That’s pretty easy tbh, most of the core bitcoin devs all work for a single company that can absolutely be bought out, and even have gone on record on how much they dislike bitcoin.
It was the main reason I got out, I bought into it because I was excited by the tech behind it, but no single company should have that much control over the direction it goes in.
Now you could argue that if they did so the chain would just split and the rest of the world would just stay off the USA owned chain, but imo they have already done so much against the interest of bitcoin and everyone has just gone along with it so far (minus the bch split) so what do I know.
The whole point of cryptocurrency is that it’s decentralized. Trying to geographically limit it goes counter to the entire point. If the core devs tried to restrict it to a location like the US, it would be split pretty much immediately.
Bitcoin and other crypto currency like it rely on there being enough to circulate. China has several times over the amount of mining potential the US does. It’s seems prohibitive to investment to make it a US only mined currency.
excellent algo - but not sure it properly weights botnets over CPU/GPU specialization.
heavy chain - monero utxos are some of the biggest out there and therefore probably bad for protection against node centralization (other chains are heavy, but compared to ecnomic activity, monero is lead)
lack of verifiable inflation rate - by its nature, monero make it almost impossible to do this.
those are the ones off the top of my head. would love to have any mistakes.corrected.
the algo is CPU weighted and botnets actually help secure the network. (Though they may be ethically wrong)
yes the chain is heavy, however, to do mixing correctly means you use more txs and end up weighing just about the same
have you counted every bitcoin tx to verify they add up or do you rely on the software to do so? I would say most people rely on the software and the Monero software can count up the Monero that exist as well. So as long as there is no inflation bug in the software, we should be fine. And there’s no indication in the Monero price of such a bug.
Edit: To add to point 3, either an inflation bug has not been found, or if one has been found, the person has done a very fantastic job of going against human nature and not selling a ton of Monero that do not exist for profit.
algo - agree on the importance of general-ish purpose silicon to do the hashing, but CPU algos are still vunerable to massive parallel, (potentially) free, undetected hash. as much as 51% attacks seem to draw a collective “meh” from the crowds, I bothers me.
heavy chain - not sure about the final tx product being roughly as dense as a similar bitcoin tx. regardless, for the economic activity on the monero chain and, please correct me… an an increase of transaction frequency of average sized transactions would cause, at least, a linear increase in chain storage, correct? if so, I think my node centralization issue still applies.
inflation - its a real issue. the ability to audit the chain is pretty important to build trust. thats one of the reasons bitcoin has resisted private transactions, sending those to other layers. good, bad? who knows, but I get nervous around chains who’s very base layer is singularly opaque to an inflation bug and many others will outright reject it. not sure how devs fix this, considering monero’s (vital) core mission.
monero is a fantastic bit of dev implementation and community interaction and one of the most important chains out there, I am just suggesting that its own (unavoidable?) issues could come back and bite… hard.
You bring up some good points that I am unable to refute because I do not have the knowledge to do so, and I might or might not be somewhat high, LOL. Please, I beg you, take your previous reply and paste it into the [email protected] Community where very knowledgeable people could help answer your questions because they are very good questions and you deserve a better answer than I can give.
That’s pretty easy tbh, most of the core bitcoin devs all work for a single company that can absolutely be bought out, and even have gone on record on how much they dislike bitcoin.
It was the main reason I got out, I bought into it because I was excited by the tech behind it, but no single company should have that much control over the direction it goes in.
Now you could argue that if they did so the chain would just split and the rest of the world would just stay off the USA owned chain, but imo they have already done so much against the interest of bitcoin and everyone has just gone along with it so far (minus the bch split) so what do I know.
To take over Bitcoin it would take not only devs but also miners and major exchanges to cooperate. No single government on this planet has this power.
as another comment indicated, bitcoin (and other hard crypto chains) are resistant, not immune. please don’t make that part of your armour.
For response; see last paragraph in my comment
The whole point of cryptocurrency is that it’s decentralized. Trying to geographically limit it goes counter to the entire point. If the core devs tried to restrict it to a location like the US, it would be split pretty much immediately.
Not happening.
Bitcoin and other crypto currency like it rely on there being enough to circulate. China has several times over the amount of mining potential the US does. It’s seems prohibitive to investment to make it a US only mined currency.
May I introduce you to the Monero community, where it seems like you would very seriously belong.
no knock on monero but, like every chain out there, it has ts own problems. I wish it were the perfect panacea, but right now, nothing is.
Fair enough, I am curious. What do you see as its problems? I may or may not be able to help.
hey there.
those are the ones off the top of my head. would love to have any mistakes.corrected.
edit: hit send too early :-/
Edit: To add to point 3, either an inflation bug has not been found, or if one has been found, the person has done a very fantastic job of going against human nature and not selling a ton of Monero that do not exist for profit.
algo - agree on the importance of general-ish purpose silicon to do the hashing, but CPU algos are still vunerable to massive parallel, (potentially) free, undetected hash. as much as 51% attacks seem to draw a collective “meh” from the crowds, I bothers me.
heavy chain - not sure about the final tx product being roughly as dense as a similar bitcoin tx. regardless, for the economic activity on the monero chain and, please correct me… an an increase of transaction frequency of average sized transactions would cause, at least, a linear increase in chain storage, correct? if so, I think my node centralization issue still applies.
inflation - its a real issue. the ability to audit the chain is pretty important to build trust. thats one of the reasons bitcoin has resisted private transactions, sending those to other layers. good, bad? who knows, but I get nervous around chains who’s very base layer is singularly opaque to an inflation bug and many others will outright reject it. not sure how devs fix this, considering monero’s (vital) core mission.
monero is a fantastic bit of dev implementation and community interaction and one of the most important chains out there, I am just suggesting that its own (unavoidable?) issues could come back and bite… hard.
edit: clarification and typo.
You bring up some good points that I am unable to refute because I do not have the knowledge to do so, and I might or might not be somewhat high, LOL. Please, I beg you, take your previous reply and paste it into the [email protected] Community where very knowledgeable people could help answer your questions because they are very good questions and you deserve a better answer than I can give.
therefore I hope you do or do not have a super relaxing and restorative day.
will put something together and post. thank you for the invitation :-)