Nostr View

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 16h

Monero’s approach assumes we must inject uncertainty to preserve function — that error is a feature, not a bug. But monetary policy doesn’t need to be a balancing act between loss and growth. It needs to be clear, fixed, and incorruptible. Bitcoin gives you that. #Monero trades it away for a false sense of continuity. Truth is: you can model inflation via discounting. You can model deflation via premiums. One assumes value decay and demands compensation. The other assumes value retention — and rewards patience and foresight. Neither breaks the economy. But only one requires trust in a planner. #Bitcoin doesn’t hinder spending. It reconditions it. And that terrifies those still addicted to the inflation drug — even if they code in Rust.

1
1
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 13h

It’s bad faith for Monero advocates to repeatedly claim that Bitcoin’s hard cap will spell economic disaster through deflation. Historical evidence and economic theory both show that mild, productivity-driven deflation isn’t destructive — it’s often associated with growth and rising living standards. Raising these fears ignores the real-world success of sound money periods and overstates the risks of Bitcoin’s approach, especially when both systems aim to empower users and preserve freedom of choice. Both systems offer real value and choice, there’s no need to attack one to legitimize the other.

0
1
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 13h

Gold’s “inflation” was always diminishing, not fixed, and its credibility came from new issuance becoming negligible over time, not from a permanent tail. And yes, Monero’s tail emission is a practical approach to miner incentives, and Monero itself is a strong contribution to freedom tech and financial privacy. There can never be too much of freedom tech.

0
0
3

YODL @YODL - 12h

Well said

0
0
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 12h

Monero’s approach to miner incentives, using tail emission, prioritizes predictable, ongoing rewards to maintain chain security, which is a pragmatic solution but comes at the cost of permanent, protocol-level dilution for all holders. It’s a valid technical path, especially for a privacy-focused coin, but shouldn’t be portrayed as “more mature” simply because it avoids relying on demand for blockspace and organically emergent fee markets. Bitcoin’s model, while demanding more from its users and market dynamics, anchors security in a combination of finite supply and the willingness of participants to pay for settlement, not in endless inflation. This challenges the ecosystem to innovate around transaction batching, scaling, and efficiency, ensuring that miners are still incentivized as the block subsidy declines. It’s not a question of maturity versus immaturity, but of different tradeoffs: Monero chooses steady dilution for predictable security, Bitcoin chooses absolute scarcity and tests whether transparent fees and technological ingenuity can secure the chain. Downplaying the technical rigor of one approach or the economic principles of the other misses the point; both are serious experiments in decentralized security, and each deserves honest discourse, not cheap shots.

0
0
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 12h

You are one of the most coherent and honest debaters I've come across here. Thank you.

0
0
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 12h

Predictable dilution is still dilution, it just comes with a calendar invite. Calling it “not inflation” because it’s steady is like claiming rain doesn’t get you wet if it’s in the forecast. Monero’s fixed emission shields against fee uncertainty, but every new coin still chips away at existing holders’ share. That’s a tradeoff, not a free lunch, and dressing it up as “sustainable” doesn’t change the arithmetic. Both models make bets: one on trust in economic incentives, the other on perpetual issuance. Let’s just call dilution what it is, even if it arrives right on schedule.

0
0
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 11h

Free-market bidding for scarce resources isn’t ideology, it’s how every healthy market, from housing to bandwidth, has always allocated value efficiently; Bitcoin simply applies this proven principle to digital settlement.

0
0
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 9h

> Free-market bidding WORKS when there’s consistent demand. You ASSUME this demand for on-chain settlement in a world that is increasingly moving off-chain to AVOID those fees! Greed finds a way. Monero’s fixed tail emission slows the decline in miner rewards, but as total supply grows, 0.6 XMR per block inevitably buys less over time. Like Bitcoin, long-term security depends on price and fee market demand, not protocol emissions alone. Tail emission isn’t a magic solution; over time, the security challenge is fundamentally the same: economic incentives drive network safety, not just predictable issuance.

0
0
3

ManyKeys @ManyKeys - 8h

Bitcoin’s blocks secure more real economic value and attract more honest hashpower than Monero ever has, even with “transparent” settlement and no tail emission. Monero’s floor is just a slower glide down; as both chains age, reward purchasing power shrinks and security depends on price and demand, not just protocol promises. Privacy matters, but physics and incentives aren’t fooled by emission schedules — eventually, every chain answers to the same economic test, floor or not.

0
0
3
Showing page 1 of 1 pages