Ordinals and other non-monetary "use cases" as miner reward on 2140+

[anarkiboy]

Bitcoin is already being bloated by bug exploitation which ordinals use and developers are still discussing if they should fix it 

There is nothing to be fixed. Spam can only be discouraged at a transaction fee level. Remember that Monero has a dynamical block size limit, and there are no UTXO. Every time you create an output, it is indexed forever.

You should remember too that Bitcoin has no privacy and people make thousands of fake transactions (mixing) just to stay semi-private 
How's that for a bloating ? 

[cryptosize]

Truth be told, Big Tech cloud services (AWS, Azure etc.) have so much CPU horsepower that it is indeed possible to execute a 51% attack against Monero.

That thing is no longer possible in Bitcoin (as it was back in 2010-2011) due to ASICs (more security, at the expense of reducing decentralization a bit).

BTC vs XMR tokenomics are totally different and if you ask me, I believe the human population will experience huge deflation in the coming decades, so a tail emission is counterproductive (unless you really believe the human population will keep increasing).

It's fine to have both cryptocurrencies in the market, just like it's fine to have both Linux and OpenBSD (security-hardened UNIX by default). No need to fight over it.

[d5000]

I believe the human population will experience huge deflation in the coming decades, so a tail emission is counterproductive (unless you really believe the human population will keep increasing).

I agree with most of your post, but tail emission could be countered by the "lost coins" if it's sufficiently low, and thus I don't really think it would incide really in tokenomics, even with a reducing population or a stagnating or even gradually shrinking economy.

The beauty of a "sidechain-driven" tail emission (by merge-mining and miners getting rewarded by sidechain utility tokens) is however that the emission schedule would be much more flexible than a hard-coded tail emission. For example, if the sidechain token inflation resulted to be too high to maintain the sidechain utility tokens' value, sidechains have much lower hurdles to hardfork into a lower emission schedule than the main chain, and of course vice versa too.

This isn't that relevant for the Monero <-> Bitcoin discussion (which is pointless and borderline OT) as Monero has already had a history of hardforks and thus could hardfork again and again to lower their supply, but for Bitcoin even a single hardfork could be very difficult. Thus, the "sidechain-driven" tail emission model would be the concept least intrusive to BTC's "core value proposition", which includes its "deflationary" nature. The sidechain utility tokens' supply would not affect Bitcoin's emission schedule and its deflationary nature at all.

[anarkiboy]

Big Tech cloud services (AWS, Azure etc.) have so much CPU horsepower that it is indeed possible to execute a 51% attack against Monero.

We can only speculate because exact numbers are not publicly known, what we know is that current Monero hashrate is so big that making such an attack is in the fairy-tale zone.
Bitcoin miners being obligated to government rules (OFAC) is much more likely than 51% attack on Monero.
With the upcoming Bitcoin halvings the hashrate centralization will be even higher than today.

Monero has already had a history of hardforks

Yes, Monero has a history of UPDATES and is actively developed because cryptography evolves, infrastructure evolves, everything evolves (except Bitcoin)  
Bitcoin is still in the early 2000's when computers still had optical disk drive installed and used phone line for the Internet and everyone was still running their system on slow HDD
Ahh this were the times! Windows 7 was released, Facebook overtaken MySpace and PS3 Slim was released, first version of Android was introduced, beta version of Chrome browser was released and first iPhone was released  

Bitcoin belongs in the past along with the other outdated (but milestone) technologies
Monero will be always updated to stay relevant to the times.

Bitcoin is HTTP, Monero is HTTPS. All sites today are now running on HTTPS because privacy matters even if you as a user don't care.
Does it have overhead over plain HTTP ? yes, but we don't care because infrastructure evolves and we even use VPN on top of that with even more overhead.

The only people defending this outdated protocol for transactions called Bitcoin are the bag holders, people who don't use it as a cryptocurrency but just hold for dear life in hope they can someday exchange it to more FIAT.  

I love when Bitcoin bag holders say things like "there is only 21m bitcoins and there are ~8 billion people on earth! so we all become millionaires if you just hold 1 BTC long enough!"  while conveniently forgetting that cryptocurrency market share of Bitcoin has been dropping for a decade now and is now below 50%

I'm waiting to abolish more BS from Bitcoiners, there's really not even one reason why people should care about Bitcoin when there is Monero that's better in every way.
If you forget about the project name and focus on the tech you will see it, Project X vs Project Y, one is faster, cheaper and private - the other one is not - what's here to discuss ?  

https://x.com/shopinbit/status/1811651225005195471
https://x.com/CoinCards/status/1809702144288882870

Is there even a point of discussing it when people are already switching to newer tech ?

[ABCbits]

Big Tech cloud services (AWS, Azure etc.) have so much CPU horsepower that it is indeed possible to execute a 51% attack against Monero.

We can only speculate because exact numbers are not publicly known, what we know is that current Monero hashrate is so big that making such an attack is in the fairy-tale zone.

I would say such attack isn't profitable, rather than fairy-tale zone. And FWIW, Top 500 list exists.

Bitcoin miners being obligated to government rules (OFAC) is much more likely than 51% attack on Monero.

I think you mean some mining pool located in US, https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/. And i think they'd rather shutdown and sell their BTC rather than helping crashing Bitcoin price.

[anarkiboy]

i think they'd rather shutdown and sell their BTC rather than helping crashing Bitcoin price.

Shutting down would do more damage to the network security (and in turn to the price) than obeying the government rules.
This big mining companies care only about FIAT profits and they will keep operating with OFAC rules rather than shut the whole operation down.

I would say such attack isn't profitable, rather than fairy-tale zone. And FWIW, Top 500 list exists.

Last time I have made calculations on #1 fastest supercomputer in the world it was not enough to do 51% attack.
And all they could do is double spend, censoring transactions would not work because the amounts,  sender and receiver are encrypted.

On Bitcoin it's much more devastating and we have to believe that two or three of this companies don't collude together because that's all it takes to 51% attack in this centralized network.
How much hashrate does Bitmain alone have ? They have always advantage over other miners because they sell used hardware only when their new tech is ready for them to mine on.

Bitcoin - Secured by Chinese greed  

The problem with Bitcoin is that it's not secure against government overreach because this centralized mining companies can (and will) be forced to obey the law which will include obeying OFAC black list and who knows what.

Bitcoin is outdated transaction processor, nothing more.

[ABCbits]

i think they'd rather shutdown and sell their BTC rather than helping crashing Bitcoin price.

Shutting down would do more damage to the network security (and in turn to the price) than obeying the government rules.
This big mining companies care only about FIAT profits and they will keep operating with OFAC rules rather than shut the whole operation down.

I expect performing 51% attack would have more and quicker impact on Bitcoin price, rather than reduced hashrate though.

I would say such attack isn't profitable, rather than fairy-tale zone. And FWIW, Top 500 list exists.

Also last time I have made calculations on #1 fastest supercomputer in the world it was not enough to do 51% attack.

What if multiple company or government who own those supercomputer wouldn't collude together.

And all they could do is double spend, censoring transactions would not work because the amounts,  sender and receiver are encrypted.

They theoretically could prevent all transaction from getting confirmed, by only mining empty block.

On Bitcoin it's much more devastating and we have to believe that two or three of this companies don't collude together because that's all it takes to 51% attack in this centralized network.

I would question about the centralized part, but otherwise it's true. But don't forget they're risking their long-term reputation, long-term profit and potential law-suit.

[anarkiboy]

But don't forget they're risking their long-term reputation, long-term profit and potential law-suit.

Law suit ? from who ? I thought Bitcoin is decentralized and no one stands behind it ? Joke - we all know who are the owners:

https://youtu.be/eafzIW52Rgc?t=1049

Today Bitcoin do more harm than good to the cryptocurrency world with it's outdated protocol like with the Steam platform who ditched it because the transactions were too slow and too expensive.
Or with the failed el salvador:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asmOZh-E8W0

People have spoken and they don't like high cost of transactions or the LN which is a disaster on every step (usage is ~>1% LOL).

Bitcoin with it's devastating impact on environment and unusable protocol should step aside and make way to new protocols that actually solve problems and work today.
With Bitcoin we only hear endless promises of L2's solving everything, the biggest promise LN has failed and Bitcoin is beyond repair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBTuonnuURA

Bitcoin... What a useless disaster it has become.

[ABCbits]

But don't forget they're risking their long-term reputation, long-term profit and potential law-suit.

Law suit ? from who ? I thought Bitcoin is decentralized and no one stands behind it ?

Some example,
1. Anyone (such as exchange) who become victim of their double-spend attack.
2. If the attack performed by company who own mining pool, miner theoretically can sue them for misuse of their hashrate.

[anarkiboy]

Some example,
1. Anyone (such as exchange) who become victim of their double-spend attack.
2. If the attack performed by company who own mining pool, miner theoretically can sue them for misuse of their hashrate.

This are good examples but we all know how law suits stand against Chinese owned companies, they will not care.

I think we can agree that 51% attack (on any of the network) would be only possible if hashrate drastically dropped due to some reasons like profitability collapse and then it would make financial sense to attack it by smaller attackers (if the price wouldn't collapse as well but it most probably would).

Bitcoin today is just slowing down the revolution it started, it's showing cryptocurrencies from the worst side due to it's outdated protocol.

[graphite]

Today Bitcoin do more harm than good to the cryptocurrency world with it's outdated protocol like with the Steam platform who ditched it because the transactions were too slow and too expensive.

I don't understand why people complain about transaction fees being too high. Its a decentralized network that using a couple basis points of the global energy supply. Of course its going to be expensive. You have to pay a price to secure a decentralized network weather its inflation or transaction fees. If a coin has low fees its a strong indicator of low security or centralization or a indicator of rapid inflation.

[anarkiboy]

I don't understand why people complain about transaction fees being too high. Its a decentralized network that using a couple basis points of the global energy supply. Of course its going to be expensive. You have to pay a price to secure a decentralized network weather its inflation or transaction fees. If a coin has low fees its a strong indicator of low security or centralization or a indicator of rapid inflation.

How long have you been in the cave ? the year is 2024 and Monero proved that you don't need high fees to secure the network while being more decentralized than Bitcoin 

[graphite]

How long have you been in the cave ? the year is 2024 and Monero proved that you don't need high fees to secure the network while being more decentralized than Bitcoin 

Monero is much less secure. Given the best CPU on the market you can get around 0.5KH/J. The total hashrate of monero is 2.32GH. So an attacker would need 4.0x10^11J of energy per day. With a cost of energy of $0.05 per KWH that comes out to $25k per day to 51% attack monero. This is a rough estimate but look at https://bitinfocharts.com/monero/ you'll see total miner reward is around $70K so not far off.

Since its pretty easy for anyone to rent CPU power given the large number of data centers in the world the only cost would be power plus a premium to the data center so at worst case scenario monero would only cost 50k/per day to shut down. This is easily done by wealth individuals or a small countries. And given how much centralized powers hate monero I wouldn't be surprised if the US or EU did this to stop terrorist organization or what ever they dem an enemy.

[anarkiboy]

How long have you been in the cave ? the year is 2024 and Monero proved that you don't need high fees to secure the network while being more decentralized than Bitcoin  

Monero is much less secure. Given the best CPU on the market you can get around 0.5KH/J. The total hashrate of monero is 2.32GH. So an attacker would need 4.0x10^11J of energy per day. With a cost of energy of $0.05 per KWH that comes out to $25k per day to 51% attack monero. This is a rough estimate but look at https://bitinfocharts.com/monero/ you'll see total miner reward is around $70K so not far off.

Since its pretty easy for anyone to rent CPU power given the large number of data centers in the world the only cost would be power plus a premium to the data center so at worst case scenario monero would only cost 50k/per day to shut down. This is easily done by wealth individuals or a small countries. And given how much centralized powers hate monero I wouldn't be surprised if the US or EU did this to stop terrorist organization or what ever they dem an enemy.

Since you don't have much knowledge this calculations may seem logical to you but it's not that cheap to attack Monero and it's impossible to rent that kind of hashing power (AWS and other services don't even allow mining) and nicehash which is the biggest provider wouldn't even scratch the surface of Monero.

I recommend reading more before spitting another numerical nonsense  

Energy wise I agree Bitcoin is more secure, but Monero is more decentralized and security comes mainly from decentralization.
51% attack is only one threat, another is government bans or enforcement of rules and Bitcoin is much more prone to this types of attacks.

Bitcoin is on it's knees when it comes to regulators while Monero shows middle finger because it's untouchable.  

[Catenaccio]

I don't understand why people complain about transaction fees being too high. Its a decentralized network that using a couple basis points of the global energy supply. Of course its going to be expensive. You have to pay a price to secure a decentralized network weather its inflation or transaction fees. If a coin has low fees its a strong indicator of low security or centralization or a indicator of rapid inflation.

It's because attackers who want to do fud against Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining. They as attackers, need to have something shock to attract people for reading and mislead unknowledgeable, inexperienced people to believe that the information is true.

The truth is opposite, if people can do research and learn about it.
End the fud on energy consumption
Defend Bitcoin Proof of Work mining that already uses clean energy.
Bitcoin Mining Council H1 2023 Briefing with information on very small percent of Bitcoin mining energy consumption compares to other industries and is it more environmental sustainable.

Bitcoin mining is only 0.13% of global CO₂ production.
Bitcoin mining energy use is 0.2% of the world's total energy.
Its sustainable power mix % is 59.9% (global mining) and 63.1% (BMC mining).

[vjudeu]

How's that for a bloating ?

If you compare transaction sizes in bytes, then you will notice, that Monero is much more bloated:



Full article: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/deniability/

By the way, you can try a simple experiment: take Bitcoin blockchain, and convert Bitcoin transactions into equivalent in Monero. You will be surprised, what will be the total size of the blockchain, instead of 600 GB we currently have. Instead of simple transactions, taking 250 bytes, you will have those 1800 bytes per transaction, so I guess you will have at least 7x more bytes, so something around at least 4 TB.

[ABCbits]

Some example,
1. Anyone (such as exchange) who become victim of their double-spend attack.
2. If the attack performed by company who own mining pool, miner theoretically can sue them for misuse of their hashrate.

This are good examples but we all know how law suits stand against Chinese owned companies, they will not care.

You mentioned OFAC on previous posts, which means you should already know some of those company ocated in US (rather than China).

--snip--

Since you don't have much knowledge this calculations may seem logical to you but it's not that cheap to attack Monero and it's impossible to rent that kind of hashing power (AWS and other services don't even allow mining) and nicehash which is the biggest provider wouldn't even scratch the surface of Monero.

FYI many service don't care whether you perform mining or other task which use 100% CPU, as long as you rent dedicated server. Only few provider (such as Hetzner) which explicitly forbid any cryptocurrency application on their server. And looking at https://www.nicehash.com/my/marketplace/RANDOMXMONERO, it's true it's far from enough to perform 51% attack.

[anarkiboy]

If you compare transaction sizes in bytes, then you will notice, that Monero is much more bloated:

You made me laugh   why ? people are using mixers to semi-anonymize Bitcoin transactions which takes a lot more bytes than one Monero transaction  
You can multiply Bitcoin tx size by 10-15 and this "anonymizing" services use a lot more hops and people who use this services tend to use it multiple times so in real world scenario, Monero tx is smaller in the end (by a lot!).

This is for regular users, but you may remember plenty of articles where Bitcoins were stolen or came from illegal source and due to lack of fungibility in Bitcoin this criminals used thousands of hops to confuse authorities  
So you know, Bitcoiners talking about bloating in Monero is a comedy of it's own   Do people who spread this disinformation lack knowledge or do they do it on purpose to make Bitcoin look good ?
Or maybe they come from "in a perfect world no one would need to use mixers" but forget real world will never be perfect and that's why we need Monero.
Example:

According to investigators, when the 2016 hack occurred, the money was moved out from Bitfinex in 2,000 separate transactions to wallets on other platforms. Initially, much of the money was placed in accounts on the dark-web platform Alpha Bay, but then moved again into dozens of accounts all over the world.

Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/feds-arrest-two-and-seize-3-6-billion-in-bitcoin-stolen-in-2016-hack-of-bitfinex-exchange-11644339957
All this bloat and they were still traced because Bitcoin is not fungible.

It takes a whole new network (Lightning Network) for Bitcoin to be somewhat usable, how's that for a bloating ?   If only LN would work.... but no, it's just a waste of space and time. (before you say anything: 1% usage  )

Most of the transactions on Bitcoin network are bot-trading back and forth to earn on the smallest price swings, they do not use mixers but people who actually want to use Bitcoin use mixers a lot.

Bitcoin is one big bloat to the whole ecosystem, it would be better if it stayed in the past because today it's just making a clown of itself.
Using Bitcoin today is like trying to use 3½-inch floppy disk drives with it's 1.44 MB of capacity to transfer Bluray movie from one computer to another  

Let me quote my self:

https://x.com/shopinbit/status/1811651225005195471
https://x.com/CoinCards/status/1809702144288882870

People have already chosen better solution than Bitcoin and it's retarded brother Lightning Network  

Bitcoin mining is only 0.13% of global CO₂ production.
Bitcoin mining energy use is 0.2% of the world's total energy.
Its sustainable power mix % is 59.9% (global mining) and 63.1% (BMC mining).

Tell this to people in Texas who lost hearing and have other health issues due to noise (no smiley faces this time, it's not funny)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXCga3toxok

I know you will keep defending Bitcoin but deep in your heart you know it's a waste of time.
You will endlessly defend it with false/outdated information but the real world usage statistics speak for themself, I'll leave it at that.
Peace  

[cryptosize]

it's impossible to rent that kind of hashing power (AWS and other services don't even allow mining)

/WEF has entered the chat...

[takuma sato]

Truth be told, Big Tech cloud services (AWS, Azure etc.) have so much CPU horsepower that it is indeed possible to execute a 51% attack against Monero.

That thing is no longer possible in Bitcoin (as it was back in 2010-2011) due to ASICs (more security, at the expense of reducing decentralization a bit).

BTC vs XMR tokenomics are totally different and if you ask me, I believe the human population will experience huge deflation in the coming decades, so a tail emission is counterproductive (unless you really believe the human population will keep increasing).

It's fine to have both cryptocurrencies in the market, just like it's fine to have both Linux and OpenBSD (security-hardened UNIX by default). No need to fight over it.

You don't even need to perform a 51% attack on Monero. Since it's a black box, anything goes. If you cannot audit the blockchain, then you have a problem, since you cannot guarantee that nobody is exploiting an unfixed bug, such as, inflating the supply, double spending, or anything in between. This is the double edged sword of anonymity and fungibility.