NO to MONERO

[Anonymous No.49310438]

NO to MONERO

[Anonymous No.49310455]

>>49310438
Why?

[Anonymous No.49310548]

>>49310438
Monero is fine. The community just needs to stop FUD towards BTC just in order to get attention. BTC/XMR is a great combo hold for wealth preservation and privacy.

[Anonymous No.49310621]

>>49310548
> The community just needs to stop FUD towards BTC just in order to get attention.
BTC unironically had its chance though.

[Anonymous No.49310654]

>>49310621
They are optimized for different scenarios. Maxis spreading FUD against monero are also bad. They are both stronger together.

[Anonymous No.49310671]

Monero Mothers, how can we be debunked like this...

[Anonymous No.49310703]

>>49310654
> Maxis spreading FUD against monero are also bad.
Agreed.

> They are optimized for different scenarios.
Can merely existing for longer really be considered an optimization though?

[Anonymous No.49310733]

Monerochads you got to stop making these threads

[Anonymous No.49310762]

>>49310703
>Monero
>Verifiable
>A+

There is absolutely zero way to know if an exploit or just a bug in the software left someone holding uncountable numbers of tokens.

[Anonymous No.49310785]

>>49310654
> They are both stronger together.
Perhaps, but there are absolutely hypothetical scenarios where one eats the other, or the other way around.
Personally I hold both.

[Anonymous No.49310862]

>The only scenario where this coin remains unbanned is if the feds crack it.

Discuss

[Anonymous No.49310867]

>>49310762
Range proofs show that it is - hypothetically speaking - not an "uncountable" number. But other than that yes you're right, that A+ is not deserved.

[Anonymous No.49310871]

>>49310762
> There is absolutely zero way to know if an exploit or just a bug in the software left someone holding uncountable numbers of tokens.
How would that differ from them being given the tokens legitimately?
Or did you mean that there's no way to verify the total supply is within parameters? If so, just run print_coinbase_tx_sum

[Anonymous No.49310908]

>>49310862
A Monero ban is bullish as fuck

[Anonymous No.49310935]

>>49310703
>picrel
Why not all of those, each one with its user's chosen use case? Stocks could be added too.

[Anonymous No.49310966]

>>49310908
Redd-itors will stop buying it.
Then it's just drug dealers and the small subset of preppers that don't know EMPs exist.

[Anonymous No.49310974]

>>49310871
He just means that someone could be, through rigorous computation, submitting false records to the chain, minting their own coins regularly.
>How would that differ from them being given the tokens legitimately?
I guess what separates "real" from "fake" coins would ultimately be the power spend to generate them.

[Anonymous No.49310978]

[Anonymous No.49310988]

>>49310935
> Stocks could be added too.
Stocks aren't money, nor are they purporting to be.

> Why not all of those?
Good luck.

[Anonymous No.49311009]

>>49310974
> submitting false records to the chain, minting their own coins regularly.
Surely that would fuck with the total supply though, no?

[Anonymous No.49311010]

>>49310762
>There is absolutely zero way to know if an exploit or just a bug in the software left someone holding uncountable numbers of tokens
Monero's technology is designed to audit very well. The actual risks are with things like zk-SNARKS where you're dependent on the initial setup but have no auditability afterwards.

[Anonymous No.49311064]

>>49311010
> Based binary digits with the nitty-gritty details.

[Anonymous No.49311098]

>>49311009
Yeah, see here >>49310867
Range proofs show that it's not happening in massive quantities. But it could be happening in a small one, and as Monero is right now Anon is correct there is no way of knowing it's not.
Keep in mind this hypothetical exploit would require computational power too, it'd just be using it more efficiently than is possible mining traditionally. So it makes sense that it might exist only on a small scale. That's kinda the point of POW mining, to dissuade bad actors with insufficient attack vectors/equipment (more profitable to verify real trans than submit fakes)

[Anonymous No.49311334]

>>49310988
>Stocks aren't money, nor are they purporting to be.
I wasn't refering to stocks as money, but as a potential long term store of value (if doing well), "feature" that shares with gold, btc and xmr too (to some extent, maybe even more in the future)

>Good luck.
Thanks anon, you too.

[Anonymous No.49312175]

>>49310785
I guess, but the level of rivalry in some ways makes both assets less likely to succeed in persuading a common person that any of it is good. Crypto broadly has a cross asset FUD problem that is creating a headwind of perceived risk in the entire asset class that may actually be a risk (albeit small) to the whole idea long term.

Early adopters could sift through the FUD better without it swaying them and know its just adversarial thinking. New entrants hear about disastrous failure scenarios for cryptos including btc, eth, xmr and think "I don't want to buy any of this. In fact I'll send letters to congress to try to stop them".
Of course they'll fail to do so, but it can make a lot of people never adopt the tech that otherwise would have. We are deeper in the bell curve now, and normies can't handle the heat of constant FUD of every asset and its largely academic and unnecessary. Why aim for destruction over leaning into native compatibility like atomic swaps between btc<->xmr and educating how they should be used together better.

BTC for when you need to prove source of funds (this happens sometimes in life for large purchases) or need LN for an app or want to peg another smart contract chain to it like stacks, rsk etc.

Monero when you need privacy or for money no one should know even exists.

Both stand to swallow a lot of value and there is reason to switch between the two modes. In fact that flexibility improves the value of both assets.

[Anonymous No.49312819]

>>49311334
flying insects are so fucking gross, fucking hell