Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Monero

benkaiser.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 394 posts

Re: Why Monero

#361

Post by Kbelicius »

randomhodler84 wrote: post #355
Kbelicius wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In theory couldn’t they exclude any transactions made by an ‘exile’ from the chain? I’m not sure how much that differs from doing the same thing on a PoW coin. That is also my thinking, that there basically isn't any difference between staking and mining oligopolies. > So while it’s theoretically possible for a miners cabal to lock out a new entrant it seems pretty opposed to the value of their own holdings so it’s…

There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. Unless you were able to get someone to anonymously sell you a stake worth, staking is very far from anonymous. In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. Mining is anonymous and portable.

> There are records of every coin purchased that is staked.

This would be true if the only way to get the coins is through exchanges with KYC. You can get coins in other ways so this point of yours is moot.

> In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states.

We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins which makes this point of yours moot.

> Mining is anonymous and portable.

You should read more carefully. I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment. Also, a nation state can produce mining equipment themselves, they can't create new coins.

Edit: To add, big miners really aren't that portable or anonymous.

Re: Why Monero

#362

Post by joreto »

bb88 wrote: post #351
benkaiser wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0.5XMR if you're interested, worth about $125 USD

Maybe put that at the top?

if he wrote a blog post about it and didn't own it, I'd be more worried. also, disclosures are usually at the bottom.

Re: Why Monero

#363

Post by lottin »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #352
lottin wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your employer wants to help you committing tax fraud, they would have to cook the books, which is a lot of work and entails a considerable amount of risk. Whether they pay you with a cryptocurrency or real money doesn't make any difference, as far as I can see.

No, they can just not withhold your tax obligation. Mandatory withholding is not even the norm -- KS and MO don't require it, it seems only Eastern seaboard states and maybe CA do. People keep walking this back to massive fraud but more likely what anonymity will do is just allow businesses to escape onerous operating issues. E.g. having employees in some states is worse than having them in others because of those st…

Not withholding the tax is not enough. Both the employee and the employer have to lie to the government for this to work, and for an employer this means they need to falsify their financial records, because the tax agency can demand to see them. Also, anonymous transactions already exist, so cryptocurrency doesn't make this type of fraud easier or more likely.

Re: Why Monero

#364

Post by robbedpeter »

bartvk wrote: post #263
loeg wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cash doesn't burn a bunch of electricity on a PoW scheme.

The amount of electricity spent on creating and maintaining cash must be pretty big, right? Am I misunderstanding you?

How much of a carbon footprint does the global traditional cash and banking industry produce per usd relative to the equivalent footprint of a cryptocurrency?

It's not just electricity, it's concrete and steel for banks and parking lots, employees driving to and from work, armored cars transporting cash, etc. Traditional cash is many, many orders of magnitude dirtier than even the worst cryptocurrency.

If you could assess the cost in pollution and other harms, you'd also want to assess the value in jobs and infrastructure and other utility. I'd bet cryptocurrency ends up being a far better tool all around, especially if institutional protections can be emulated - some sort of fraud insurance and so on.

Anyway, it's silly to neg on crypto because it uses lots of power. Total red herring.

It's a good ambition to make crypto more efficient, but the fuss is all FUD memeing from the usual suspects.

Re: Why Monero

#365

Post by robbedpeter »

colinmhayes wrote: post #132
robbedpeter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, it works like cash! People will do things with money that you're uncomfortable with. If it's criminal, then laws and enforcement and investigation will have to evolve. That doesn't mean "well, I guess we have to give up privacy now. " Not your money, not your business. Privacy is important, and it's a binary proposition. It's either part of the currency or it's not. You can't have any gray area because people…

Cash is much more difficult to take across borders... Monero is superior to cash for criminal activity in just about every way, the only downside is that it's a bit less liquid. This deflection about it being used in crime less than cash is weak to the point of bad faith. The privacy argument has more to stand on though. Although I will say "not your money, not our business" is a pretty controversial take.

There should be absolutely nothing controversial with that. What I spend my money on that doesn't harm anyone is nobody's business but mine and whoever I'm paying. If it does harm someone, well, that's why we have laws and law enforcement. It's the harm - the crime - that gets punished or penalized. Just like someone who gets drunk and drives. The results can be heinous, so the action is appropriately and severely punished.

Anonymity, or fungibility, doesn't interfere with that. It simply requires that evidence of harm or crime not depend on an abstract exchange of information.

Re: Why Monero

#366

Post by lmm »

Kbelicius wrote: post #361
randomhodler84 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. Unless you were able to get someone to anonymously sell you a stake worth, staking is very far from anonymous. In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. Mining is anonymous and portable.

> There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. This would be true if the only way to get the coins is through exchanges with KYC. You can get coins in other ways so this point of yours is moot. > In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. We are talking about staking oligopolies not about s…

> You can get coins in other ways

What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't.

> We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins

The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies

> I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment.

Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed.

> Also, a nation state can produce mining equipment themselves, they can't create new coins.

Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like. Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment.

Re: Why Monero

#367

Post by martin_a »

SpaghettiCthulu wrote: post #349
martin_a wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow! much edgy, such badboy!

I take it you're happy paying taxes for shit that doesn't benefit you, like useless school systems?

Paying taxes also makes sure that when I turn the tap on, there's drinking water coming out of it.

I don't think that's a bad use case for tax money.

Re: Why Monero

#368

Post by kybernetyk »

martin_a wrote: post #367
SpaghettiCthulu wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you're happy paying taxes for shit that doesn't benefit you, like useless school systems?

Paying taxes also makes sure that when I turn the tap on, there's drinking water coming out of it. I don't think that's a bad use case for tax money.

Like the water in Flint? I’d prefer a private commercial service for that. At least you wouldn’t have to live with contaminated tap water for 5 years because of incompetent government run monopolies.

Re: Why Monero

#369

Post by Kbelicius »

lmm wrote: post #366
Kbelicius wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are records of every coin purchased that is staked. This would be true if the only way to get the coins is through exchanges with KYC. You can get coins in other ways so this point of yours is moot. > In practice, most are going to be using staking providers or delegated proof of stake, and these are corporations that will absolutely be corrupted by states. We are talking about staking oligopolies not about s…

> You can get coins in other ways What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't. > We are talking about staking oligopolies not about someone buying 10 dollars worth of coins The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies > I did not mention miners but producers of mining equipment. Those are also anonym…

> What guarantees that this continues to be true? Yes coins that can't be sold are worthless, but coins that can only be sold with KYC aren't.

This applies to PoW coins too. Miners can't be anonymous if they want to sell their coins. Why would anybody mine for nothing?

> The staking providers or delegatees are the (potential) oligopolies

Yes, and miners mine in pools. Why are you not considering pools as (potential) oligopolies? What is the difference?

> Those are also anonymous and, if not completely portable, fungible with general electronic manufacturing equipment that's widely possessed.

They need physical locations with people physically present with physical inputs and outputs. The idea that it is easier for miners and hardware manufacturers to be anonymous than a guy spinning some software on some server is... stupid. To think that it is easier for miners and hardware producers to change location than a guy moving private keys from one server to another is just... retarded.

> Which supports my point - the capability to exclude a nation state also allows the staking cabals to exclude people they don't like.

I've asked you already how would a staking cabal exclude people they don't like and for some reason you are not answering that question. I'm guessing you are avoiding it because your answer, as all you've written so far in this thread, also applies to mining cabals.

> Given that a staking cabal by its very nature controls the chain, they can stop other people getting or making coins. But a mining cabal can't stop other people getting or making mining equipment.

No they can't make them stop making mining equipment, why do you think that that is relevant? The mining cabal can produce their own hardware and prevent anybody using any different hardware from joining the network, could they not?

Can you please try to clearly answer the original question. What makes mining oligopolies better than staking oligopolies? If you are sticking with your answer that it is harder to create mining oligopolies then please explain how? And before you press reply could you please stop for a minute and thing how what you wrote is applicable to mining oligopolies and not to staking oligopolies or vice versa.

Re: Why Monero

#370

Post by lottin »

SpaghettiCthulu wrote: post #348
lottin wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bitcoin ATM is an interface with an institution that is selling/dispensing dollars, so you're still dealing with an institution.

Yeah, but you don't need a bitcoin ATM. The grocery store could accept monero and there would be no need for fiat currency.

Sure, and if pigs could fly, there would be no need for helicopters.
Post reply on HN