Monero most likely coin to challenge Bitcoin

[toknormal]

Transparency on the block chain was a means, not a goal

LoL ! Dream on  

I don't think you understand the concept of cryptocurrency as "money" very well. It is not a bank account and "blockchain transparency" is not the same thing as "financial transparency".

[Azael]

I have not had any coins in a long time.
I got like 2 i think that were delisted 2 or more years ago.
And the rest i sold off and gave away.
I gave away my BITCOIN.

What a waste of your time to be on this forum.

[dinofelis]

I don't think you understand the concept of cryptocurrency as "money" very well. It is not a bank account and "blockchain transparency" is not the same thing as "financial transparency".

In as much as "block chain transparency" is not the same thing as "financial transparency", then you agree with me that "block chain transparency" is only a (naive) tool to guarantee correct origin (mining according to the rules) and no double spend of a coin.  If that proof can be delivered without explicit transparency, with cryptographic proofs, then that's just as good, right ?

Now, the problem with block chain transparency is exactly that it leads, unfortunately, to financial transparency, by chain analysis.  As such, block chain transparency is no good.  It is somewhat the equivalent of "showing my private key" to prove that I have the private key.  It is a sure, but naive way to prove something.  If I can prove you that I have the private key, without revealing it, with a cryptographic proof, that's much better I would think.   This is essentially what cryptonote, and also zerocash, do: to give you a PROOF that this coin has not been double spend, and was of correct origin, without revealing exactly HOW.  If I can sign any message you give me with my private key, and you can verify that, then that is just as good proof that I have that private key, than when I show it to you explicitly, no ?  What is important for you is to know that I'm the owner of that private key, not the fact of seeing that private key (which brings much more problems).  If I have a block chain that can prove that I have coins that were transmitted to me via correct transactions, and originated in a correct mining, then that is good enough, without you having to know exactly what transactions and exactly what origin, which would reveal too much other stuff, right ?

There IS an argument for block chain transparency, but that is exactly financial transparency.  In that case, block chain transparency is used as a means to obtain financial transparency.  But if you are in favour of that, again, I ask you whether you publish your bank account transactions also in the public.  Probably you don't.  Some people insisting on financial transparency may be in favour of block chain transparency - so that you can block thieves' money, that you can boycott certain merchants/exchanges and their customers, and that law enforcement can see what you do with your crypto money (and your boss and neighbour too).

But if you are not favourable to that, then there's no reason to be in favour of a transparent block chain, because chain analysis can do all that, with some effort.

[obit33]

Here's a few reasons why it isn't:

 • Monero is screwed up from conception in that it trashes the very thing that makes bitcoin valuable - blockchain transparency

 • If you've ever used it in its native form, it feels like its been written by an overexcited twelve year old who just learned C++ last month

 • Dark markets like mainstream money, not their own "Dark Market" monopoly money. The best use case is therefore as a transitory laundering facility for BTC

 • That makes it a "tech stock", not a monetary asset, the difference being that one provides a technologically oriented service and the other is a store of value

 • That in turn gives it a limited shelf life because though the "tech" may take years to develop, it only takes seconds to reproduce. Therefore, if you're not the money, just the laundering service, then you're toast as soon as the "next great thing" comes along

- nope, blockchaintransparancy is/was a means, not an end... Blockchain's purpose is to be a ledger that makes sure there are no double spends, that there's no shenanigans going on... Whether it's transparent or not, it's just there to maintain the integrity of the system...
- I used it, it totally doesn't feel that way, but the way you FEEL about something is a bit of a subjective argument wouldn't you say...
- Well, at least that's a use case isn't it, and rather a large one... And again, I feel this is a very subjective statement on your part, how do you know what  dark markets LIKE. Again you're projecting your own (possible flawed) subjective opinion to try to make your point...
- Since this statement is based on your previous (subjective) statement I consider it void... Sorry to say, but it's starting to look like you're really trying hard to find a stick to hit a dog (in this case the monero-fluffy-dog)...
- Again, because this is based on your previous subjective assumptions, this statement has no merit at all...

All in all a very poor argumentation based on your subjective feelings/assumptions, but I know where you're coming from, so I wouldn't expect anything else, you're most obviously biased against monero... when one is biased, one seldomly uses rational argumentation...

[TraderETH]

I don't think so, because it will be hard to challenge bitcoin and still there are another altcoins who must be challenged by monero like ethereum, ripple and litecoin if we saw at https://coinmarketcap.com/

[toknormal]

All in all a very poor argumentation based on your subjective feelings/assumptions

It's not based on subjective anything.

It's based on the observation that there are in principle 2 types of money - variously characterised as commodity money vs debt money (or if you like "past money" vs "future money").

Blockchain addresses are not bank accounts and to make that analogy is to mistake one of those two for the other. Bank accounts are a record that is synomymous with a person. They therefore constitute "backed money" because the account balance is only worth anything as long as the holder (debtor) underwrites it.

The value at blockchain addresses on the other hand is not undwerwritten by the holder. On the contrary, it's underwritten by everyone except the holder - i.e. the market.

By obscuring the blockchain one is not creating "privacy", one is just vandalising an otherwise near perfect electronic commodity and creating an impoverished version of it based on the myth that 'privacy' adds value to it.

By that logic, dirty, contaminated gold is more valuable than 24 carat, pristene unambiguous gold because it's more "obscured". It's a boat that won't float anywhere outside of "geekland".

Not very clever  

So called "fungibility" is another thing altogether. In cash media, it can optimise the level of anonymity of users but there is no conflict between a fungible and transparent blockchain. In fact a high level of fungibility positively implies a high level of transparency.

[obit33]

Edit, wasn't gonna reply, did it anyway...

It's not based on subjective anything.
It's based on the observation that there are in principle 2 types of money - variously characterised as commodity money vs debt money (or if you like "past money" vs "future money").

----Ok, this is a correct observation… but this doesn’t add anything to your previous arguments…

Blockchain addresses are not bank accounts and to make that analogy is to mistake one of those two for the other. Bank accounts are a record that is synomymous with a person. They therefore constitute "backed money" because the account balance is only worth anything as long as the holder underwrites it.

----Nope, bank accounts are worth what’s on it… The account-holder doesn’t have to underwrite anything… You’re confusing things here: “Underwriting is the process by which investment bankers raise investment capital from investors on behalf of corporations and governments that are issuing either equity or debt securities.” This has nothing to do with bank accounts… FiatMoney isn’t ‘backed’ because a person underwrites it… It’s not backed by anything, one could say it’s backed by faith… So it’s unbacked money…

The value at blockchain addresses on the other hand is not undwerwritten by the holder. On the contrary, it's underwritten by everyone except the holder - i.e. the market.
----The holder of a blockchain-address is part of the market, but again, nothing needs to be underwritten here… If there’s bitcoin behind an address, there’s bitcoin behind an address, ‘underwritten’ or not…

By obscuring the blockchain one is not creating "privacy", one is just vandalising an otherwise near perfect electronic commodity and creating an impoverished version of it based on the myth that 'privacy' adds value to it.
----Again, your own subjective opinion… The blockchain is a tool, not a means… By obscuring the tool one doesn’t vandalise anything. One doesn’t create an impoverished version, just a different version that has the same functionality but is not transparent.

By that logic, dirty, contaminated gold is more valuable than 24 carat, pristene unambiguous gold because it's more "obscured".
----WTF? What kind of weird logic is this? So you’re saying that contaminated gold is more private than pristine gold…

Not very clever  
----I know, seems you don’t understand ‘money’ at all…

So called "fungibility" is another thing altogether. In cash media, it can optimise the level of anonymity of users but there is no conflict between a fungible and transparent blockchain. In fact a high level of fungibility positively implies a high level of transparency.
----No, just no, there is a conflict… in a transparent blockchain the coin is NOT FUNGIBLE… the transaction history can be looked up and dirty coin can be identified…

Dude, you’re so far off here, it’s painful to read… Are you brainwashed or something?

[dinofelis]

All in all a very poor argumentation based on your subjective feelings/assumptions

It's not based on subjective anything.

It's based on the observation that there are in principle 2 types of money - variously characterised as commodity money vs debt money (or if you like "future money" vs "past money").

Blockchain addresses are not bank accounts and to make that analogy is to mistake one of those two for the other. Bank accounts are a record that is synomymous with a person. They therefore constitute "backed money" because the account balance is only worth anything as long as the holder underwrites it.

The value at blockchain addresses on the other hand is not undwerwritten by the holder. On the contrary, it's underwritten by everyone except the holder - i.e. the market.

By obscuring the blockchain one is not creating "privacy", one is just vandalising an otherwise near perfect electronic commodity and creating an impoverished version of it based on the myth that 'privacy' adds value to it.

You are very confused about what a cryptocurrency stands for.  You've some shards of right statements, and then you make a logic soup of it.

You start off not too badly: "commodity money" vs "debt money".  However, these indicators refer to the creation process of the asset that becomes money, and not to the monetary asset itself.  The monetary asset itself is still a different thing, and a cryptocurrency will illustrate this aspect in an amazing way.

The "commodity money" vs "debt money" explains the "bootstrap" of a monetary asset, but doesn't qualify the asset itself.  

It goes like this.  A commodity money starts out with a token that is also a product, a commodity.  For instance, a bull, or a nail.  Bulls have value, because they are products that people are willing to offer goods and services for to obtain them to USE them (to eat, to do work, to reproduce...).  Nails have value because you can hammer them, make tables and wooden houses with.  They have "intrinsic value".  As such, obtaining them (against value) you can sell them again (against value), and they are an obvious "store of value".  You can use them as an intermediate good.

However, in as much as this becomes general practice, the DEMAND for this commodity will become a large time the initial demand for it by the people simply using them.  If you only use bulls to eat them, then there will be a certain demand for bulls.  If you also use bulls as store of value, then the demand for bulls will be MUCH HIGHER.
Now, there are two possibilities: this higher demand can induce a higher production.   Or this higher demand can result in a much higher bull price.  In the first case, production is elastic, in the second case, production is inelastic.  In as much as production is elastic, the thing usually doesn't work well as a monetary asset, because the very idea that just anyone can PRODUCE the asset makes it pretty low value.  In as much as there is genuine scarcity, however, the MONETARY PRICE of the asset will be way way higher than the original "intrinsic" usage price of the commodity.  This high monetary price rests on ONE SINGLE PILLAR: recursive belief.

If a bull is normally worth 50 pieces of bread, but because of its general monetary use, it goes up to 1000 pieces of bread, the ONLY reason why you are willing to deliver 1000 pieces of bread for a bull, is that you BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE ELSE WILL ACCEPT IT for 1000 pieces of bread.  And that person will do so because he believes that yet another person will accept it ; etc..

The original "commodity" value of the bull doesn't mean anything any more.  It was the onset, but the price of a bull has nothing to do any more with the value of the usage of a bull.  It is PURE BELIEF.

Debt money has another origin: it has as intrinsic value "a promise".  If I promise you to mow your lawn, that promise is worth about one service of mowing, diminished with the risk that I don't keep my promise.  That promise can be traded just like any other asset that is worth something.

In exactly the same way as with bulls, promises can start to be used as intermediate stores of value.  However, for this to work, again, its production has to be somewhat inelastic.  As anybody can promise anything, most promises are too elastic to be accepted as monetary asset.  But special promises issued by a special unique entity (the King, the central bank, ...) can and do become valuable MONETARY ASSETS.  In the same way as nobody eats the monetary bull, nobody goes and claims the promises by the King or by the central bank.  They are BTW, BOGUS promises, but that doesn't matter.  Their TRANSFORMATION FROM PROMISE INTO MONETARY ASSET follows exactly the same way as with a commodity money.

==> what counts is an infinitely recursive belief system (you accept it against value, because you believe that someone will accept it against value, exactly because he believes that someone else. ....) of the value of a token, and INELASTICITY IN ITS PRODUCTION.

Now, a crypto currency is the full abstraction of this.  It is not a promise, and it is not related to a commodity.  It is an ABSTRACT TOKEN.  The only thing that one needs to believe, is that the production of these tokens is INELASTIC.  That's all.

A cryptocurrency value token is nothing else but the PROOF that you are ENTITLED TO POSSESS one of these rare abstract assets, and that you are able to transmit this proof to the person you pay.  That's all.

As such, a cryptocurrency is the purest form of abstract money: it didn't bootstrap, not as a commodity, nor as a promise.  It didn't have any intrinsic value.  It is just a token of which the production is inelastic, and the possession can be proved and transmitted.

Whether this proof is "naive" and explicit: "Joe created the token legally, then Jack got it, then Joe got it, and finally I got it", or whether the proof is more abstract, such as "cryptographically, I prove that I own a legally created token that came to me though legit transactions", doesn't matter.

The ONLY thing, in the end, that gives a crypto currency, or any other MONETARY asset, its value, is the BELIEF that others give it value, and will accept it for at least the value you give to it.  No more, no less.  It is pure belief, and nothing else.    Whether it is gold, a bull, a dollar bill, a bitcoin, a number on your bank account.   The only thing that matters is that you believe that there will be people accepting it against said value.

However, in order for that belief to be able to take ground, one has to believe that the transaction system works and that the production is inelastic.

[toknormal]

Nice description of the "monetary premium" and I agree with almost all of it except this...

Whether this proof is "naive" and explicit: "Joe created the token legally, then Jack got it, then Joe got it, and finally I got it", or whether the proof is more abstract, such as "cryptographically, I prove that I own a legally created token that came to me though legit transactions", doesn't matter.

I think it very much does matter.

"Cryptographic proof" is meaningless to users. It's a theory, thats all and there's no guarantee that the end user tools in use at a particular time implement that theory. So transparency - in all its forms - does significantly impact the monetary veracity of the token in question, or as you put it the "PURE BELIEF" in the money

Contrary to the impression many may have, I am actually a user of Monero. I first invested a couple of years ago just after it was launched and my views on this have been informed not just by a load of theory but also the comparison between using Bitcoin and using a cryptographically obscured blockchain. Based on that experience, if there's one thing that instils confidence more than anything, it's the ability to engage in a shared experience of "reality" regarding the blockchain state such as is supported by public block explorers like blockchain.info and all the associated community dialog. That is a sociological phenomenon that no "cryptographic proof" can substitute for. Conversely, there's no quicker way to torpedo monetary confidence in this particular sector than to compromise blockchain transparency.

The other day I was transferring some of my (ancient) holdings to an exchange using Monero's native tools such as bitmonero, simplewallet etc. I can tell you the experience was tortuous. At various times the wallet would report all kinds of balances - even though the blockchain reported itself in sync, there was no ability to verify or cross check what was happening with an external reference as thousands of people do every day using references such as blockchain.info. Luckily I've got enough experience with software and crypto to have sorted it all out but god help any "ordinary" user in that situation. (Turned out transactions were stuck in the wallet backlog and had been deducted from both spendable and unspendable balances but had not been sent, so appeared lost. Rebuilding the wallet fixed it but with zero balance. Then a rescan restored the balance. So 3 different versions of the truth which "cryptographic proof" did nothing to help disambiguate).

Ok, that sort of stuff can be fixed with improved client tools and I'm sure it will be but it isn't the point. Do you remember the Bitcoin "malliability" crisis of 2014 ? All the heists such as MtGox etc and subsequent media mud that got thrown at it ? How do think Bitcoin survived all that + the media bashing? Because of crystal clear, unambigious blockchain transparency that supported a robust public consensus as to the blockchain state.

I'm sorry, but pretending that "cryptographic proof" is any kind of substitute for such eyeballing confidence or that it justifies burying the blockchain under a layer of useless cryptographic goo is about as convincing as politician's promise. It's only a matter of time before confidence is shattered - even if the actual technology remains intact.

[kelsey]

what toknormal says (was going to write a reply but toknormal covered it all).

+1

[Azael]

what toknormal says (was going to write a reply but toknormal covered it all).

+1

I already debunked all his arguments. Like anyone with Dunning-Kruger he says things with conviction but there is little if any substance.

• Dark markets like mainstream money, not their own "Dark Market" monopoly money.

By this opinion of yours they would've never accepted Bitcoin in the first place but they did. And now they accepted Monero too.

• That makes it a "tech stock", not a monetary asset, the difference being that one provides a technologically oriented service and the other is a store of value

 • That in turn gives it a limited shelf life because though the "tech" may take years to develop, it only takes seconds to reproduce. Therefore, if you're not the money, just the laundering service, then you're toast as soon as the "next great thing" comes along

Entrepreneurs and opportunistic people will fill the fiat gateway and multiple exchange void in the market just like they did Bitcoin and well any other growing currency they can find a worthwhile gap in.

So what you're saying is just that Bitcoin is a little further ahead ecosystem wise. Correct? I absolutely agree. But I wouldn't dismiss every other cryptocurrency on that basis. Many fiat maximalists do that with Bitcoin.

[kelsey]

what toknormal says (was going to write a reply but toknormal covered it all).

+1

I already debunked all his arguments.

keep telling yourself that  

[dinofelis]

Nice description of the "monetary premium" and I agree with almost all of it except this...

Whether this proof is "naive" and explicit: "Joe created the token legally, then Jack got it, then Joe got it, and finally I got it", or whether the proof is more abstract, such as "cryptographically, I prove that I own a legally created token that came to me though legit transactions", doesn't matter.

I think it very much does matter.

"Cryptographic proof" is meaningless to users. It's a theory, thats all and there's no guarantee that the end user tools in use at a particular time implement that theory. So transparency - in all its forms - does significantly impact the monetary veracity of the token in question, or as you put it the "PURE BELIEF" in the money

You are arguing that a proof depends on the intelligence of the receiver.  While I would agree with you that the receiver's beliefs will depend on his ability to "understand", you are somehow arguing that proofs must be dumb, or they are not proofs.  I do not agree with that and I will show you the relativity of the argument.

You didn't check the bitcoin block chain by hand either, did you.  I would say that with more than 80 GB of data to wade through, you cannot "see" the bitcoin block chain's transaction web any more "with the naked eye" than you can see the proof of veracity on, say, the Monero block chain.

==> you need to use a tool in which you trust.  In your case, it is the bitcoin core software.  If you simply download the bitcoin core software, and it TELLS YOU that a certain transaction in your favour is legit, and adds it to your balance, I suppose that you ACCEPT that on FAITH in the bitcoin core software.

In the same way, if simplewallet of bitmonero tells you that your wallet has *this* amount of coins, then I suppose you can trust that just as well, or just as little.

Now, you can go and READ the source code of the bitcoin core software, compile it yourself, understand every byte in the bitcoin block chain, or write code yourself that is your own wallet software, based upon the bitcoin protocol, and hence VERIFY YOURSELF the "veracity" of the bitcoin transactions and the legitimity of the coins you receive.

--> but this requires specialized computing skills.  Most people don't have them, or don't bother to do so.  Most people can imagine that *sufficient smart persons in the world have verified it* and trust the bitcoin core software.

As such, you can:
1) trust blindly the software and the white paper
2) verify it all yourself, with sufficient skill and time
3) suppose that you can trust 1), because there are sufficient people that have done 2) even if you don't belong to them.

But in any case, the *proof* is not transparent to you, or to Joe Schmoe, even with bitcoin, and you have to use tools you trust, have to trust that there are competent people that checked it, or be one of those competent people yourself.

If I give you 80 GB of data, there's no more clear evidence that I have legit coins by looking at the pen drive, than by looking at the screen of bitcoin core.

Now, to cryptographic proofs.  You can try to understand the cryptography.  Or you can trust it blindly.  Or you can trust that sufficient competent people have looked into it and trust it.  After all, YOU ALREADY DO SO.   Indeed, you have to believe in the cryptographic difficulty of mining, you have to believe in the cryptographic impossibility of faking signatures.  Already by using bitcoin, you have to believe (or understand, or believe that sufficient people understand) cryptographic theories.

Monero just puts this on a slightly higher level.  If you *understand* the cryptographic proof of the unique existence of transactions, then that is just as valid for you as if one showed you the transactions themselves.  If you don't understand them, you have to believe it blindly, or you have to believe that sufficient people who do understand this, think it is OK.

But there's no difference in principle: you understand it, and you accept the proof because you understood so, you accept it blindly because the software says so, or you believe that sufficient people who understand it, accept it.

Contrary to the impression many may have, I am actually a user of Monero. I first invested a couple of years ago just after it was launched and my views on this have been informed not just by a load of theory but also the comparison between using Bitcoin and using a cryptographically obscured blockchain. Based on that experience, if there's one thing that instils confidence more than anything, it's the ability to engage in a shared experience of "reality" regarding the blockchain state such as is supported by public block explorers like blockchain.info and all the associated community dialog. That is a sociological phenomenon that no "cryptographic proof" can substitute for. Conversely, there's no quicker way to torpedo monetary confidence in this particular sector than to compromise blockchain transparency.

I think that the main problem is that you *understand* bitcoin sufficiently, and that you maybe don't understand the cryptography behind monero.   Why would you believe the tool "blockchain.info" ?   Because you think that you could, if you had enough time, do it yourself.  You don't trust monero's block chain, because probably (I'm guessing) you're less at ease with cryptography and you have to trust others more.

The other day I was transferring some of my (ancient) holdings to an exchange using Monero's native tools such as bitmonero, simplewallet etc. I can tell you the experience was tortuous. At various times the wallet would report all kinds of balances - even though the blockchain reported itself in sync, there was no ability to verify or cross check what was happening with an external reference as thousands of people do every day using references such as blockchain.info.

I guess that in 2011, bitcoin was in a similar state.  But, as I said, at the end of the day, the ONLY way to verify it yourself is to fully understand the white paper, to fully understand the crypto, and to write a piece of code yourself that analyses the block chain.  I bet that it will be a line command tool you'd be writing.

Luckily I've got enough experience with software and crypto to have sorted it all out but god help any "ordinary" user in that situation. (Turned out transactions were stuck in the wallet backlog and had been deducted from both spendable and unspendable balances but had not been sent, so appeared lost. Rebuilding the wallet fixed it but with zero balance. Then a rescan restored the balance. So 3 different versions of the truth which "cryptographic proof" did nothing to help disambiguate).

If you screw up the database of bitcoin core, you have the same kind of problems.  But that has nothing to do with the "monetary value" or the "monetary authenticity", you're only talking about TOOLS.

Ok, that sort of stuff can be fixed with improved client tools and I'm sure it will be but it isn't the point. Do you remember the Bitcoin "malliability" crisis of 2014 ? All the heists such as MtGox etc and subsequent media mud that got thrown at it ? How do think Bitcoin survived all that + the media bashing? Because of crystal clear, unambigious blockchain transparency that supported a robust public consensus as to the blockchain state.

Absolutely not.  I'm pretty sure that MOST journalists have never looked at the block chain with a hex editor.  I did.  I wanted to understand bitcoin to the last little byte.  I now feel confident that I COULD write a command line tool that analyses the entire block chain.

I haven't totally reached that point with monero, but I'm not very far.  The learning curve is comparable, but the crypto is harder.

I'm sorry, but pretending that "cryptographic proof" is any kind of substitute for such eyeballing confidence or that it justifies burying the blockchain under a layer of useless cryptographic goo is about as convincing as politician's promise. It's only a matter of time before confidence is shattered - even if the actual technology remains intact.

On the contrary.  Your "eye-balling" is illusion.  You cannot eyeball the bitcoin block chain.  And you need to understand certain cryptographic notions.

If you UNDERSTAND the proof of a cryptographic signature, then all doubt is gone too when you verify a signature.  If you understand cryptographic ring signatures, then you have no doubt either that the legit transactions exist.  You do not have to "see" them, not any more than you have to see my private key to believe my signature.

Even with bitcoin, there is OR serious competence and effort needed, OR you have to trust tools that tell you it is OK.  With monero, the needed competence is just somewhat higher.  But it is relative.

In the same way you cannot convince your granny that all transactions on the bitcoin block chain are valid if she doesn't believe you, you can probably not convince Joe Schmoe that ring signatures are cryptographic proofs.  But in no way you can make your granny "eyeball" the bitcoin block chain without using something that she doesn't understand, and can refuse to believe.

[toknormal]

I think you misunderstood the whole premise.

I wasn't "arguing that a proof depends on the intelligence of the receiver".

I was stating that money is significantly a sociological phenomenon and that its value is supported by a shared community experience of its veracity. In the case of crypto, everything is at an address. Thats basically all there is and if you obscure that from the "crowd" then don't be surprised if the crowd obscures its value endorsement from your blockchain in turn.

(You'll of course still have your "privacy" though - for what it's worth ).

[dinofelis]

I think you misunderstood the whole premise.

I wasn't "arguing that a proof depends on the intelligence of the receiver".

I was stating that money is significantly a sociological phenomenon and that its value is supported by a shared community experience of its veracity. In the case of crypto, everything is at an address. Thats basically all there is and if you obscure that from the "crowd" then don't be surprised if the crowd obscures its endorsement of its value in turn.

YOU say that crypto means "everything is at an address", but that is not what money is about.  Money is about:

1) I have the RIGHT AND POSSIBILITY to transmit the token I have, to you
2) those tokens are guaranteed to be created ONLY in a well-specified way
3) those tokens can only be transmitted from their creation origin to you.

Cash is not an address for instance.

The "crowd" will only see their application's balance.  The crowd will not analyse the block chain.  If I TELL Joe Schmoe that I pay him 20 XMR, and he sees his application tell him that he now has 20 more XMR, he will believe me.  Exactly as with bitcoin.

Now, whether I tell him that he got 20 REAL coins that have been created in the past, and that his software verified that, by looking exactly WHEN AND WHERE they were created, and then how they hopped over to his wallet, OR I tell him that his software verified that THERE EXISTS a moment of creation of his coins and that there EXISTS a path of transactions to bring those coins to his wallet, and that this existence is cryptographically proved in the same way that his signature is cryptographically proved when he orders a bank transaction, I think that for Joe Schmoe, that is the same.

After all, most people are quite happy to SEE ON THEIR BANK BALANCE 50 million dollars, and they have never known where those dollars came from, who had them in the past, and how these dollars hopped from their creation to their account.  In fact, most people would be VERY SURPRISED to learn where these dollars were created from: namely NOT from the FED at all, but rather invented by the bank itself when they gave a mortgage to Jack Wonk, yesterday.

This hasn't stopped people from accepting dollars.

Now, if you believe in cryptographic signatures as PROOFS of existence, then you can easily accept a cryptographic proof that a coin was created correctly and was transmitted correctly, EVEN IF YOU CANNOT KNOW THE EXACT PATH.  You can probably convince a person much more that a cryptographic proof is valid, rather than that a crowd of accountants have verified the accounts.  People do with the last thing.  If there is "mathematical proof" that it is correct, then that's good enough I would think.

And if you don't believe in cryptographic signatures, then you shouldn't believe bitcoin either.  You have no idea whether the guy sending the coins to you cannot fake your signature and erroneously prove that he's you.  You have no idea whether all the transactions were in fact correct because if one can fake signatures, one can fake transactions.  

So there's no difference in principle.  Just in sophistication.  The monero cryptographic proof is more sophisticated than the bitcoin proof.  But both are just as valid.  And none is "visible and able to be eye-balled".  You maybe need somewhat more math and crypto to understand monero than you need to understand bitcoin.  Like you need to understand somewhat more tech to understand email than you need to understand snailmail.

[vokain]

Consider the counterparty risk by using tumblers, the cost associated (usually some % + lots of time), and the traceability of Bitcoin. This is like using HTTP vs HTTPS for sending sensitive information.

[dinofelis]

(You'll of course still have your "privacy" though - for what it's worth ).

I will give you a very direct example of where it matters.  
I have an employer, and I have a small business at the same time.
I sometimes do business with subcontractors of my employer.  I do NOT work on the same stuff (that is illegal), but I do work for a subcontractor on rather confidential (but perfectly legal) things.
These things are totally separate and my employer doesn't know this, isn't supposed to know, and I'm not doing illegal stuff.

BUT.  Suppose that I get paid in bitcoin.  Suppose that the subcontractor gets paid in bitcoin by my employer.  And suppose that that subcontractor pays me in bitcoin too.

It will not be very difficult for my employer to find out that he's paying someone (me) that the subcontractor is paying too.  There might be a suspicion that I'm frauding my employer with that subcontractor.  I'm not.  But "follow the money".
The only way to clear this out with my employer, would be to explain in detail what I'm doing... but it is confidential for the subcontractor.  (again it has nothing to do with my employer or his business).

This is problematic in bitcoin.  With monero, there are no such issues.  

Today, I'm protected by my bank.  My employer doesn't know who else is putting money on my bank account.  But on a public ledger, it is not difficult to see that there is a mixing that happens between the coins that went to me, and the coins that went to the subcontractor by my employer.  If moreover, I pay the canteen at work, for sure they see that the subcontractor's coins end up, through me, at the canteen.

I'd be in a difficult situation: reveal confidential information, or be suspected by my employer ?

[toknormal]

I will give you a very direct example of where it matters

Thats a very unrealistic example.

You're projecting a record keeping process from a specific, cherry-picked aspect of the economy onto what is essentially an electronic commodity base.

Privacy in record keeping has nothing to do with the properties of money and never has been, (quite apart from the fact that I have always argued that although cryptocurrencies may form part of the asset base with which modern currencies are capitalised, they're unlikely to ever form the mainstream currency of exchange themselves).

If a monetary asset has value, people can find plenty of ways to keep them private but the converse does not apply - i.e. because something is private does not do anything for its value in the abscence of any other monetary property.

[dinofelis]

Privacy in record keeping has nothing to do with the properties of money and never has been, (quite apart from the fact that I have always argued that although cryptocurrencies may form part of the asset base with which modern currencies are capitalised, they're unlikely to ever form the mainstream currency of exchange themselves).

From the moment that the monetary asset is *abstract* and is not a commodity any more, nor a genuine promise (debt), the monetary asset is NOTHING ELSE but record-keeping of RIGHTS TO SPEND.  Since fiat money left the gold standard, it is exactly that: a record-keeping system of RIGHTS TO SPEND.

Crypto is not the first abstract token right to spend system.  Fiat (electronic fiat) was there first.  The "right to spend" has nothing to do with traceability.   Fiat money is not publicly traceable and very private banks, like the Swiss banks (until the US bullies bribed them into spying on their customers) were PERFECTLY accepted and trusted, as long as they had trusted internal accountancy that said that all transactions were legit.

Bitcoin resolved the "trusted accountancy" problem in the blunt way, by publishing the books in the open.  But this brings in a lot of privacy problems that were solved long ago by Swiss banks.

If a monetary asset has value, people can find plenty of ways to keep them private but the converse does not apply - i.e. because something is private does not do anything for its value in the abscence of any other monetary property.

Of course.  But that's a straw man.  You were claiming initially that a non-transparant block chain COULD NOT be a sound monetary bookkeeping system in which people can have trust.  First of all, you're contradicted by fact: there are non-transparent block chains that ARE valued on the market.

In the same way, I could argue - old-school style - that an asset that is not "backed" by a commodity (like gold), or a debt (like a mortgage) can never be a monetary asset.  First of all, fiat already proved that statement wrong, and second, bitcoin proved that wrong, when people argued that fiat is "backed by guns, bombs and fighter planes": bitcoin isn't.

So a priori statements of when tokens cannot be money are often proven wrong.

The only thing that is needed for a token to become monetary asset (but by no means WILL become, but CAN become) is:
1) an accepted way of creating the tokens (with bitcoin, it is mining, with fiat, the king only can print).
2) a provable system of "genuine coins" (correctly created, and no double spend)
3) the recursive belief system that you can accept it, because others will accept it (the true magic of monetary assets in general) bootstrapping somehow.

This can be achieved in many ways.  One way is an open ledger, style bitcoin.  Another way is using a cryptographic proof of 2), like monero or zcash.  Fiat uses armies of accountants.

3) is magic, and we don't know why it happens sometimes, and why not in other cases.

When the magic is gone, it is called "hyperinflation".  This can also come from 1) or 2) failing severely.

[dinofelis]

quite apart from the fact that I have always argued that although cryptocurrencies may form part of the asset base with which modern currencies are capitalised, they're unlikely to ever form the mainstream currency of exchange themselves

This is a funny statement, BTW.  If you think that any "sound money" can be used as a BASE for a fiat system, then you are missing the point of a fiat system.  Fiat LEFT the concept of a monetary base already a long time ago (officially in 1972, in practice at least already in 1914).  Fiat money has a political goal, but is also practical as a currency to use on a daily basis, and is in fact more than good enough to get your salary, buy bread and coffee and so on.
Fiat cannot be tied to anything because that would limit its political leverage.  People have been lying for centuries about these ties that were just made up, and then made impossible to be verified (on purpose).

In as much as fiat would have a sound monetary base, it would lose its political function, and hence we could use crypto DIRECTLY.  Why keep this whole structure of central banks, commercial banks, and all this BS, if we can just use crypto *directly* ?  If we keep all this structure, it is to obfuscate the political goal of fiat, and render it useful at the same time (which is necessary of course for its political goal to be reached).  But then, it can never be "sound", so crypto is of no use.

And if it is sound, it doesn't need all this structure.