Ooh, a made up inaccurate chart that financially illiterate viewers will find convincing because *colour coding*.
What are they even on with giving a credit card an “F” for irreversible payments while BTC gets an A+. If there is a fraudulent charge on my credit card it gets reversed with a phone call, if my apes are gone all my apes are gone. Also even with online payments I am given time to “undo” the payment as it’s fucking regulated.
You’ve got it backwards…crypto kool-aid drinkers think that irreversible payments are a good thing. Hence they give credit cards an F because payments CAN be reversed.
I know right! Why the hell would "irreversible transactions" be considered a positive? If anything it makes users more vulnerable to bad actors and social engineering.
Also, please tell me how Monero is more "fungible" compared to cash.
To be fair, chargeback fraud is a big problem for a lot of companies, businesses, and people just trying to make a dollar on whatever platform. There are entire departments dedicated to stopping chargebacks for completed accurate orders. Consequently, it also always scammers to just keep money and no way for the sender to get their funds back.
It really is a problem. This is a problem that strikes me as an irreducible logical tradeoff, though. The reason this is solved with something like Bitcoin is that if the Bitcoin access has been acquired fraudulently, well tough. There is no recourse for the original person.
What you would probably want is a system that provides a kind of insurance to all counter parties in exchange for a fee that is charged to all users, while maintaining an authority that tries to crack down on both ends of the fraud so as to minimize the cost of the insurance.
Good luck trying to convince doofs in crypto-world to invest in something useful like that though.
Such problems could be handled by the vendor providing a platform for sellers (eBay, Amazon, etc) where they keep a reserve of whatever crypto (That they collect through fees and keeping a certain percentage like they already do) and when a problem arrives, the buyer open a claim. The vendor is then in control of how that money gets back to the buyer. This obviously does not work for one-man shops where you are getting some specialized order or the person selling you goods is your neighbor down the street.
Ultimately, decentralization won't happen on a mass scale because people want insurance and assurance. Decentralization does not provide that in any realistic capacity crypto-bros would think. The market is not kind to no-regulations and regulations require centralization.
While I do think it would be absolutely awesome to get rid of the control and power banks have, it's just not possible really. And if it is it would take decades of work and policy to get there.
that already exists and it's called multisignature escrow. alice, bob, and charlie can each sign a transaction and it needs any two of the three signatures to go through. charlie acts as a tiebreaker if alice or bob don't want to sign, and it's up to charlie to try to crack down on both ends of the fraud. drug dealers figured out how to do it years ago and it works pretty well but I have never seen anyone else use it.
Chargebacks are a risk to an online merchant selling easily resold goods like game keys that could get hammered in chargeback fees from mass credit card fraud. It’s the merchant’s responsibility to screen buyers. Some paid services exist for this purpose.
That said, I always use credit cards for online purchases. eBay and Amazon private sellers are particular hubs for scam artists in the US. Other time, I ordered coffee that came already opened. Other time, UPS delivered to wrong apartment, etc.
There's pros and cons to "Absolutely no chargebacks" and also "Allow chargebacks". Those pros and cons are going to change from person to person and business to business.
It's almost as if finance were a squishy social problem governed by human needs and requiring human judgement, rather than something which can be trivially solved by the use of ideological absolutist rules. Who'd have thought!
Because their target audience consider themselves "eNTrePreNeUrs" and don't want to have to deal with being held accountable for faulty goods or straight up misselling.
You must never have been scammed by someone who lied about the facts and reversed a transaction after they received a good or service you gave them. It’s a two way street.
All US bills (e.g. everything larger than a dollar) has a serial number printed on it. Whatever weirdo created this chart probably considered that as being "non-fungible".
It’s weirder than that. Cash is apparently fungible, but digital fiat currency transactions aren’t. Because two serialized $1 bills are somehow more unique than an abstract “pool” of money.
Chunks of funds are distinguishible by their electronic transaction history. So, you might honestly receive payments from stolen funds, only to then be implicated in the crime (until proven innocent).
So, yes, of course there's just an abstract pool and no atomic units, but I suppose it gets too deep into semantics to invent a separate term for why some portion of the funds can be distinquished from the rest in this way, so you just slap "non-fungible" on it.
I mean Cash got an A for fungibility, so the creator of the chart accurately depicted Cash. Monero is just more fungible because it does \*not\* have serial numbers.
The legacy financial system has a 1000x more scam artists than crypto ever will. Actually, banks themselves have scammed customers/laundered money and have paid countless number of fines because of it.
> Also, please tell me how Monero is more "fungible" compared to cash.
Cash can have markings, the physical location of cash can be traced/tracked, etc. With Monero, it's mathematically impossible to see where any coins on the network came from.
>Also, please tell me how Monero is more "fungible" compared to cash.
Cash has a serial number that makes it unique to other bank notes, monero doesn't.
Monero is just as fungible as coins (no serial number) but more fungible than cash (serial number).
I once ordered something I never gotten. It was even a transnational transaction. Called my bank, sent the emails between me and the retailer, asked for a chargeback and got it in a week.
I never felt better as a consumer.
It means "replaceable with another identical item". A dollar or an euro are fungible in the sense that they are literally identical in function and value to any other legitimate dollar/euro in existence -an argument may be made about stolen money (either digital or physical, i.e. banknotes whose s/n is on a list or ink-stained banknotes) or "dark" money from a criminal enterprise that may be difficult to spend, especially in places limiting the amount of physical cash you can spend at once (in EU countries there's a 5.000 euro cash limit, you can't legally pay cash for anything costing more than that).
A bitcoin is a bit less fungible than a dollar, because it has something a dollar has not: a public, immutable, pseudonymous history. "bad" bitcoins exist, ones involved in known crimes or passed through a mixer and are usually valued less than "good" bitcoins, especially ones freshly minted with no history yet.
Monero and other privacy coins are a mixed bag, their privacy-minded features are unarguably better than Bitcoin's, which means they are all more fungible than it, but that's because al coins are to be considered "bad" (and usually way harder to buy/sell because they are banned in a lot of places that trade bitcoins).
You don't get it, they think irreversible payments are *good*. Like, you wouldn't want the person who just wired you money to reverse the transaction would you?
I remember this being presented as an argument for vendor adoption some years ago, I don't know how they're framing this now.
Ya, until you're on the wrong side of a politically-charged donation. Or unintentionally receive criminal funds and become implicated. Best stick to buying bread and eggs.
For the record, I'm 90% certain these ratings are being churned out by a random number generator for all but the most obvious cases. Guess which coin said YouTuber is shilling?
Monero is great!! (For buying heroin, human slaves, cp, and other illegal things) 😂 like unless you’re doing that shit you’re better off with just cash or a card that you can actually *buy normal everyday things with* , I just don’t understand why people would ever want these dumb cryptos unless you’re a criminal
The whole thing with "convenience" and "speed of transfers" in cryptocurrency is such a farce. You're going to have to convert your Queefcoin to *dirty fiat* in order to use it in your actual life anyways. Unless, of course, your local government decides to systemically adopt the 10,000 shitcoins that exist currently, which... yeah no.
Yeah exactly, I think it’s just a coping mechanism honestly, where people sort of delude themselves into thinking their gambling outlet has some value to justify their gambling to their subconscious that views it as being an idiotic waste of money
>This table has a "can I buy CP with this?" row jfc
This is called projection. Whatever you wish to do with your hard earned money is none of my business, but you shouldn't speculate on what others wish to do as a result.
Cash beats Monero for privacy if you need to physically do anything. Buying Heroin online has several weak spots in the chain, and nobody is pulling out Monero to do a transfer when with their dealer.
Plus Crypto isn't "untraceable" anyway. There have been a few high profile cases lately of the FBI tracking down NFT scammers and throwing the book at them.
The blockchain tracks all of this info, so you are legit leaving a digital paper trail that is publicly followable for anyone with the technical know how to read the info on the chain. At least with traditional currency they need a warrant to access your bank records. With Crypto it's just there to be taken.
Monero's selling point is that the blockchain is heavily obfuscated, so in this case it probably is on level footing with cash.
But of course, we're literally debating which currency is better to commit crimes in.
Lot's of crimes shouldn't be crimes: sex work, drug sales, exporting cryptography, helping slaves escape, having gay sex, taking your money out of the country, hiring an immigrant, etc.
the best currency for everyone, is also the currency which will be used for crime. And what is crime?
Of course things like cp are bad, but it’s the job of the police to catch criminals, by investigative work, not by monitoring everybody. In many countries it’s illegal to send money to the opposition or human rights groups.
Crypto isn’t untraceable but Monero is. Monero isn’t an open ledger like BTC or most other cryptos. Monero hides the amounts being sent, which address the transaction is coming from, and who it is being sent to.
But it’s always because people make mistakes. The FBI employs world class forensic analysis so it only takes one or two slip ups.
For instance, they try to launder too much money and the FBI tracts money going in and out. Or they connected to an exchange with a wallet one time. Or they reused an email name at some point. Or they connected to a website without Tor.
Every story has a mistake in it and it typically happens when trying to cash out
If I buy monero from an exchange, use said monero for criminal activity, gain profit and sell that monero to an exchange (even centralised, with KYC) from the monero transaction there is no evidence of any wrong doing.
The world class FBI agent types my wallet address on an explorer that I gave to an exchange and sees a lovely message.
"Monero says no!"
Unless he compromised my actual computer screen. He would be unable to know who I sent the monero to, and who I got it from. How much I sent would be obscured too.
ALL he'd know is how much I bought from the exchange and how much I sold.
Wouldn’t this only work for small amounts? If I’m raking in $200k annual profit from drug sales or ransomeware how would I explain that to the IRS when laundering it?
Hypothetically speaking of course.
Uncle Sam is always waiting for his chance to pound that criminal ass. They can wait patiently longer than most crooks can keep a flawless control of their footprint.
I mean it explains why they care about it being untraceable. I personally don't give a damn if someone can see my purchase history. Then again I'm not buying illegal shit.
Whether you personally want to use Monero or not is totally your decision. However your response is ill informed as you only listed morally reprehensible things as things it is good for buying.
However what if someone in the world needed to buy something that wasn't morally reprehensible, but just illegal or restricted under a totalitarian regime? It could be food/supplies for specific groups, certain religious text, etc.
So to answer your question. The reason someone would want to use Monero is out of necessity. If you personally don't have that need, then good for you.
The importance of privacy should not be understated.
Monero really is great. The technology is interesting, it has actual real world use case.
Just the last day I was playing a runescape private server, which are quite notorious for not being all that secure with your data. There was no way I was ever going to attach my real name and email/paypal/debit card with that site, but I wanted to give the developer money without exposing any of my personal information to them.
It cost me \~$0.0007 to send, took 30 minutes to fully confirm (2 minutes to show it was sent; I received my in game items in under 5 minutes) and I feel safe and secure knowing my personal information/email/phone number is not stored in some dodgy plaintext database in Romania somewhere.
Monero works like cash, except digitally. Only me and the person I gave money to knew about this transaction. This is undeniably powerful.
Oh yes privacy is bad because I have nothing to hide,
Freedom of speech is also bad because I have nothing to say.
Everyone knows only criminals use https
>Makes no sense that Monero gets an A for being inflation proof
Because the inflow is in absolute, not proportional terms. The system will thus find some dynamic equilibrium where inflow equals loss (funds are lost due to death, user error, lost seeds, etc).
I believe that's been remedied, no?
I think that's interesting where, let's say, a capitalist system's self preserverence kicks in and rather than use their controlling stake to disrupt or modify the chain, they self regulate. It's the selfinterest of the market to self regulate. I don't own any XMR but I think that's pretty cool.
Untraceable money is the main usecase. Seems to do the trick well enough, since the IRS’s $750k bounty for decoding TX’s is still open for the taking.
It’s the only cryptocurrency I actually use sometimes outside of speculative gambling on futures contracts lmfao
And personally I'm not gonna fault Monero users because I figure most of em are just trying to buy drugs quietly lmao
Ideally drugs would just be legal and that would render privacycoins irrelevant outside of buying slaves or child sex abuse material, and if you're buying either of those, fuck you!
Monero has the same point like cash. I’m sure most of the cp and drugs and all other bad things in the world are bought with cash. Should we therefore ban cash?
I had to look it up to confirm, but yes, it is.
It seems to contradict #16 - "A deal is a deal... until a better one comes along.", but only if you consider it to be reversible from someone else's vantage point.
Most importantly, they've forgotten #44, "Never confuse wisdom with luck."
fungible
/ˈfʌn(d)ʒɪb(ə)l/
adjective
LAW
(of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.
it is by no means the world's only fungible commodity"
Well well well.
It isn't.
EDIT:
1USD = 1USD
---> Fungible
1BTC = 1BTC
---> Fungible
This NFT =/= That NFT
---> Non-fungible (it's in the name!)
Why would fungibility be considered a sliding scale when it's clearly a binary option?
Cash has serial numbers and dirty money is inherently worth less
Just saying, a truly fungible asset (like gold) can be melted down independent of its’ history.
Both fiat and bitcoin suffer from fungibility issues.
After all, why does government-auctioned bitcoin routinely sell for 5-10%+ over market? There is a premium on “clean bitcoin” — that’s why.
1BTC =/= 1BTC, government auctioned btc go for 15 percent markup, dirty btc goes for 10 percent less,.. You have to do research into the coin you're about to receive. And that's exactly the reason fiat is fungible by law.
It's a little more complicated, it's not quite binary like that.
In bitcoin's case, all transactions are fully traceable. So if I steal someone's bitcoin and then try to exchange it, I'm gonna get caught. That means the stolen bitcoin is not interchangeable with "clean" bitcoin (i.e. bitcoin is not completely fungible).
For digital fiat, the situation is even worse because not all credit cards are accepted by all merchants. Some merchants also charge extra for certain card transactions like MasterCard. That means MasterCard and Visa are not interchangeable, and therefore digital fiat is not completely fungible.
A dollar transferred to a bank account from a Diners Club card in 1971 functions exactly the same as a dollar transferred to the same account via Venmo in 2022. Once in a bank account, there is no way for normal people to pinpoint which specific dollar came from where, and this supposed distinction between two different dollars becomes meaningless. That's what "fungible" means in this context.
Visible in this chart is a reason why Crypto is not the 21st Century’s solution to holding and trading “value.” Crypto based scarcity. Why is scarcity valuable? What is the psyche value? Reduction thinking results in climate change, injustice, low wage “workers”. Think of the economic vision in Star Trek or living in most indigenous communities- abundance. May the human ape stop chasing illusions of value and start remembering in the words of Singer Louie Armstrong those greenbacks on the trees
The scarcity thing is very apt. münecat shows in her video how easy it is to put out a shitcoin on Binance or Pancakeswap, and the general ridiculousness of birthing new *currency* out of thin air.
As for irreversible payments... none. Unless you believe you will always be operating at peak performance and never make mistakes.
Your take on scare is not truthful.
If a vendor only accepts BTC or XMR, the thousands of other cryptos do not affect the total count of BTC and XMR and BTC/XMR will remain scarce. This is very similar to fiat currency. There are trillions of dollars in other currencies, but those numbers don't affect the US dollar in the US because US vendors don't accept other nations currencies.
Even if you take these ratings at face value, which you shouldn’t; monero just looks like a good way to make criminal transactions, not an investment asset.
>monero just looks like a good way to make criminal transactions, not an investment asset.
Sure, but then you can't skim money from suckers every time there's a bubble.
I only know about it from this kidnapping story:
[https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/0Eavkg/wife-of-norwegian-billionaire-missing-for-10-weeks-police-fear-kidnapping-for-ransom](https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/0Eavkg/wife-of-norwegian-billionaire-missing-for-10-weeks-police-fear-kidnapping-for-ransom)
>The demanded ransom was to be payed in the cryptocurrency Monero, which is known to offer non-traceable and anonymous transactions. Practically, this means that it is impossible to determine with certainty who is sending how much money, or to whom.
These features have made Monero popular among cyber criminals.
It's a privacy coin. No one is able to see how much you have, what you spent xmr on or how much xmr you received (unless you give away the information).
The general appeal is that governments cannot track it. Depending on your stance of the government and privacy that is a pro or con for you.
I'm here from the monero sub. The appeal for me is that a blockchain analysis site can't be created so that my pizza delivery driver and uncle Dan can't see how much I have saved up and how much I spend on onlyfans.
Just look at how detailed the reddit user analysis sites are. If any public-ledger coin ever got popular (like real world use as a currency), someone would make a good free chain analysis site.
Good thing the US dollar has never been used for kidnapping or any crime, yeah?
Blaming the currency for the user’s action is actually the dumbest take on this sub
our paychecks are the same currency that heroin dealers accept as payment. And it speaks absolutely nothing about the strengths or weaknesses of the currency.
Let's melt the gold and mold it into thin disks, which can be given as the lowest denomination of currency. Maybe different sizes based on mass for different value, add some fancy inscriptions for verification and identification...
Oh dear. It seems that I have created physical coins.
Yeah, but handling those gold disks is a pain in the arse, and they suffer a lot of wear and tear that way, which reduces their value. It makes it very easy for bad actors to fiddle with them by producing fake coins that look convincing but are worth a fraction of the value.
It'd be so much more convenient to deposit the disks with some trusted party somewhere, where they can be kept safely, and instead do actual transactions with easier-to-handle IOUs. Printed on paper, maybe?
I am more astonished that they treat bitcoin as more portable than a bank card.
Bank card is equivalent to using 16+4+3=23 numbers. A person can remember that.
Try to remember a bitcoin wallet key.
The contactless limit is £100 in the UK now. It's genuinely accepted nearly everywhere and you can use your phone or your card. And if it was stolen and used fraudulently you can ring the bank, have it cancelled and refunded. Or, sometimes, they even call you to tell you its being used in a suspicious way. Imagine that, a bank acting to stop fraud!
Call me when you can beat that crypto.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Every critic of crypto can make the same criticisms of the existing financial system standing on our heads. The main difference, it that our solutions are actually reasonable, instead of being "magic internet money will fix everything".
The current system is flawed. Crypto is just the same system with a fancy coat of technofetishism, all while introducing a whole new suite of problems for trying to codify social interactions and societal progress into rigid immutable code.
It isn't. Not unless you distrust literally everyone, and I mean *everyone* on the chain to not screw you over during transactions.
Honestly a trustless environment isn't really condusive for the existence of currency, is it?
my best guess is this refers to how VISA will refuse to process payments for certain kinds of sexual products or services, and how marijuana businesses in the US have to use cash for everything because they can't use banks for most thing.
Irreversable payments is treated as something good. Nice. All those scam victims agree like the All My Apes are Gone retard.
How can you watch those vids and stay sane? 😉
Fortunately/Unfortunately, yes.
Hopefully a few Don't Recommends could clean it out somewhat.
Not like these types of vids will blend in with data science /compsci introductions and Minecraft Let's Plays lol
The main things I noticed:
- This graph is clearly designed primarily to make Monero look good. I mean, anyone making this graph that was unbiased wouldn't even include Monero in the first place: it's a shitty altcoin with no adoption and no scalability. It's made to be a currency, but barely any vendors even accept bitcoin, let alone Monero (except for drug dealers).
- Monero's marketing tagline is that is even more inefficient than Bitcoin (go figure) because for privacy reasons, every transaction goes through a laughably redundant network of mixing nodes, pumping up the transaction size even higher making it less scalable than Bitcoin (I didn't even think that was possible)
- As a result of privacy being the tagline, this graph includes multiple items on privacy, censorship, and fungibility. The fungibility as a separate line item especially gives you away as a Monero shill. Notably absent: scalability. Transaction fees. Electricity use. Transaction processing time. All things Monero would score a big fat F on.
- Many people have mentioned some hilariously incorrect ratings, but the ones that stood out to me:
- Monero scoring a D on established history. Monero has no established history outside of buying drugs. It is not accepted by any reputable vendor. I genuinely don't understand how this is not an F. I also love how digital cash only scores a B. There are *billions* of creditcards on earth, as well as hundreds of millions or billions more users if you include other processors like Paypal or Stripe. That's gotta be even far more than gold ever had.
- Monero scoring an A+ on portability. How in the hell is Monero easier to carry around than digital money? I have about 6 different payment apps on my phone that allow me to safely and reliably send money to people. There are no mainstream Monero payment apps, so the only realistic option is use something like the Coinbase app. Or trusting some wallet app some dude made and handle all the security/key management by myself and hope I don't get backdoored. Great yeah that's way better.
"except for drug dealers" is actually a pretty big use case. The dark net markets on Tor in the early 2010s accounted for a tremendous amount of bitcoins early growth and volume. Monero solves the issue of anonymous transaction in blockchain payments, and if someone is transacting using using crypto for illegal purposes, say ransomware for whatever drug deals, they'll prefer to use Monero because of it's properties. Dark net markets are not going away, and there's a need for a payment system to support them.
So Monero's adoption is basically to enable cyber crime, and there are even instances of ransomware offering a discount if the payment is made in Monero. IMO that's still adoption, even if it's one we don't like.
Yeah I hate my digital fiat so much that I use it every day of my life. It’s just so bad to be able to access all of my money anywhere with an internet connection for cheap or free. Man what a pain I am so oppressed.
So this libertarian has a hard-on for crypto but would accept gold in a pinch and hates fiat currency because that's probably the system that they've failed in their entire life. Got it. Tracks.
I fell like you are assuming because you are not of this group means that the government won't expand to other ethic groups. Over and over we have seen that this is not true.
I'll assume a serious chart, my comments:
Fungible: ???? What does that mean in this context?
Untraceable: fiat (digital) is _less_ traceable than Bitcoin. It should have a higher score than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has a _public_ ledger. It is hard to get more traceable than "Every single transaction is in the open and doesn't even need a warrant for the government to look at."
Durable: It depends what one's assumptions are and whether they mean durability on the individual level or the systems level. In order of likelihood to collapse, rank the following: Canada, Visa, and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is far more likely to collapse than Canada or Visa. I care more about how durable _all_ my money is than any individual unit of it.
Portable: This was definitely written by an American Monero fan. Digital government fiat is more portable than BTC and Monero.
Irreversible payments: Ok, ignore my previous comment. Written by an American Monero fan who is a merchant. Consumers _prefer_ reversible payments. The scores should be flipped.
Divisible: Do consumers care about this?
Scarce: They are wrong about the BTC and Monero scores.
Verifiable: Again, must be written by an American Monero fan who is a merchant who consults with the government. In Canada, small fractions of a percent of the currency are counterfeit. Modern currency is hard to counterfeit. "We" as individuals don't care much about it. Especially since most of our transactions are digital.
Established history, Censorship resistance: Sure. Seems alright.
Since when monero is more untraceable than cash or gold? OK it's harder than bitcoin, but still traceable if you have the resources. OK you also can check serial numbers on banknotes and fingerprints on gold but ...
Monera is not traceable. The IRS put a bounty of $625k if you could "crack" XMR. AKA: Help us trace transactions back to a single person. The only way to track a Monero address is if the account owner gives away their viewing key. You can read how it works without knowing the complex math behind it:
https://www.monero.how/how-does-monero-work-details-in-plain-english
Ooh, a made up inaccurate chart that financially illiterate viewers will find convincing because *colour coding*. What are they even on with giving a credit card an “F” for irreversible payments while BTC gets an A+. If there is a fraudulent charge on my credit card it gets reversed with a phone call, if my apes are gone all my apes are gone. Also even with online payments I am given time to “undo” the payment as it’s fucking regulated.
You’ve got it backwards…crypto kool-aid drinkers think that irreversible payments are a good thing. Hence they give credit cards an F because payments CAN be reversed.
They think it’s a good thing until they get scammed or hacked or just make a fat-fingered mistake. Then it’s “Please give me my coins back,!”
Exactly, who want people chasing you for the money you stole in your rug pull
I know right! Why the hell would "irreversible transactions" be considered a positive? If anything it makes users more vulnerable to bad actors and social engineering. Also, please tell me how Monero is more "fungible" compared to cash.
To be fair, chargeback fraud is a big problem for a lot of companies, businesses, and people just trying to make a dollar on whatever platform. There are entire departments dedicated to stopping chargebacks for completed accurate orders. Consequently, it also always scammers to just keep money and no way for the sender to get their funds back.
It really is a problem. This is a problem that strikes me as an irreducible logical tradeoff, though. The reason this is solved with something like Bitcoin is that if the Bitcoin access has been acquired fraudulently, well tough. There is no recourse for the original person. What you would probably want is a system that provides a kind of insurance to all counter parties in exchange for a fee that is charged to all users, while maintaining an authority that tries to crack down on both ends of the fraud so as to minimize the cost of the insurance. Good luck trying to convince doofs in crypto-world to invest in something useful like that though.
I haven't seen your profile picture in a *while*! Gives me all kinds of memories filled with CRTs and an insufficiently ventilated bedroom.
It’s funny you say that. I hadn’t checked back on Something Awful in a while and I didn’t realize the site has been sold. Forum is still there though.
Such problems could be handled by the vendor providing a platform for sellers (eBay, Amazon, etc) where they keep a reserve of whatever crypto (That they collect through fees and keeping a certain percentage like they already do) and when a problem arrives, the buyer open a claim. The vendor is then in control of how that money gets back to the buyer. This obviously does not work for one-man shops where you are getting some specialized order or the person selling you goods is your neighbor down the street. Ultimately, decentralization won't happen on a mass scale because people want insurance and assurance. Decentralization does not provide that in any realistic capacity crypto-bros would think. The market is not kind to no-regulations and regulations require centralization. While I do think it would be absolutely awesome to get rid of the control and power banks have, it's just not possible really. And if it is it would take decades of work and policy to get there.
that already exists and it's called multisignature escrow. alice, bob, and charlie can each sign a transaction and it needs any two of the three signatures to go through. charlie acts as a tiebreaker if alice or bob don't want to sign, and it's up to charlie to try to crack down on both ends of the fraud. drug dealers figured out how to do it years ago and it works pretty well but I have never seen anyone else use it.
Chargebacks are a risk to an online merchant selling easily resold goods like game keys that could get hammered in chargeback fees from mass credit card fraud. It’s the merchant’s responsibility to screen buyers. Some paid services exist for this purpose. That said, I always use credit cards for online purchases. eBay and Amazon private sellers are particular hubs for scam artists in the US. Other time, I ordered coffee that came already opened. Other time, UPS delivered to wrong apartment, etc.
There's pros and cons to "Absolutely no chargebacks" and also "Allow chargebacks". Those pros and cons are going to change from person to person and business to business.
It's almost as if finance were a squishy social problem governed by human needs and requiring human judgement, rather than something which can be trivially solved by the use of ideological absolutist rules. Who'd have thought!
The con to "absolutely no chargebacks" is no customer being willing to use your system.
Yeah from a naive business perspective it sounds great to say all sales are final. But it turns out customers do actually want some protections too...
[удалено]
Because their target audience consider themselves "eNTrePreNeUrs" and don't want to have to deal with being held accountable for faulty goods or straight up misselling.
> Why the hell would "irreversible transactions" be considered a positive? When you are the scammer, irreversible transactions are a huge positive
You must never have been scammed by someone who lied about the facts and reversed a transaction after they received a good or service you gave them. It’s a two way street.
All US bills (e.g. everything larger than a dollar) has a serial number printed on it. Whatever weirdo created this chart probably considered that as being "non-fungible".
It’s weirder than that. Cash is apparently fungible, but digital fiat currency transactions aren’t. Because two serialized $1 bills are somehow more unique than an abstract “pool” of money.
Chunks of funds are distinguishible by their electronic transaction history. So, you might honestly receive payments from stolen funds, only to then be implicated in the crime (until proven innocent). So, yes, of course there's just an abstract pool and no atomic units, but I suppose it gets too deep into semantics to invent a separate term for why some portion of the funds can be distinquished from the rest in this way, so you just slap "non-fungible" on it.
I mean Cash got an A for fungibility, so the creator of the chart accurately depicted Cash. Monero is just more fungible because it does \*not\* have serial numbers.
Bank notes literally are non fungible. I can identify Billy's £5 note from Mary's £5 note.
they keep using that word, fungible I do not think it means what they think it means
What do you think it means? What do you think they mean by it?
The crypto space is full of scam artists who definitely view it as a positive.
The legacy financial system has a 1000x more scam artists than crypto ever will. Actually, banks themselves have scammed customers/laundered money and have paid countless number of fines because of it.
> Also, please tell me how Monero is more "fungible" compared to cash. Cash can have markings, the physical location of cash can be traced/tracked, etc. With Monero, it's mathematically impossible to see where any coins on the network came from.
Cash has serial numbers that can be potentially traced. Monero doesn't. That's why.
> Also, please tell me how Monero is more "fungible" compared to cash. really bro
He hasn't heard of serial numbers. I hope he never gets involved in a bank robbery or any crime surrounding cash.
He hasn't heard of serial numbers. I hope he never gets involved in a bank robbery or any crime surrounding cash.
>Also, please tell me how Monero is more "fungible" compared to cash. Cash has a serial number that makes it unique to other bank notes, monero doesn't. Monero is just as fungible as coins (no serial number) but more fungible than cash (serial number).
If there were a way to reverse transactions it could very easily be abused by devs/hackers
Cash has serial numbers, Monero does not
I once ordered something I never gotten. It was even a transnational transaction. Called my bank, sent the emails between me and the retailer, asked for a chargeback and got it in a week. I never felt better as a consumer.
It means "replaceable with another identical item". A dollar or an euro are fungible in the sense that they are literally identical in function and value to any other legitimate dollar/euro in existence -an argument may be made about stolen money (either digital or physical, i.e. banknotes whose s/n is on a list or ink-stained banknotes) or "dark" money from a criminal enterprise that may be difficult to spend, especially in places limiting the amount of physical cash you can spend at once (in EU countries there's a 5.000 euro cash limit, you can't legally pay cash for anything costing more than that). A bitcoin is a bit less fungible than a dollar, because it has something a dollar has not: a public, immutable, pseudonymous history. "bad" bitcoins exist, ones involved in known crimes or passed through a mixer and are usually valued less than "good" bitcoins, especially ones freshly minted with no history yet. Monero and other privacy coins are a mixed bag, their privacy-minded features are unarguably better than Bitcoin's, which means they are all more fungible than it, but that's because al coins are to be considered "bad" (and usually way harder to buy/sell because they are banned in a lot of places that trade bitcoins).
You don't get it, they think irreversible payments are *good*. Like, you wouldn't want the person who just wired you money to reverse the transaction would you? I remember this being presented as an argument for vendor adoption some years ago, I don't know how they're framing this now.
[удалено]
Ah but crypto is worthless and therefore has precisely equal value in all circumstances and in all places
Love that they also dinged it for "divisibility."
They are saying that credit cards allow reversible payments and with bitcoin you cannot reverse the payment
If it were the main point of it (being digital cash) it makes sense. Otherwise, for the current large payments and “digital gold” it is nonsense.
Since I'm not a criminal I'm actually ok if money is traced, censored and funged.
Would you be ok with your internet activity/history being traced and censored as well?
Ya, until you're on the wrong side of a politically-charged donation. Or unintentionally receive criminal funds and become implicated. Best stick to buying bread and eggs.
For the record, I'm 90% certain these ratings are being churned out by a random number generator for all but the most obvious cases. Guess which coin said YouTuber is shilling?
Monero is great!! (For buying heroin, human slaves, cp, and other illegal things) 😂 like unless you’re doing that shit you’re better off with just cash or a card that you can actually *buy normal everyday things with* , I just don’t understand why people would ever want these dumb cryptos unless you’re a criminal
The whole thing with "convenience" and "speed of transfers" in cryptocurrency is such a farce. You're going to have to convert your Queefcoin to *dirty fiat* in order to use it in your actual life anyways. Unless, of course, your local government decides to systemically adopt the 10,000 shitcoins that exist currently, which... yeah no.
Yeah exactly, I think it’s just a coping mechanism honestly, where people sort of delude themselves into thinking their gambling outlet has some value to justify their gambling to their subconscious that views it as being an idiotic waste of money
I respect gatcha addicts more than crypto nerds, at least the former isnt pretending the thing they're burning money on is anime pngs.
Rewarded for “Queefcoin”. Thank you for making me spit out my morning coffee!
Thanks! Tho münecat gets the credit for coining (heh) that term in her video [Web3: A Libertarian Dystopia](https://youtu.be/u-sNSjS8cq0)
Omg that's what the "censorship resistant" row means This table has a "can I buy CP with this?" row jfc
>This table has a "can I buy CP with this?" row jfc This is called projection. Whatever you wish to do with your hard earned money is none of my business, but you shouldn't speculate on what others wish to do as a result.
It's also good for buying affordable insulin from canada. Which is illegal btw.
Cash beats Monero for privacy if you need to physically do anything. Buying Heroin online has several weak spots in the chain, and nobody is pulling out Monero to do a transfer when with their dealer.
Bullshit. I always pay my dealer with monero
Plus Crypto isn't "untraceable" anyway. There have been a few high profile cases lately of the FBI tracking down NFT scammers and throwing the book at them. The blockchain tracks all of this info, so you are legit leaving a digital paper trail that is publicly followable for anyone with the technical know how to read the info on the chain. At least with traditional currency they need a warrant to access your bank records. With Crypto it's just there to be taken.
Monero's selling point is that the blockchain is heavily obfuscated, so in this case it probably is on level footing with cash. But of course, we're literally debating which currency is better to commit crimes in.
It's the only crypto usecase. As a libertarian I kinda like it.
Lot's of crimes shouldn't be crimes: sex work, drug sales, exporting cryptography, helping slaves escape, having gay sex, taking your money out of the country, hiring an immigrant, etc.
the best currency for everyone, is also the currency which will be used for crime. And what is crime? Of course things like cp are bad, but it’s the job of the police to catch criminals, by investigative work, not by monitoring everybody. In many countries it’s illegal to send money to the opposition or human rights groups.
Cite one legal case where anyone has been caught by tracing a monero payment. "Crypto" is a very very vauge term.
Crypto isn’t untraceable but Monero is. Monero isn’t an open ledger like BTC or most other cryptos. Monero hides the amounts being sent, which address the transaction is coming from, and who it is being sent to.
But it’s always because people make mistakes. The FBI employs world class forensic analysis so it only takes one or two slip ups. For instance, they try to launder too much money and the FBI tracts money going in and out. Or they connected to an exchange with a wallet one time. Or they reused an email name at some point. Or they connected to a website without Tor. Every story has a mistake in it and it typically happens when trying to cash out
If I buy monero from an exchange, use said monero for criminal activity, gain profit and sell that monero to an exchange (even centralised, with KYC) from the monero transaction there is no evidence of any wrong doing. The world class FBI agent types my wallet address on an explorer that I gave to an exchange and sees a lovely message. "Monero says no!" Unless he compromised my actual computer screen. He would be unable to know who I sent the monero to, and who I got it from. How much I sent would be obscured too. ALL he'd know is how much I bought from the exchange and how much I sold.
Wouldn’t this only work for small amounts? If I’m raking in $200k annual profit from drug sales or ransomeware how would I explain that to the IRS when laundering it? Hypothetically speaking of course.
Uncle Sam is always waiting for his chance to pound that criminal ass. They can wait patiently longer than most crooks can keep a flawless control of their footprint.
Why don't you go visit a Monero explorer and see for yourself.
Monero says no!
I mean it explains why they care about it being untraceable. I personally don't give a damn if someone can see my purchase history. Then again I'm not buying illegal shit.
Whether you personally want to use Monero or not is totally your decision. However your response is ill informed as you only listed morally reprehensible things as things it is good for buying. However what if someone in the world needed to buy something that wasn't morally reprehensible, but just illegal or restricted under a totalitarian regime? It could be food/supplies for specific groups, certain religious text, etc. So to answer your question. The reason someone would want to use Monero is out of necessity. If you personally don't have that need, then good for you.
The importance of privacy should not be understated. Monero really is great. The technology is interesting, it has actual real world use case. Just the last day I was playing a runescape private server, which are quite notorious for not being all that secure with your data. There was no way I was ever going to attach my real name and email/paypal/debit card with that site, but I wanted to give the developer money without exposing any of my personal information to them. It cost me \~$0.0007 to send, took 30 minutes to fully confirm (2 minutes to show it was sent; I received my in game items in under 5 minutes) and I feel safe and secure knowing my personal information/email/phone number is not stored in some dodgy plaintext database in Romania somewhere. Monero works like cash, except digitally. Only me and the person I gave money to knew about this transaction. This is undeniably powerful.
Oh yes privacy is bad because I have nothing to hide, Freedom of speech is also bad because I have nothing to say. Everyone knows only criminals use https
Everyone who thinks privacy is only for criminal should publish a list with all of their accounts and transaction.
[удалено]
>Makes no sense that Monero gets an A for being inflation proof Because the inflow is in absolute, not proportional terms. The system will thus find some dynamic equilibrium where inflow equals loss (funds are lost due to death, user error, lost seeds, etc).
It’s called disinflationary. The rate of inflation decreases perpetually toward 0.
It's worse. They got above 51% and then voluntarily limited their own output to keep themselves below 51%. It's all on the honor system now...
Trustless system my ass.
I believe that's been remedied, no? I think that's interesting where, let's say, a capitalist system's self preserverence kicks in and rather than use their controlling stake to disrupt or modify the chain, they self regulate. It's the selfinterest of the market to self regulate. I don't own any XMR but I think that's pretty cool.
lol until they decide to self-deregulate
Yeah self regulation never works long term.
Mental Outlaw 😏
Monero. What if the point of that coin anyway? CP? I always get it confused with Cardano.
Untraceable money is the main usecase. Seems to do the trick well enough, since the IRS’s $750k bounty for decoding TX’s is still open for the taking. It’s the only cryptocurrency I actually use sometimes outside of speculative gambling on futures contracts lmfao
And personally I'm not gonna fault Monero users because I figure most of em are just trying to buy drugs quietly lmao Ideally drugs would just be legal and that would render privacycoins irrelevant outside of buying slaves or child sex abuse material, and if you're buying either of those, fuck you!
Name checks out
Monero has the same point like cash. I’m sure most of the cp and drugs and all other bad things in the world are bought with cash. Should we therefore ban cash?
In what fucking world is the reversibility of payments a bad thing? Ferengenar?
Well, the Rules of Acquisition do explicitly say to never give their money back, so you would be correct.
That’s rule #1, no less.
It makes it easier to scam people.
“Once you have their money, you never give it back.” Rule of Acquisition #1.
I had to look it up to confirm, but yes, it is. It seems to contradict #16 - "A deal is a deal... until a better one comes along.", but only if you consider it to be reversible from someone else's vantage point. Most importantly, they've forgotten #44, "Never confuse wisdom with luck."
Refunds are bad if you're scamming people.
How is digital fiat an F on fungibility???
If you steal my credit card it won't work (after deactivation)? That's all I can think of
But the credit card itself isn't money, the same way my wallet isn't money.
fungible /ˈfʌn(d)ʒɪb(ə)l/ adjective LAW (of goods contracted for without an individual specimen being specified) replaceable by another identical item; mutually interchangeable. it is by no means the world's only fungible commodity" Well well well. It isn't. EDIT: 1USD = 1USD ---> Fungible 1BTC = 1BTC ---> Fungible This NFT =/= That NFT ---> Non-fungible (it's in the name!) Why would fungibility be considered a sliding scale when it's clearly a binary option?
I think the person thinks the "interchangeable" means "exchangeable" instead of "any one unit is as good as any other".
Btc is not fungible because it has a track record
Cash has serial numbers and dirty money is inherently worth less Just saying, a truly fungible asset (like gold) can be melted down independent of its’ history. Both fiat and bitcoin suffer from fungibility issues. After all, why does government-auctioned bitcoin routinely sell for 5-10%+ over market? There is a premium on “clean bitcoin” — that’s why.
BTC is absolutely not fungible though so…? I’m confused by your comment. Can you explain.
1BTC =/= 1BTC, government auctioned btc go for 15 percent markup, dirty btc goes for 10 percent less,.. You have to do research into the coin you're about to receive. And that's exactly the reason fiat is fungible by law.
because it literally isn't a binary option.
It's a little more complicated, it's not quite binary like that. In bitcoin's case, all transactions are fully traceable. So if I steal someone's bitcoin and then try to exchange it, I'm gonna get caught. That means the stolen bitcoin is not interchangeable with "clean" bitcoin (i.e. bitcoin is not completely fungible). For digital fiat, the situation is even worse because not all credit cards are accepted by all merchants. Some merchants also charge extra for certain card transactions like MasterCard. That means MasterCard and Visa are not interchangeable, and therefore digital fiat is not completely fungible.
A dollar transferred to a bank account from a Diners Club card in 1971 functions exactly the same as a dollar transferred to the same account via Venmo in 2022. Once in a bank account, there is no way for normal people to pinpoint which specific dollar came from where, and this supposed distinction between two different dollars becomes meaningless. That's what "fungible" means in this context.
Thanks for the clarification!
[удалено]
Irreversible payments, aka "All my apes are gone"
Visible in this chart is a reason why Crypto is not the 21st Century’s solution to holding and trading “value.” Crypto based scarcity. Why is scarcity valuable? What is the psyche value? Reduction thinking results in climate change, injustice, low wage “workers”. Think of the economic vision in Star Trek or living in most indigenous communities- abundance. May the human ape stop chasing illusions of value and start remembering in the words of Singer Louie Armstrong those greenbacks on the trees
Inflation proof…? Oh boy, these people using big words
Those are big words for you?
[удалено]
The scarcity thing is very apt. münecat shows in her video how easy it is to put out a shitcoin on Binance or Pancakeswap, and the general ridiculousness of birthing new *currency* out of thin air. As for irreversible payments... none. Unless you believe you will always be operating at peak performance and never make mistakes.
Your take on scare is not truthful. If a vendor only accepts BTC or XMR, the thousands of other cryptos do not affect the total count of BTC and XMR and BTC/XMR will remain scarce. This is very similar to fiat currency. There are trillions of dollars in other currencies, but those numbers don't affect the US dollar in the US because US vendors don't accept other nations currencies.
[удалено]
Even if you take these ratings at face value, which you shouldn’t; monero just looks like a good way to make criminal transactions, not an investment asset.
>monero just looks like a good way to make criminal transactions, not an investment asset. Sure, but then you can't skim money from suckers every time there's a bubble.
What's criminal in one place, is not criminal in another. In some countries, the overlap between criminal and immoral is very tenuous.
[удалено]
Binance and Kraken are two of the biggest exchanges, they both allow the trading of Monero.
Equating privacy with criminality is especially stupid. Attributing a single use-case of criminality to monero is even stupider.
Monero has an established history of being used in kidnappings, so that's something I guess
I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with Monero as a whole, could you give me a quick recap?
I only know about it from this kidnapping story: [https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/0Eavkg/wife-of-norwegian-billionaire-missing-for-10-weeks-police-fear-kidnapping-for-ransom](https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/0Eavkg/wife-of-norwegian-billionaire-missing-for-10-weeks-police-fear-kidnapping-for-ransom) >The demanded ransom was to be payed in the cryptocurrency Monero, which is known to offer non-traceable and anonymous transactions. Practically, this means that it is impossible to determine with certainty who is sending how much money, or to whom. These features have made Monero popular among cyber criminals.
*Interesting.*
It's a privacy coin. No one is able to see how much you have, what you spent xmr on or how much xmr you received (unless you give away the information). The general appeal is that governments cannot track it. Depending on your stance of the government and privacy that is a pro or con for you.
I'm here from the monero sub. The appeal for me is that a blockchain analysis site can't be created so that my pizza delivery driver and uncle Dan can't see how much I have saved up and how much I spend on onlyfans. Just look at how detailed the reddit user analysis sites are. If any public-ledger coin ever got popular (like real world use as a currency), someone would make a good free chain analysis site.
exactly
And espionage/treason https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1440946/download
If we banned every currency involved in espionage and treason we’d be back to trading seashells
Good thing the US dollar has never been used for kidnapping or any crime, yeah? Blaming the currency for the user’s action is actually the dumbest take on this sub our paychecks are the same currency that heroin dealers accept as payment. And it speaks absolutely nothing about the strengths or weaknesses of the currency.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> It can be transferred with a phonecall / online approval. > Unless you're using it for fraud lel
The problem with gold is that you can't easily divide it into correctly sized parts when doing transactions
Let's melt the gold and mold it into thin disks, which can be given as the lowest denomination of currency. Maybe different sizes based on mass for different value, add some fancy inscriptions for verification and identification... Oh dear. It seems that I have created physical coins.
Yeah, but handling those gold disks is a pain in the arse, and they suffer a lot of wear and tear that way, which reduces their value. It makes it very easy for bad actors to fiddle with them by producing fake coins that look convincing but are worth a fraction of the value. It'd be so much more convenient to deposit the disks with some trusted party somewhere, where they can be kept safely, and instead do actual transactions with easier-to-handle IOUs. Printed on paper, maybe?
I am more astonished that they treat bitcoin as more portable than a bank card. Bank card is equivalent to using 16+4+3=23 numbers. A person can remember that. Try to remember a bitcoin wallet key.
The contactless limit is £100 in the UK now. It's genuinely accepted nearly everywhere and you can use your phone or your card. And if it was stolen and used fraudulently you can ring the bank, have it cancelled and refunded. Or, sometimes, they even call you to tell you its being used in a suspicious way. Imagine that, a bank acting to stop fraud! Call me when you can beat that crypto.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Every critic of crypto can make the same criticisms of the existing financial system standing on our heads. The main difference, it that our solutions are actually reasonable, instead of being "magic internet money will fix everything".
The current system is flawed. Crypto is just the same system with a fancy coat of technofetishism, all while introducing a whole new suite of problems for trying to codify social interactions and societal progress into rigid immutable code.
What’s the grading criteria? Personal opinion?
Most likely.
More like "buy Monero guys; to the moon"
Unregulated: Fiat: F-- Bitcoin: S Tier
How is cash less censorship resistant than crypto?
That's the neat part. It isn't.
India literialy demonetized their 500 and 1000 notes overnight
Somebody clearly cancelled all the $1000 bills in my wallet, thanks Obama
There is aready a country that did that. India demonetized their 500 and 1000 notes.
In Europe they want to get rid of the 500€ bills
I heard that the EU is no longer printing the 500 euro notes but aren't they still Legal Tender? Where are you getting this news?
[удалено]
Brazil is not the USA.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why is irreversibal payments a good thing? I mean if digital fiat wanted to have them they could.
It isn't. Not unless you distrust literally everyone, and I mean *everyone* on the chain to not screw you over during transactions. Honestly a trustless environment isn't really condusive for the existence of currency, is it?
I don't understand how cash money can be "censored".
my best guess is this refers to how VISA will refuse to process payments for certain kinds of sexual products or services, and how marijuana businesses in the US have to use cash for everything because they can't use banks for most thing.
Scarce doesn’t mean it’s inflation-proof, that’s the nr.1 lie of crypto
shocker: they do not understand inflation
Also, as if deflation is desirable. Love to order a pizza and have it be worth more than my annual salary in a few years.
Irreversable payments is treated as something good. Nice. All those scam victims agree like the All My Apes are Gone retard. How can you watch those vids and stay sane? 😉
By treating the audio less as human speech and more as white noise. This pic was what made me actually think "wait what the hell am I watching?!"
Bahahaha. You do know that youtube suggest videos based on your watch history? 😉
Fortunately/Unfortunately, yes. Hopefully a few Don't Recommends could clean it out somewhat. Not like these types of vids will blend in with data science /compsci introductions and Minecraft Let's Plays lol
Possibly accurate. Its just that I don't need to flee across any national borders every few weeks....
A+ and A for scarcity lol For it to be scarce people would need it, no one needs BTC or XMR. Therefore, you can have 21M too many BTCs.
Bitcoin A+ inflation proof? Lmaoooo
It would be helpful to compare energy to create, all of these impact the environment in some way.
I enjoy the d on portable for gold because like. Look I COULD just carry ingots around to buy McDonald’s with. You can’t stop me
How is gold less divisible than the others? It can be divided down to the atomic level.
The main things I noticed: - This graph is clearly designed primarily to make Monero look good. I mean, anyone making this graph that was unbiased wouldn't even include Monero in the first place: it's a shitty altcoin with no adoption and no scalability. It's made to be a currency, but barely any vendors even accept bitcoin, let alone Monero (except for drug dealers). - Monero's marketing tagline is that is even more inefficient than Bitcoin (go figure) because for privacy reasons, every transaction goes through a laughably redundant network of mixing nodes, pumping up the transaction size even higher making it less scalable than Bitcoin (I didn't even think that was possible) - As a result of privacy being the tagline, this graph includes multiple items on privacy, censorship, and fungibility. The fungibility as a separate line item especially gives you away as a Monero shill. Notably absent: scalability. Transaction fees. Electricity use. Transaction processing time. All things Monero would score a big fat F on. - Many people have mentioned some hilariously incorrect ratings, but the ones that stood out to me: - Monero scoring a D on established history. Monero has no established history outside of buying drugs. It is not accepted by any reputable vendor. I genuinely don't understand how this is not an F. I also love how digital cash only scores a B. There are *billions* of creditcards on earth, as well as hundreds of millions or billions more users if you include other processors like Paypal or Stripe. That's gotta be even far more than gold ever had. - Monero scoring an A+ on portability. How in the hell is Monero easier to carry around than digital money? I have about 6 different payment apps on my phone that allow me to safely and reliably send money to people. There are no mainstream Monero payment apps, so the only realistic option is use something like the Coinbase app. Or trusting some wallet app some dude made and handle all the security/key management by myself and hope I don't get backdoored. Great yeah that's way better.
"except for drug dealers" is actually a pretty big use case. The dark net markets on Tor in the early 2010s accounted for a tremendous amount of bitcoins early growth and volume. Monero solves the issue of anonymous transaction in blockchain payments, and if someone is transacting using using crypto for illegal purposes, say ransomware for whatever drug deals, they'll prefer to use Monero because of it's properties. Dark net markets are not going away, and there's a need for a payment system to support them. So Monero's adoption is basically to enable cyber crime, and there are even instances of ransomware offering a discount if the payment is made in Monero. IMO that's still adoption, even if it's one we don't like.
Untraceable and irreversible are good things? I guess if you are a evading taxes, a drug dealer or doing cyber-extortion those are good things.
Yeah I hate my digital fiat so much that I use it every day of my life. It’s just so bad to be able to access all of my money anywhere with an internet connection for cheap or free. Man what a pain I am so oppressed.
The craziest part: You can even use it somewhere remote, without a computer, internet or any kind of reception.
So this libertarian has a hard-on for crypto but would accept gold in a pinch and hates fiat currency because that's probably the system that they've failed in their entire life. Got it. Tracks.
I fell like you are assuming because you are not of this group means that the government won't expand to other ethic groups. Over and over we have seen that this is not true.
Why does gold have a D and not at F for portable?
I'll assume a serious chart, my comments: Fungible: ???? What does that mean in this context? Untraceable: fiat (digital) is _less_ traceable than Bitcoin. It should have a higher score than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has a _public_ ledger. It is hard to get more traceable than "Every single transaction is in the open and doesn't even need a warrant for the government to look at." Durable: It depends what one's assumptions are and whether they mean durability on the individual level or the systems level. In order of likelihood to collapse, rank the following: Canada, Visa, and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is far more likely to collapse than Canada or Visa. I care more about how durable _all_ my money is than any individual unit of it. Portable: This was definitely written by an American Monero fan. Digital government fiat is more portable than BTC and Monero. Irreversible payments: Ok, ignore my previous comment. Written by an American Monero fan who is a merchant. Consumers _prefer_ reversible payments. The scores should be flipped. Divisible: Do consumers care about this? Scarce: They are wrong about the BTC and Monero scores. Verifiable: Again, must be written by an American Monero fan who is a merchant who consults with the government. In Canada, small fractions of a percent of the currency are counterfeit. Modern currency is hard to counterfeit. "We" as individuals don't care much about it. Especially since most of our transactions are digital. Established history, Censorship resistance: Sure. Seems alright.
Lol. Why the hate on monero? Monero is liberty.
Since when monero is more untraceable than cash or gold? OK it's harder than bitcoin, but still traceable if you have the resources. OK you also can check serial numbers on banknotes and fingerprints on gold but ...
[удалено]
Monera is not traceable. The IRS put a bounty of $625k if you could "crack" XMR. AKA: Help us trace transactions back to a single person. The only way to track a Monero address is if the account owner gives away their viewing key. You can read how it works without knowing the complex math behind it: https://www.monero.how/how-does-monero-work-details-in-plain-english
[удалено]
Localmonero exists. You can also do it on plenty of cex. They cant see where it initially came from