borromean Ring Sigs on their network.
So just go back to school.
https://glossary.blockstream.com/borromean-ring-signatures/
>> There is no consensus or stability in the network, Monero has had numerous hardforks throughout its short history to introduce new features which hinders its adoption as a store of value or currency.
huh? Monero has NEVER had a contentious hard fork. whats your evidence theres "no consensus"?
this is the same argument that btc maxis use for premature ossification of the network.
Ossification vs adding functionality is a nuaced discussion that's been happening for a while.
This is just "i think it would be better without new features"
GFY
>> it has tail issuance, which while low, nothing guarantees given the history of hardforks that this will change in the future.
this is just a rehash of your objection about hard forks and not actually a separate point.
oh, also "which means always using your node"
using you own node is always a good idea.
but lets be accurate, If you connect to an adversaries node
without hiding your IP and broadcast a transaction
obviously they know you broadcasted that transaction.
But if you did it through Tor, what good is it anyway?
Running your own note is always best, But Monero still protects your privacy better then Bitcoin does if you're not.
>> but the reality is what it is and the adoption of monero is what it is and the price of monero is what it is.
Got it
Monero is the most used *as money* crypto outside BTC and the price is consistent but you want fiat NGU 😭
put on your big boy pants own that you just want more fiat
and dont know squat about monero and freedom money.