00:06:52 personally i would like to see them punished for their lack of planning and workforce, and then downing tools due to market dump when they failed to deliver in time OTHER than that 😁 this is a great move for MAGIC - donators will be pleased to see that their money is actually being put to work by a pro-active team instead of seemingly collecting dust 00:09:02 Counterpoint: having a private US charity take over CCS funds (even for a one-off project) might be a problematic and/or unpleasant precedent 00:09:08 * merope runs away 00:32:17 Having magic cover shortfalls is.... well, it lets people double dip and game the market 00:32:32 Either request usd, stablecoin or xmr and live with your decision 00:33:49 If market dumps and you chose xmr, too fkn bad. Contract should be fulfilled 00:33:49 If market rallies, you keep the extra. 00:33:49 If you chose usd, use magix 00:33:49 If you choose a stablecoin and it goes too 0, too Fkn bad. If it hold value and xmr 20x, too fkn bad 00:35:01 (Moving forward. Whatever it going on with Molly has been a long time. To use magic to support Molly, id say.. donate all of Molly ccs to the general fund, another ccs, or hackerone, and start molly from scratch with magic) 00:40:55 45 euros an hour for each community member who decides to offer feedback 00:41:41 "Having magic cover shortfalls is..." <- Example. Haveno could collect all of its xmr and then when it doesnt work out, get the usd from magic... then hold the xmr until the price recovers and basically get away with getting the magic grant for free. 00:41:41 IF using magic to hedge against depreciation... it should be a loan.. ccs handlers should repay magic once value recovers. Author shouldnt be allowed to open ccs, raise 150xmr @100$ , cry when the price goes down to 33$, get 10000$ from magic to cover the shortfall... keep the 150 xmr now worth "5000$".. then pocket the extra when the price recovers to 100. 00:45:10 So, my suggestion about Molly and magic... is "no". 00:45:10 Or magic buys the xmr off of Molly at the old usd value - magic takes on the risk. 00:45:10 In no way do I think it males any sense at all to pawn the risk off onto donators 00:45:21 Does Molly have a mobile app like Signal? 00:48:44 Seems like a good idea 00:51:48 Agreed 00:56:55 we like Molly as an app though? i have never used it, integration seemed to be a big deal at the time of funding 00:57:21 as in , it was very popular* important to get Monero in there 01:38:03 "we like Molly as an app though..." <- Yeah. I have it installed, but dont use it as it still uses signal servers. Mob > xmr integration would is huge and so is no phone number, no signal server registration 01:38:53 ofrnxmr: I'd like to note this is partially meant to raise awareness of MAGIC's potential, and that this proposal was made before MAGIC was available. The CCS is known for dealing with Monero, despite most proposals detailing the USD breakdowns. It's not that they chose XMR as currency. It's that they chose working with XMR which meant XMR as currency, something MAGIC provides more flexibility on. 01:39:39 We also do not want to or plan to do this for everyone :p I think Haveno specifically commented they wouldn't be interested when the comment about MAGIC came up on Reddit, though there was some confusion there when I read it 01:40:31 But yes. This would create a system where they get their original payment and more on top. The question becomes is that justified given Monero's ecnomic downturn, with the rest of the market, or is this a bad precedent for bad people who should've handled this 01:40:56 (not to actually call anyone at Molly bad people, yet more to speak on why we sought community feedback and comment in general about mis-planned CCS proposals) 01:41:08 * speak on,, * via hyperbole, why we 01:41:31 And then your most recent messages also note why we considered it as a candidate :p 01:48:14 "The question becomes is that justified given Monero's ecnomic downturn, with the rest of the market, or is this a bad precedent for bad people who should've handled this"... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/90fcec417a1ad877062b54aa930f83679431f82a) 01:51:54 "(not to actually call anyone..." <- Definitely not saying they are malicios. 01:51:54 Just thinking about how to properly improve the process, and using magic to boost the funds sounds even worse than the current situation, where many people are already actively abusing the system for extra funding, whether they deliver or not. 01:51:54 Asking for 150k then walking away with 180k and then dropping to 90k and asking for more is dishonest. 01:52:37 We're absolutely not discussing covering 38150. That's more than our entire balance sheet. 01:53:14 Moving forward, ccs should specifically imply whether they want xmr, a stablecoin, or fiat (magic), and be held to that contract 01:53:32 We'd either need to take custody of the CCS funds, which require community, Molly, and General Fund approvals, and is its own precedent likely not worth discussing, or solely discuss covering 10-16k (10k with shrunk scope). 01:54:24 There definitely have been irresponsible parties in the past. While I'd have to re-review Haveno's case, the notable one I know is Cypherstack, which I hesitate to bring up because they did the right thing, and I actually do like Diego/Cypherstack. 01:54:50 And we're not discussing a bail out for a party who received funds and held. Molly didn't claim any milestones. 01:55:29 While there is a case for CCS reform here, as well as MAGIC :p 01:55:29 I'd want to focus that Molly wanted to work with Monero and this was the method. It showed its difficulties, and we can accept that, or MAGIC can potentially demonstrate flexibility 01:55:32 Yes, im saying those 177xmr are in custody though, and what to do with them would be to (If they need 38150) is not sell 01:55:49 And tbc, yes, it's obvious my preference. This isn't me trying to talk over you ;) More the back and forth to ensure its all on the table 01:56:39 You do raise points why this shouldn't be done in general, and I can confirm its not something we want as a general policy. We had a joke made about it, and deverick was appropriately aghast ;) 01:58:58 For sure. 01:58:58 For Molly, I think its an important piece of software. 01:58:58 Session is no good, signal is.. Signal.. status im is ETH and missing some basic features 02:05:42 as previously discussed, once xmr is raised via the CCS it can't be converted to any other currency 02:07:23 nioc: CCS milestone paid to Molly 02:07:23 Magic trades Molly 248$/xmr 02:07:23 Once price recovers, magic sells 02:08:25 gotcha 02:08:28 nioc: And thats as of right now, with a broken system. Not after fixing it 02:09:00 nioc: Something like that. Open to other suggestions 02:12:15 ofrnxmr: I think you’ve given some good solutions. I’m torn on this one because I love the idea of a signal client with native Monero support ( even if there is no IOS or desktop client ) but using magic funds as insurance for CCS is a slippery slope. 02:23:23 Moving forward, for new ccs, I think the creator should have to decide xmr, stablecoin, usd.... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/3d26f3ddb38a3be2b8e74d8df8b79dc519416fb8) 02:56:17 Hey ArticMine, I have a more personal question for you since you moved all of your Bitcoin into Monero. 02:56:17 Are you not concerned about the tiny possibility (debatable how large, some may even say effectively 0%) that there is a bug exploit in Monero’s BulletProofs implementation, which breaks Monero’s supply security? I know that everyone seems to agree only a quantum computer *should* be able to do this, but I wanted to hear your thoughts. 02:56:17 I figured you would be a good person to ask as you seem much more confident in Monero than Bitcoin and are quite knowledgeable about technical details of Monero. 03:02:04 Not to speak on behalf of articmine, but for myself... I don't see bitcoin as useful or sustainable with the leadership it is under or direction it is taking. 03:02:04 A bug with the supply is possible, but is also possible (and has happened) in bitcoin. 03:02:50 https://youtu.be/aHv2gq4Wm5I 03:02:50 Or 03:02:50 https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=aHv2gq4Wm5I&local=true 03:21:19 https://youtu.be/aHv2gq4Wm5I?t=1055 03:21:19 Direct link to sarang's take 03:27:01 Thanks for sending it again. I’ve watched it. Sarang wrote most of the implementation for BP right? Did Koe do most of the implementation for BP+? Not that it makes a difference really. 03:27:27 Yeah Sarang is confident in BP. He thinks only a quantum computer breaks it. 03:28:40 Which is how it should be. The BP seem to be the sticking point for the BTC guys. I just finished watching part 2 of Doug and Seth’s interview with Giacomo Zucco. So it made me reassess again. 03:29:56 If BP is secure then we good. 03:40:31 > <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> CCS milestone paid to Molly 03:40:31 > Magic trades Molly 248$/xmr 03:40:31 > Once price recovers, magic sells 03:40:31 I'd like to clarify the MAGIC Monero's Fund investment policies are at the discretion of its members. While we could consider this as a way to subsidize it, we already have a set balance in Monero occasionally updated. Doing this would require deciding a new policy, and while we may, the part we wanted to discuss is this grant, which leaves us to consider how best to afford it ;) 03:42:02 Also, I personally think leaving exchange responsibilities to MAGIC is optimal. While I wouldn't say the CCS user experience wouldn't be better if they'd convert to USDC/DAI upon raise upon request, the CCS is a legal gray area at best, and having exchanges as well... seems to be a lot. It also detracts from its Monero centricity and adds risk. An exchange can flag the deposit. The Monero blockchain won't ;) 06:41:34 my 2c... if Molly is not going to claim their payouts, better cancel the ccs proposal and move funds to general fund. After that, at their on discretion, Molly can apply for a grant on MAGIC indepently. There's no need to mix ccs funds with this 06:41:58 ccs terms alreay state that if proposal goal is not met, funds shall be moved to GF 06:42:28 s/their on/their own/ 06:45:20 netrik182: We're generally discussing giving them the additional funds which may, or may not depending on your view of time, be required to complete their CCS milestones. NOT doing anything distinct with the CCS funds 06:47:11 Because yes, that sentiment is agreed with :) 06:48:50 then doing this can open a precedent for proposers to halt their work as soon as the price drops even 1%, seeking for a bail out from MAGIC or what not 06:49:09 not saying that our current ccs is perfect, but they accepted the term when they opened the proposal 06:50:28 item 2 from "for donors" here says it's on discretion from core to deal with exception anyway https://ccs.getmonero.org/what-is-ccs/ 06:50:39 default is moving funds, as others also mentioned 08:22:44 > <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Moving forward, for new ccs, I think the creator should have to decide xmr, stablecoin, usd.... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/edf6ba84dbfed24470f92e01997b11efac5aed5c) 08:24:25 haveno chose to sit on that XMR and essentially gambled and lost 08:24:33 wen haveno too big to fail 11:08:53 "> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social..." <- Haveno as an example. They required usd to pay the contractors. 11:08:53 The issue with this is milestones. 11:08:53 While they did gamble the first milestone, the current one is valued too low to pay the contractors. 11:08:53 Having immediate payouts works in theory, but requires trusting haveno etc to not gamble up the entire amount. 11:21:32 Money is a public good. The key to the success of a crypto currency is a legitimate public goods funding process. The problem is that we have too many people that come here with this "magic internet money make me rich" attitude. If we look at this haveno drama objectively: no money was lost. 1xmr is still 1 xmr. People had these unrealistic expectations about haveno in the first place. I get the impression people thought they will 11:21:32 drive around in the lambo together with monerochan a few months after haveno launched. Now they are salty because the reality does not meet the expectations. But even if the development was done by now this expectation of lambo driving would not have been met. anyway TLDR: we need to find a way to quiet down the moaning bag holders in our public goods funding process. The way we currently communicate is not really constructive. It 11:21:32 is not really attractive to join the space when potential builders see this. 11:27:02 "wen haveno too big to fail" <- would you agree that this "too big to fail" thing is a problem? it seems like the community always hypes up one project or thing that will be "the breakthrough" that makes monero moon. But maybe this one ultimate game changer just does not exist ... Maybe the road to success means we need to slowly improve as a community and as individuals. So over time we attract more and more premium 11:27:02 people that have skills and the right attitude to build stuff.. 11:31:20 spirobel[m]: it was sarcasm 11:33:39 haveno can crash and burn for all icare 11:33:43 s/icare/i care/ 11:33:53 monero can & will survive and thrive without it 11:35:10 r4v3r23[m]: maybe it didnt matter to you personally, but the community wouldnt have reacted this way if it wasnt "to big to fail" 11:35:25 people put lots of hope and expectations on it 11:35:38 its not. penumbra is already working on a proper replacement 11:35:45 haveno doesnt have a monopoly on DEX 11:37:16 the point I am trying to make is more meta than that. But maybe other people just dont see it. 11:37:24 articulate it clearer then 11:37:44 if youre saying a DEX is important for monero ecosystem then i agree 11:38:13 just not one thats run by a crybaby leftist 11:39:18 haveno is just an example for it. There is a always a "current thing " in the monero community. Something the majority tells themselves when they cuddle with their monerochan body pillow and dream about how the future will be like. 11:39:56 oh yeah i get what you mean 11:40:25 monero's value prop is the core repo itself. not an outside project that builds on it 11:41:57 r4v3r23[m]: moneros value prop is the monero community and the hope that the people in it will become more premium over time. 11:49:23 take any token and look at the people. Look at their attitudes and skills. And ask yourself this: are they winners or are they losers? I think we are very far ahead of other communities that have discord channels and nothing else. People are technically competent, use linux and are willing to self host stuff. 11:51:37 But never the less there is room for improvement. 😅 if we want to succeed we need to get better. 11:56:25 Also, with haveno.. we didnt fund haveno. . We funded contractors to do the interface. 11:56:25 Any/all of haveno features are disconnected from the ccs 12:00:30 Any talk of councils etc.. where were these councils when the money was gambled? 12:00:30 Haveno doesnt owe us a working product, nor to they have to implement a council.. the interface is the only ob'igation. 12:00:30 So "too big to fail" wouldnt matter. Haveno is open source but has no attachment to the ccs or any non-interface related promises made there 12:55:27 Agreed. But we can’t stop the community members from getting overhyped and making emotional decisions. The road to success is people gradually get pushed out of Bitcoin and fiat due to regulatory presssures and BulletProofs are never broken. 12:56:30 So did UST (Luna and Terra) investors 12:58:56 I’m my opinion Monero (the network and the team) will have succeeded if speed and tx size improvements are slowly and consistently made and Inputs = Ouputs is never broken. After that it is up to end users to use the superior project (IQ test as hyc has called it). 13:00:53 Monero is already pretty darn good, it’s just about gaining adoption. I’m taking efforts to discuss the merits of using. Monero’s competition = (1) Bitcoin (2) Physical cash (3) Fiat in online banking systems. The amount of government regulations that are about to choke online banking will leave cash and Bitcoin as the two only remaining competitors. 13:05:07 The US government will turn sharply totalitarian at some stage in the near future in an effort to finance its debt burden and debt liabilities. Eventually critically thinking people will “tap out” of the US Financial System once they realize its fate is sealed and is doomed to fail. 13:06:37 Also Monero provides a return to a full reserve system which Austrian Economics enjoyers, like me, want desperately. 16:24:30 I wonder if there have been any attempts made to forecast the future increase in fees for transactions on Bitcoin layer 1? Don’t the fees have to go way up after the next few halvings as the block reward goes way down? 16:26:05 One problem I see with BTC is that fees eventually have to go up to subsidize ASIC miners or fees stay low and it goes back to GPU and CPU mining. The problem with the first scenario is that it’s expensive, but the BTC enjoyers probably don’t care about that. The problem with the second scenario is that it leaves BTC exposed to non-profit malicious ASIC attackers. 16:26:49 Unless electricity and ASICs get really cheap in the future after the next 2-5 halvings, but I doubt that will happen. 16:31:15 " I wonder if..." <- Yes 16:36:32 bridgerton: A damaging bug in the code is a small but finite risk in both Monero and Bitcoin. There was a serious coin printing in Bitcoin in 2010 that required stopping the chain. I understand it was due to a buffer overflow. There was also a bug in Monero that allowed for coin printing that was caught by... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/09cb6857283a210598de9a4e328485557cd702b8) 16:37:08 ArticMine @articmine:monero.social: thoughts on the monerotalk 2/3 16:38:09 Mostly interested what you think about the "we could announce a move to ASIC friendly Algo a few years ahead" 16:44:40 I have not had a chance to listen to the talk yet. 16:44:40 The idea of ASIC commoditization was a plan B in case RandomX did not work. 16:44:40 My take is that a RandomX ASIC would provide a minimal advantage and would result in a super efficient CPU. 16:45:27 That assumes randomx doesn't get broken in some way 16:46:10 It's not a 100% given that you can improve efficiency only via more efficient CPU, right? 16:49:41 RandomX is designed to use most of the features of a CPU. So if one got rid of some of the baggage such as support for 40 year old proprietary code or support for DRM one could find efficiencies 16:51:16 Thanks for the reply ArticMine. You see the small risk of a bug in Monero as a worthwhile (I agree by the way) tradeoff for all of the things Monero does that Bitcoin does not. 16:52:17 I also highly doubt Bitcoin will ever change its emission schedule. So many knuckleheads are fully committed to a hard cap. 16:52:57 It is also strongly mitigated by the strength of the Monero community. 16:53:15 Also does anyone have links to the BulletProofs+ audits? I see their CCS’s, but was unable to find links to the audits themselves. 16:54:11 "Mostly interested what you think..." <- that was always the plan more or less. use random x to hold off asic mining until it becomes decentralized enough 16:54:47 r4v3r23[m]: Planned by who? 16:54:49 True. But if a sophisticated adversary does somehow see an exploit that slipped past everyone, it would probably kill Monero wouldn’t it? Not sure what the response would be from there. I realize this is highly unlikely, but unless I’m misunderstanding something then Monero’s future success is built on the base of the community/team + Amount proofs in tx’s. 16:55:08 * Planned by who? Is it somewhere in the whitepaper? 16:56:14 gonbatfire[m]: that was the idea behind random x - keep mining decentralized. if/when asics become more common then we can start talking about moving to sha3 16:56:19 fluffly mentioned this a while back 16:56:48 gonbatfire[m]: are we bitcoin maxis? can we only stick to the whitepaper? 16:57:00 My theory is this: if Monero’s foundation of input = output is never broken we should eventually surpass BTC, I don’t see what advantages Bitcoin has other than more people own it presently. If a quantum computer starts breaking stuff then all chains are equally toast (unless new cryptography is integrated in advance) 16:58:09 This seems like a good strategy. But I’m very educated on how it play out. Would asic miners on BTC just come over to Monero and be able to 51% it or no? 16:58:24 No. Different algo 16:58:50 ofrnxmr[m]: hes talking if monero moved to asics 16:59:00 Are there already ASICs developed for this algo / SHA3 16:59:09 Yeah. We wouldnt move to bitcoin sha.. 16:59:43 oh yeah. shows how much ive forgetten about bitcoin 16:59:55 Otherwise youre just asking for asics to chain hop like they do to attack bch hashrate / block times 17:00:01 The theory is that we would move to an algorithm that doesn’t already have ASICs or an algorithm that has a variety of ASIC producers? 17:00:26 > <@r4v3r23:matrix.org> > <@gonbatfire:monero.social> Planned by who? Is it somewhere in the whitepaper? 17:00:26 > 17:00:26 > that was the idea behind random x - keep mining decentralized. if/when asics become more common then we can start talking about moving to sha3 17:00:26 Ah interesting, what about the price of the hashrate thought? Afaik because more hardware complex hardware is used to achive 1 hash Monero should be more secure on randomX than on an ASICable algo. 17:01:14 One wants to be the biggest coin using a particular algo 17:01:16 We are talking about a hypothetical future scenario where RandomX is broken. 17:01:37 If randomx is broken, then it wouldnt be by sha asics 17:01:43 Seth and Giacomo discussed it in Pt 2 on Doug’s channel 17:01:54 Broken how? 17:01:59 We have come to accept hard forks because privacy IS an arms race, why shouldn't we threat ASIC resistance the same? It *is* an arms race against censorship. Plausible deniability is a privacy technique which like all other will have to improved and maintained. 17:01:59 Would you use an older version of TOR that's easier to be captured by malicious nodes? With Monero mining censorship will be a thing, and the only way we can keep that away is by having a low enough barrier of entry, not just in cheap hardware sense, but in protecting miner's privacy as well. 17:02:02 its not a new idea 17:02:02 Yes, but what would the plan be if it was broken? 17:02:08 gogoba[m]: you 17:02:35 * youre saying cpus should be able to secure better than asics...? 17:02:40 ASIC is developed for Random X with large gains over standard CPU (like what used to happen with crypto night) 17:02:54 r4v3r23[m]: Absolutely 17:02:55 bridgerton[m]: Broken = an asic can mine randomx 17:02:55 Doesn't mean it is broken, and would imply the asic was specifically manufactured to handle randomx 17:03:43 gonbatfire[m]: interesting. i always thought of it as hypothetical because theres no way asics will become as common as cpus 17:04:05 r4v3r23[m]: Like I did some rought calculation a while back and it seemed that even thought the hashrate was a really small portion the "total price to 51%" price/hash*total hashrate was not that much far off from Bitcoin. Just counting the hardware. 17:04:06 I agree with your objectives, but at what point does Monero throw in the towel on the objective of ASIC resistance? You’re suggesting that if RandomX is broken we should try again to tweak the algo for ASIC resistance? 17:04:50 Yes 17:05:19 I thought about this as well b 17:05:23 r4v3r23[m]: Against an state actor, it's much easier to mine with general purpose hardware (your laptop, your phone) that to try to hide some circuit specifically designed for that (illegal) purpose 17:05:32 How are gonna get ASICs into venezuela? 17:05:37 gonbatfire[m]: 100% 17:05:48 im not pro asics 17:05:50 Modern cpus hash at +30x hash rate compared 10 year old CPUs at 15kh vs 500h 17:05:59 gonbatfire[m]: Totally, look what happen with the China hashrate crash. 17:06:21 Making asics doesnt make much sense when CPU's are still getting faster 17:06:38 An asic of today would ve obsolete in a few years 17:06:39 Most PoW coins' hashrate crashed, except for Monero. 17:06:42 Take a look at the BCH hashrate trend 17:06:42 To be real if a nation state actor wanted to attack Monero, they have no morals, they could just remote control exploit people and create their own botnet. It would be like a Spirit Bomb from Dragon Ball. The NSA would have a big bot net and we’d have to all join the second largest pool lol 17:07:11 ASICs mean more power in the hands of state actors = capturing the network (by censoring transactions/whitelisted blocks) 17:07:19 gogoba[m]: not to mention the networks came to a halt. transacting on bitcoin was afucking nightmare 17:07:23 And to be clear, it would be made obsolete by improving CPU's 17:07:29 Bitcoins hashrate is still closer to its peak than Monero’s is. 17:07:37 that was one of the final straws for me in bitcoin 17:07:59 bridgerton[m]: Bitcoin has manufacturers making asics and plugging them in everyday 17:08:34 I’ll take your word for it, but what is the point. 17:08:39 As a for-profit business (making, selling, using asics), Bitcoiners hashrate should be at ath, always 17:09:05 Its not like the asics are being repurposed. They are being turned off or chain hopping to manipulate the blocks 17:09:14 The final straw for me with Bitcoin is no privacy in Layer 1 lol 17:10:02 I think the question of BTC vs Monero is still unanswered and will depend on the perception of the crypto-market participants and how governments eventually try to attack this thing. 17:10:02 Even if monero had no privscy, dynamic blocks are enough to choose monero over btc 17:10:20 Why is that? 17:10:23 ofrnxmr[m]: and tail emission 17:10:39 bridgerton[m]: You ever wait 12 hrs to send a btc tx? 17:10:42 > <@r4v3r23:matrix.org> > <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Even if monero had no privscy, dynamic blocks are enough to choose monero over btc 17:10:42 > 17:10:42 > and tail emission 17:10:42 and a better community 17:10:53 Mempool with 30 blocks pending 17:10:56 Could you specify on why it was a nightmare? 17:11:14 Not yet and hope I never will need to. 17:11:15 bridgerton[m]: during the btc miner crack down the network got slammed by people transacting with no miners to mine blocks 17:11:23 difficulty adjustment was 2 WEEKS 17:11:23 10minuted, 3000 tx Max.. is pathetic 17:11:39 in monero the difficulty adjust every block, right? 17:11:54 so even during a hashrate crash, the network should baraely hiccup 17:12:02 And the mempool tx are super fake. 17:12:02 Go from 200tx/ block and 300 tx pending, o 3000tx per block and 30k tx pending 17:12:21 Why do they do this? So you raise you fee on future tx 17:12:25 imagine needing to bid your tx vs whales 17:12:27 just to spend your fucking money 17:12:53 I agree with the slow tx speed thing. But the BTC people have changed the narrative to Layer 1 being the store of value chain and lightening for transacting. What is your guys rebuttal to that claim? 17:12:53 bridgerton[m]: theyre all idiots 17:13:07 And worse, not just bid. They will push your tx out of the block over and over 17:13:08 Could you elaborate? 17:13:30 I’m just playing devil’s advocate to strengthen my own position when conversing with BTC guys. 17:13:36 bridgerton[m]: lightening is KYC paypal 2.0 17:13:40 If I sell you a car, and then it doesnt work, and I start calling it a lawn ornament 17:13:55 bridgerton[m]: dont bother. they are literally a cult. anyone who understands bitcoin moves to monero 17:13:56 Youd be an idiot to buy my story 17:14:11 puss 17:14:44 Ask them "why bitcoin" 17:14:49 r4v3r23[m]: But what about layer 3 fedimints 17:14:55 They cant give an answer that is older than a few months. 17:14:59 I hold 98% XMR and 2% BTC (in case I ever need to use BISQ because they need collateral for the trade). 17:15:17 Yeah there is no privacy, but the base instrument is btc and there is next to no fee on lightening right? 17:15:38 No, you pay to open and close the lighting channel 17:15:59 How much? 17:16:19 ofrnxmr[m]: > we need lightening for when blocks are full and its too expensive to transact on main layer but you can also settle back to main layer anytime you want 17:16:23 The same layer 1 fee each time you open or close 17:16:30 layer 2 only makes sense on a scalable layer 1 17:16:47 stop discussing about dumb things with dumb people 17:16:55 Yeah I see the contradiction there… 17:17:24 Also, if fees are the ONLY security incentive for miners.. and everyone moves to lightning... 17:17:50 What if someone just held their BTC for an extended period of time in a lightening channel? 17:17:53 stop being so delusional 17:18:12 there is nothing like layer 2 17:18:13 layer 2 is actually a "paraller chain or network" 17:18:13 I thought about that issue as well. 17:18:20 If you dont use btc, you dont generate fees 17:18:30 ofrnxmr[m]: fUlL bLoCks & fEe mArKeT 17:18:34 layer 2 that you think, actually exist in your imagination, in reality it is a parallel network 17:18:38 just like base layer 17:18:45 affected with same problems 17:19:05 Calm down. I’m just asking questions to strengthen my knowledge of why BTC is allegedly doomed. I think there are definitely problems with BTC. The fact that you are complaining and explaining tells quite a bit. 17:19:09 Bitcoin relies on fees increasing massivelt or asic prices dropping massively, or bitcoin doubling every 4 years 17:19:35 Yes we are on the same page here. 17:19:40 If fees dont increase, asics HAVE to fall to a sustainable price for miners. 17:20:08 Or the price of bitcoin has to double at the next halving to keep up the same pay. 17:20:24 How so? At least lightening is fast and cheap and BTC is the base medium in exhanges? 17:20:32 Agree. 17:20:35 If it becomes a losing game to create asics or mine Bitcoin, they will stop. Its business for them, not a hobby 17:21:08 Agree. But this doesn’t necessarily kill bitcoin. It just is a serious problem. 17:21:16 If I pay 20k for an asic, I want my money back in under 12 months. 17:21:17 If at next halving, im only getting 10k in 12 months... 17:21:19 That’s why I think it’s still an open question. 17:21:29 bridgerton[m]: No, it kills bitcoin 17:21:58 bridgerton[m]: the problem is, everyone here has half-baked knowledge so you are getting half-of half-baked knowledge from them 17:21:59 avoid discussing about problems and asking serious questions in a chat 17:22:00 i suggest you to go to monero.stackexchange.net 17:22:01 Explain how this conundrum ascertains BTCs death? 17:22:08 At 0 block reward, vs todays 150k block reward .. 17:22:08 Layer 1 fees are supposed to cover 150k + inflation. 17:22:08 If everyone is on lighting, where do those fees come fromv 17:22:47 At 3000tx/block Max, that is over 50$/tx required on constantly full blocks 3000/3000 tx 17:23:15 50$ in fees* required to replace the current subsidy 17:23:15 Over 100 if we use ath 17:23:19 we will wait for lightning to be scalable 17:23:22 Why would it be any better over there? The people who build Monero reside in these matrix channels, who better to ask the them? They are the most familiar with Monero at a technical level. 17:23:29 and only those people with money can run lightning node, it is fucking centralised 17:23:46 som1[m]: Speak for yourself 17:23:56 that is you, man 17:24:08 you are a mere user 17:24:09 novice 17:24:11 +1 17:24:16 Coming from the person telling us to open a ccs for them 17:25:26 ofrnxmr[m]: +1 17:26:31 Ok now we are making some progress and I’m seeing how this could spell defeat. So you think even the Bitcoin sympathizers will move off of transacting on Layer 1 to transact on lightening, which causes a break down in the fee market on Layer 1. So most people use lightening and nobody uses L1 is how you see step 1. What is the next step though? ASICs stop mining L1 due to lack of fees or something else? 17:27:38 most people will use lighening as a custodial KYC wallet 17:27:44 Curious to hear what you think will happen after people stop using L1 bitcoin. 17:28:06 I thought lightening could be used non-custodially? 17:28:08 bridgerton[m]: go read lightning whitepaper 17:28:32 and ask questions on bitcoin.stackexchange.com 17:28:38 about lightning network, centralisation, scalability 17:28:45 you will get proper answer my child 17:29:08 I appreciate the offer but I will pass. 17:29:18 som1[m]: No. They will be told to search as the question has been asked 100000 times and coped everytime 17:29:28 Ofrnxmr seems to be onto something here. 17:29:49 That’s why I’m asking you ofrn 17:30:05 Som1 hasn’t even given a good line of reasoning yet lol 17:30:15 if you are asking question here, you are wasting your own time.. as you are getting half baked knowledge from novice noobs 17:30:20 and those answering here are lurkers 17:30:27 wasting their own time 17:30:31 r/monero mods, approve my post 17:30:33 if you want to ask go to #monero-community-dev:monero.social 17:30:34 thank 17:30:38 or #monero-research-lounge:monero.social 17:30:59 What’s wrong with them being lurkers? It doesn’t mean they can’t have good ideas or be critical thinkers? 17:31:30 bridgerton[m]: you must be a noob here, who don't understand the technology, there are thousands like you here everyday, a serious person won't waste their time answering 17:31:40 you get a quick answer on stackexchange, please goo 17:31:43 fuck off 17:31:49 what is going on here 17:32:15 som1[m]: Who's a lurker? Or a novice noob? Articmine? 17:32:30 Anyways, how do you the second part unfolding. Most people move to lightening and L1 txs continue to plummet. This would imply that ASIC miners can’t get enough fees to sustain their mining operations. My question is what do you think happens after that? 17:32:30 ofrnxmr is 17:32:31 beware of that user 17:32:34 Who else 17:32:35 Triggered 17:32:46 He’s triggered that’s all 17:32:55 som1 is wasting his time telling others that theyre wasting their time 17:33:00 Som1 hasn’t made a single good argument against lightening 17:33:05