Ask HN: Why are privacy coins like Monero not seeing wide adoption?
I consider Web3/NFTs to be a scam and the only utility I see in cryptocurrency is the anonymous and decentralized transfer of value. However interestingly the coins that do this well like Monero are not seeing wide adoption.
120 comments
As with anything - what's the user need?
The vast majority of people don't seem fazed about their credit card company knowing they've bought a sex toy. Hell, if Amex offered double-cashback at PornHub I expect they'd be inundated.
For those which do want a bit more privacy, it's dead easy to buy a single-use gift card or cash card. Will that stop the police from tracing you? No, but it makes it harder for a company to build a profile or a spouse to snoop.
So you're left with things which are (rightly or wrongly) illegal. Or incredibly taboo.
Is there a huge market for those things? If so, what are the customer benefits of Monero against cash? Or barter? Or owing a favour?
How easy is it - for both sides - to get set up? I can check cash isn't forged to a high degree of accuracy very easily. How much hard work do I have to do for Monero? How much educating my customers do I have to do? If Monero is restricted to shady stuff - how much of a target am I painting on my back?
It's possible for a company to stimulate and create user need. But that's a lot harder than tapping in to a currently unsatisfied niche.
The vast majority of people don't seem fazed about their credit card company knowing they've bought a sex toy. Hell, if Amex offered double-cashback at PornHub I expect they'd be inundated.
For those which do want a bit more privacy, it's dead easy to buy a single-use gift card or cash card. Will that stop the police from tracing you? No, but it makes it harder for a company to build a profile or a spouse to snoop.
So you're left with things which are (rightly or wrongly) illegal. Or incredibly taboo.
Is there a huge market for those things? If so, what are the customer benefits of Monero against cash? Or barter? Or owing a favour?
How easy is it - for both sides - to get set up? I can check cash isn't forged to a high degree of accuracy very easily. How much hard work do I have to do for Monero? How much educating my customers do I have to do? If Monero is restricted to shady stuff - how much of a target am I painting on my back?
It's possible for a company to stimulate and create user need. But that's a lot harder than tapping in to a currently unsatisfied niche.
It’s no small irony that the simplest answer is the right answer here: you can’t force consumers to use your product. They need a reason to use it, and none of the current ones are sufficiently compelling.
Also, if the ecosystem was rooted in scams, it infects any sort of idea that would come out of the ecosystem... The very basis of money that relies on computers, computer networks, and related infrastructure when all of these aspects of our lives fail on us regularly even now in the year 2022 just seems plain scammy in general with all of the other societal and environmental risks we are dealing with.
In crisis, only the most adventurous ones of us gamble, any grow addicted to it, and most lose... A lot.
The traditional rule books are key to survivability in tough business times... Tangible goods and services, a deep focus on quality, reasonably paced sales growth, customer support, low dependency on external factors and suppliers... Crypto and Web3 represents none of those things, and that's why a lot of the time it is based solely on marketing vapor, and also why many don't want to invest in it (unless perhaps they are addicted to gambling or unless they want to promote a particular aspect of it for their own personal financial gain).
In crisis, only the most adventurous ones of us gamble, any grow addicted to it, and most lose... A lot.
The traditional rule books are key to survivability in tough business times... Tangible goods and services, a deep focus on quality, reasonably paced sales growth, customer support, low dependency on external factors and suppliers... Crypto and Web3 represents none of those things, and that's why a lot of the time it is based solely on marketing vapor, and also why many don't want to invest in it (unless perhaps they are addicted to gambling or unless they want to promote a particular aspect of it for their own personal financial gain).
I've always wondered why consumers seem to lack foresight though? Like the foresight of governmental / corporate dystopias due to information asymmetries.
or foresight that exclusively buying goods manufactured abroad will eventually affect your home price as your neighbors one by one lose their local jobs...
Do we know why people act in such a way?
Edit: I'm quite shocked at the deep presumption of negativity. I was genuinely trying to discuss and explore the phenomenon of choosing long term detriment for short term gain.
or foresight that exclusively buying goods manufactured abroad will eventually affect your home price as your neighbors one by one lose their local jobs...
Do we know why people act in such a way?
Edit: I'm quite shocked at the deep presumption of negativity. I was genuinely trying to discuss and explore the phenomenon of choosing long term detriment for short term gain.
That's not foresight, it's out-of-hand speculation. But I guess people who don't wildly speculate would never invest in crypto in the first place, heh.
There are very few incentives for long term (meaning multigenerational) foresight. Cryptocurrencies embody this: they're either planet-torching (PoW) or encode neofeudalism (PoS) into their consensus schemes.
Your comment reads as incredibly tone-deaf, but I'll give it an honest answer.
Hierarchy of needs. Maslow is obviously not accurate, but people focus on basic survival and prioritize themselves and their families first. You do not even reach the level of contemplation of politics until you have food, shelter, comfort and a degree of safety. Most Americans struggle to satisfy all of these consistently.
If you want more people to care about privacy, solve their basic needs first. Then they will care about big picture items.
Hierarchy of needs. Maslow is obviously not accurate, but people focus on basic survival and prioritize themselves and their families first. You do not even reach the level of contemplation of politics until you have food, shelter, comfort and a degree of safety. Most Americans struggle to satisfy all of these consistently.
If you want more people to care about privacy, solve their basic needs first. Then they will care about big picture items.
fair enough, so your claim is essentially that people likely would, but are struggling to survive in the short run and therefore the long run is basically presumed to not matter?
It does matter, but first things first. If you struggle to breathe your first priority won't be finding food, but your entire energy will go into solving the most urgent problem.
Yeah I get that, I guess for me I just see it like . Imagine some town with lots of manufacturing jobs and so many people are shopping at walmart for foreign made wares. How does it not click "If people dont buy local our local made wares, how will our factory stay open?" . I'm not saying so much like right right now, it's obviously too late in many industries to go back any time soon. But like in the 70s-90s, why didn't people working in these industries have the foresight to realize if we dont buy local made wares, there's no need for factory workers here, and if there's no need for factory workers here, there's no need for manager, and if there's no need for managers, the company could just be entirely in the foreign nation. And if if it's in the foreign nation, how are we going to get money to feed ourselves and pay our mortgages (keep the property values at least level) ...
It seems like it was more like "Well I could have a TV now, or a TV + Microwave now" and that was the micro decisions that lead to a hollowing out of the labor force.
I'm just armchair speculating here, happy to learn more in a concise way (ie doesnt require me to go get a degree on the subject) .
It seems like it was more like "Well I could have a TV now, or a TV + Microwave now" and that was the micro decisions that lead to a hollowing out of the labor force.
I'm just armchair speculating here, happy to learn more in a concise way (ie doesnt require me to go get a degree on the subject) .
Humans almost always and almost everywhere in almost every context make the short-term choice with immediate consequence with very little concern for the long-term effect which is usually much more diffuse.
Person A going out to buy a Chinese-made microwave from Walmart today isn't going to lead inexorably to decreased property values, but it is going to give Person A something in which to stick their microwavable popcorn tonight. In fact, many Person As have been buying Chinese-made microwaves from Walmart for many years now, and still property values are going up!
Eventually, sure, enough people making those choices on a macro scale leads to factories closing close by, and if there's no corresponding rise in other industries, that will lead to negative economic consequences for the entire area. But that's a far off problem with a lot of uncertainty, and this popcorn isn't going to pop itself tonight!
Of course, it is also true that Person A could go out of their way to shop at a local store and buy a microwave made by an American company, but that the American company decides that there's much more profit to be made by moving production overseas, and the negative economic consequences happen anyway. Not because of the short-sightedness of Person A, but the greed and short-sightedness of CEO B. That's even more reason for Person A to not be too worried about their individual purchase.
Person A going out to buy a Chinese-made microwave from Walmart today isn't going to lead inexorably to decreased property values, but it is going to give Person A something in which to stick their microwavable popcorn tonight. In fact, many Person As have been buying Chinese-made microwaves from Walmart for many years now, and still property values are going up!
Eventually, sure, enough people making those choices on a macro scale leads to factories closing close by, and if there's no corresponding rise in other industries, that will lead to negative economic consequences for the entire area. But that's a far off problem with a lot of uncertainty, and this popcorn isn't going to pop itself tonight!
Of course, it is also true that Person A could go out of their way to shop at a local store and buy a microwave made by an American company, but that the American company decides that there's much more profit to be made by moving production overseas, and the negative economic consequences happen anyway. Not because of the short-sightedness of Person A, but the greed and short-sightedness of CEO B. That's even more reason for Person A to not be too worried about their individual purchase.
Tone deafness of your comment aside, this is just like... your opinion man. We don't know this will happen for sure, neither do we know this will not happen. People are not going to spend their time worrying about something that might not happen. There are enough bad things in everyone's life which are certain.
I rather see a dystopian future from unregulated asset flow with no limits and no taxation. Cash for me is a good tradeoff between freedom and necessary control. I would e.g. opt into any equivalent digital currency that does not allow speculation , accumulating or transfer of amount greater than 10k per year or natural person.
Normal people is afraid of think and openly discuss things that are too bad to be considered feasible. Hence a compulsion to silence the messenger downvoting your comment in this case.
It's very immature (or complicit with what you categorized as dystopian there).
It's very immature (or complicit with what you categorized as dystopian there).
There is a diff between people not anticipating possible bad outcomes and acting on it. Since forever, people have complained about bosses, governments etc. still, to a large degree the easiest way wins and some people just need that ‘ease’ to survive their life. The needle of capitalism. And many that do see it as a big problem, disagree on the solution.
Maybe people are just like peasants and don't know any better. Maybe someone needs to do the Narodnik thing and go to the people [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_to_the_People
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_to_the_People
That was a famous fiasco.
> How easy is it - for both sides - to get set up?
I suspect this is a huge sticking point. The last time I tried to pay for something using bitcoin, I failed. I tried again with monero and, once again, failed. Zelle worked just fine.
I suspect this is a huge sticking point. The last time I tried to pay for something using bitcoin, I failed. I tried again with monero and, once again, failed. Zelle worked just fine.
> So you're left with things which are (rightly or wrongly) illegal. Or incredibly taboo.
While I mostly agree with what you wrote, I take exception to this. Wanting more privacy can be an ends in itself.
Of course, as I said, I agree with you, this doesn’t really broaden the pool of people who need Monero by a meaningful amount ;)
While I mostly agree with what you wrote, I take exception to this. Wanting more privacy can be an ends in itself.
Of course, as I said, I agree with you, this doesn’t really broaden the pool of people who need Monero by a meaningful amount ;)
The problem is that Monero doesn't guarantee privacy. X bought something from company Y. Company Y makes Z. X bought Z. How does whoever wants to know know? Because it was shipped by a major carrier.
> Wanting more privacy can be an ends in itself.
People who are willing to jump through hoops to marginally increase their privacy and the companies willing to similarly jump through hoops to cater to these people are a subset of the overall population. Gotta break out of this subset to achieve the wide adoption OP was talking about.
People who are willing to jump through hoops to marginally increase their privacy and the companies willing to similarly jump through hoops to cater to these people are a subset of the overall population. Gotta break out of this subset to achieve the wide adoption OP was talking about.
Yes, I mentioned that in my 2nd sentence.
> So you're left with things which are (rightly or wrongly) illegal. Or incredibly taboo.
I presume giving money to Canadian protestors is the former?
I presume giving money to Canadian protestors is the former?
Strong disagree. There are two reasons.
1 - A tiny percentage of crypto holders regularly use crypto as a currency, most people just use it as a store of wealth (ie digital gold) or a way to speculate/gamble.
2 - You can't buy it on Coinbase, because the US government can't track its usage so Coinbase would lose their regulatory advantage if they allowed it on their exchange.
So that means it's more difficult for the average person to acquire, and at this point most people are using crypto more like stocks than currency so they'll just speculate on something that's easier to get their hands on.
1 - A tiny percentage of crypto holders regularly use crypto as a currency, most people just use it as a store of wealth (ie digital gold) or a way to speculate/gamble.
2 - You can't buy it on Coinbase, because the US government can't track its usage so Coinbase would lose their regulatory advantage if they allowed it on their exchange.
So that means it's more difficult for the average person to acquire, and at this point most people are using crypto more like stocks than currency so they'll just speculate on something that's easier to get their hands on.
So I agree that transferring of value and for payments is where the usefulness is, but I think there are two reasons why the adoption is lagging:
1. Most people only care about speculation, and don't care at all what cryptocurrencies are or what they can do. And Monero doesn't do much for these people.
2. Monero is more inconvenient to use than Bitcoin is. SPV wallets aren't possible, so you need to rescan all outputs since you last opened your wallet which is very time consuming. Also you need to wait 10 blocks (~20 min) before you can spend an input, but with other cryptos you can spend a 0-conf transfer immediately.
It's unfortunate because Monero really is a better Bitcoin.
1. Most people only care about speculation, and don't care at all what cryptocurrencies are or what they can do. And Monero doesn't do much for these people.
2. Monero is more inconvenient to use than Bitcoin is. SPV wallets aren't possible, so you need to rescan all outputs since you last opened your wallet which is very time consuming. Also you need to wait 10 blocks (~20 min) before you can spend an input, but with other cryptos you can spend a 0-conf transfer immediately.
It's unfortunate because Monero really is a better Bitcoin.
> Most people only care about speculation
You probably just described 99% of the crypto market. If the buyers of crypto actually cared about the features and usage you wouldn't have so many random shit coins getting pumped then dumped.
You probably just described 99% of the crypto market. If the buyers of crypto actually cared about the features and usage you wouldn't have so many random shit coins getting pumped then dumped.
Monero is not a better Bitcoin; it just makes different tradeoffs [1].
[1] https://phyro.github.io/grinvestigation/why_grin.html
[1] https://phyro.github.io/grinvestigation/why_grin.html
You're right that it makes different trade-offs, but in doing so it becomes a better currency than Bitcoin.
Many of the properties listed in that comparison table make it a worse currency. The prime ones being poor scalability (not only large txs but also having to track all historical outputs, not just the unspent ones) and poor second layer support (no relative time locks).
This list doesn't even list the important properties of a currency, such at it being fungible or it being cheap to transfer, both which directly disqualify Bitcoin.
Also, both of the ones you list are the same (scalability), whose purpose is to keep transfer fees low. Which, again, Bitcoin utterly fails at.
Also, both of the ones you list are the same (scalability), whose purpose is to keep transfer fees low. Which, again, Bitcoin utterly fails at.
Fungibility is split out into three separate properties: Hides amounts, Hides addresses, Hides the transaction graph (untraceability).
Bitcoin tx fees are near all time lows [1] although many people still overpay. And lightning fees are way lower still.
[1] https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight
Bitcoin tx fees are near all time lows [1] although many people still overpay. And lightning fees are way lower still.
[1] https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,24h,weight
All time lows at only $2/tx... While the median Monero fee is at $0.0012. Even if LN transactions are free (they aren't) you still need to make hundreds of transactions before you recoup that one Bitcoin fee.
And the kicker is that Bitcoin's fees goes up when more people use it, while in Monero the fees get lower.
It's laughable to suggest Bitcoin scales better wrt to regular payments than Monero, despite Monero transactions being larger and the blockchain is harder to prune.
https://www.monero.how/monero-transaction-fees
And the kicker is that Bitcoin's fees goes up when more people use it, while in Monero the fees get lower.
It's laughable to suggest Bitcoin scales better wrt to regular payments than Monero, despite Monero transactions being larger and the blockchain is harder to prune.
https://www.monero.how/monero-transaction-fees
The chart shows many Bitcoin txs clearing (with some delay) at the minimal 1 sat/vbyte, which typically comes to a ~400 sat fee, or about 8 cents. This is also shown at [1]. Many people don't bother picking their feerate though, and go with their wallet's overestimate.
It's laughable to think Monero scales better when it uses much more resources (bandwidth and memory and diskspace) to support a given transaction rate.
[1] https://bitcoinvisuals.com/bitcoind-minfee
It's laughable to think Monero scales better when it uses much more resources (bandwidth and memory and diskspace) to support a given transaction rate.
[1] https://bitcoinvisuals.com/bitcoind-minfee
[deleted]
There's work underway for Monero to use the Lightning network, which scales to millions of transactions per second.
citation needed. i've only seen research proposals for one directional channels, or for networks with 3rd party escrow.
Because blockchain-based cryptocurrencies have a terrible UX and don't scale for shit.
Even if someone hand-delivered a smart-phone that had a Monero wallet on it to facilitate me paying for a banned_book_123, it's still an order of magnitude fussier and slower than, say, using a Visa gift card. Or cash.
And what happens if I somehow fuck up the transaction? It has none of the protections offered by the Visa gift card, with all of the shit-out-of-luck properties of physical cash.
On the other hand, it doesn't scale well and thus cannot be used for digital microtransactions.
Any of the solutions I see for scaling could just be used without having a blockchain-based cryptocurrency on the backend.
Anyhow, when it's this difficult to use, it seems perfectly logical that it only gets used in niche cases where the sender/receiver is willing to eat the cost of all the friction, headache, and risk-of-loss of using it (not to mention price fluctuations). So ransomware, paying for illegal goods... what else is there?
Related: I think the motto of blockchain should be: A Solution Begging for a Problem. All these HN posts about it make me think of "The Herlihy Boy" from SNL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXyW5w5RRFY
Even if someone hand-delivered a smart-phone that had a Monero wallet on it to facilitate me paying for a banned_book_123, it's still an order of magnitude fussier and slower than, say, using a Visa gift card. Or cash.
And what happens if I somehow fuck up the transaction? It has none of the protections offered by the Visa gift card, with all of the shit-out-of-luck properties of physical cash.
On the other hand, it doesn't scale well and thus cannot be used for digital microtransactions.
Any of the solutions I see for scaling could just be used without having a blockchain-based cryptocurrency on the backend.
Anyhow, when it's this difficult to use, it seems perfectly logical that it only gets used in niche cases where the sender/receiver is willing to eat the cost of all the friction, headache, and risk-of-loss of using it (not to mention price fluctuations). So ransomware, paying for illegal goods... what else is there?
Related: I think the motto of blockchain should be: A Solution Begging for a Problem. All these HN posts about it make me think of "The Herlihy Boy" from SNL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXyW5w5RRFY
There are basically two compelling reasons to use a privacy coin:
- You are doing something illegal and don't want to get caught.
- Powerful actors in the economy are abusing their power, and you want to avoid/prevent that abuse.
Most people are not criminals, so let's focus on the second use-case.
If the government created a 1000% tax on all person-to-person transactions, you can bet nearly everyone would switch off of Venmo or Cash App and onto something like Monero. Or if Apple/Google said "we are now going to monitor your bank accounts, and we will be taking a share of all purchases made from your phone," you can bet people would switch.
Another type of abuse might be political. "We will be compiling a list of everyone who donates to the opposing party."
One might argue that those abuses of power already exist, and are already actively harming the average consumer. For example, Experian's multiple data breaches[0]. But the thing is, the average person doesn't feel very affected. If you came after their Venmo or their bank account, they'd feel it.
In a way, I think privacy coins are already benefiting all of us. The "powers that be" know that it's possible for us to switch, and that we will switch if they push us too hard. So they don't push us as hard as they could.
I also want to point out: MobileCoin. Your premise seems to be that privacy-focused coins aren't in wide use, but I don't think that's a certainty. Signal has deployed MobileCoin to potentially hundreds of millions of people. But they are secretive about their numbers, so we don't know how widely it's really used. I've tried MobileCoin with friends who use Signal and it works great. They will surely beat out Monero and others, simply due to the ease-of-use they've created, and the integration with an already-widely-used private messenger.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experian#2015_data_breach
- You are doing something illegal and don't want to get caught.
- Powerful actors in the economy are abusing their power, and you want to avoid/prevent that abuse.
Most people are not criminals, so let's focus on the second use-case.
If the government created a 1000% tax on all person-to-person transactions, you can bet nearly everyone would switch off of Venmo or Cash App and onto something like Monero. Or if Apple/Google said "we are now going to monitor your bank accounts, and we will be taking a share of all purchases made from your phone," you can bet people would switch.
Another type of abuse might be political. "We will be compiling a list of everyone who donates to the opposing party."
One might argue that those abuses of power already exist, and are already actively harming the average consumer. For example, Experian's multiple data breaches[0]. But the thing is, the average person doesn't feel very affected. If you came after their Venmo or their bank account, they'd feel it.
In a way, I think privacy coins are already benefiting all of us. The "powers that be" know that it's possible for us to switch, and that we will switch if they push us too hard. So they don't push us as hard as they could.
I also want to point out: MobileCoin. Your premise seems to be that privacy-focused coins aren't in wide use, but I don't think that's a certainty. Signal has deployed MobileCoin to potentially hundreds of millions of people. But they are secretive about their numbers, so we don't know how widely it's really used. I've tried MobileCoin with friends who use Signal and it works great. They will surely beat out Monero and others, simply due to the ease-of-use they've created, and the integration with an already-widely-used private messenger.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experian#2015_data_breach
And it’s seemingly impossible or at least very hard to onboard onto mobile coin. Couldn’t find one Fiat exchange, so it’s basically useless.
I can see some really good uses for something like Monero - for example, purchasing a VPS anonymously. I would definitely consider that a desirable thing to be able to do. And I know at least a few VPS providers take Monero, so we're all good right?
No. Here's the rub... the problem I see, and what makes Monero less usable to my way of thinking, is the "last mile" problem of getting value in and out of the Monero ecosystem. In my case, specifically, the question of how I transfer value I currently hold - which is almost 100% in fiat currency (USD) - into Monero, in an anonymous fashion. Yes, it can be done. No, it's not easy. And then for the merchant who accepts Monero, they probably have the inverse problem of exchanging their Monero for the desired fiat currency (which you still need to buy most things) without revealing information they may not want to reveal.
No. Here's the rub... the problem I see, and what makes Monero less usable to my way of thinking, is the "last mile" problem of getting value in and out of the Monero ecosystem. In my case, specifically, the question of how I transfer value I currently hold - which is almost 100% in fiat currency (USD) - into Monero, in an anonymous fashion. Yes, it can be done. No, it's not easy. And then for the merchant who accepts Monero, they probably have the inverse problem of exchanging their Monero for the desired fiat currency (which you still need to buy most things) without revealing information they may not want to reveal.
Already commented elsewhere but this is called the oracle problem. It is essentially the tragedy of the commons w.r.t. bureaucracy; i.e. why should I be truthful about the state of the world if I can lie and make a profit because what I say will get recorded as truthful in the bureaucracy... this is the same as "corruption" and "fake news" etc.
We already know how to solve this problem fyi but it seems no one is interested in helping me implement it.
We already know how to solve this problem fyi but it seems no one is interested in helping me implement it.
Agree with this. Exchanging for fiat is hard. Most people will go cash->other crypto via centralized exchange -> monero via decentralized or p2p exchange. Then back the same way.
It’s not really that complicated if you are comfortable managing wallets and making on-chain tx’s, but your average person in crypto is probably just buying crypto on a centralized exchange (most of which don’t support monero, though some do) and also selling it there.
It’s not really that complicated if you are comfortable managing wallets and making on-chain tx’s, but your average person in crypto is probably just buying crypto on a centralized exchange (most of which don’t support monero, though some do) and also selling it there.
From what I've read, some of the online drug markets only take Monero. So it would seem people who realize they need anonymity are indeed embracing it.
I'm not going to say they are the most technologically sophisticated marketplaces per se. Not doubting that this might be some obvious "litmus" test.
However, I'm willing to bet this is simply due to face value claims around Monero and not because the last mile problems are solved or its provably anonymous was considered in earnest and thereby vetted deeply.
However, I'm willing to bet this is simply due to face value claims around Monero and not because the last mile problems are solved or its provably anonymous was considered in earnest and thereby vetted deeply.
I'm thinking it probably requires some degree of technological sophistication to run an illegal website that traffics billions of dollars worth of drugs internationally. These guys are being actively pursued by intelligence agencies around the world and most of them haven't been caught.
even if they’re only cargo-culting, the ones who use monero will be less likely to be caught. so in the long run we should expect to see them using monero
As a huge fan of monero, I see several reasons the general public may not want to adopt it:
1. To securely use monero you need to at the very least locally download the blockchain. The secure way of doing this takes fucking forever. You don’t need to do this, but monero’s current users are very security conscious and most tooling/the ecosystem assumes you did this.
2. Most consumers may passively want privacy but they want it to be completely frictionless. Monero has a learning curve, slight difficulty exchanging for fiat, etc. - not frictionless.
3. Monero has whales but it’s not new, so it doesn’t have a big team of centralized devs/investors trying to pump it up. As a result it doesn’t have a lot of marketing or mindshare among people who are less technical.
4. Tail emission is a perfectly valid way to incentivize POW over long time periods, but it scares off moonboys and speculators at the very least (because you’re not purchasing a piece of a fixed size pie).
5. Even if most consumers passively want privacy, in practice it’s not important enough to go out of your way for it. How many technically-able people still transact in cash in developed countries? Yes, I know you Mr HN contrarian might, but I’m talking about the general public.
6. The least important factor is that Monero does have technical drawbacks and limitations. It’s not super important but it may be a reason privacy-conscious people don’t promote it as the end-all-be-all solution to private transactions. Some examples: auditing supply, de-anonymizing correlated transactions, POW, how the blockchain could scale with more transactions, quantum-safety.
1. To securely use monero you need to at the very least locally download the blockchain. The secure way of doing this takes fucking forever. You don’t need to do this, but monero’s current users are very security conscious and most tooling/the ecosystem assumes you did this.
2. Most consumers may passively want privacy but they want it to be completely frictionless. Monero has a learning curve, slight difficulty exchanging for fiat, etc. - not frictionless.
3. Monero has whales but it’s not new, so it doesn’t have a big team of centralized devs/investors trying to pump it up. As a result it doesn’t have a lot of marketing or mindshare among people who are less technical.
4. Tail emission is a perfectly valid way to incentivize POW over long time periods, but it scares off moonboys and speculators at the very least (because you’re not purchasing a piece of a fixed size pie).
5. Even if most consumers passively want privacy, in practice it’s not important enough to go out of your way for it. How many technically-able people still transact in cash in developed countries? Yes, I know you Mr HN contrarian might, but I’m talking about the general public.
6. The least important factor is that Monero does have technical drawbacks and limitations. It’s not super important but it may be a reason privacy-conscious people don’t promote it as the end-all-be-all solution to private transactions. Some examples: auditing supply, de-anonymizing correlated transactions, POW, how the blockchain could scale with more transactions, quantum-safety.
Are you serious? I'm starting to wonder if this whole "Ask HN" was posted to dissuade people from buying crypto.
1. False. There are mobile wallets that download only part of the blockchain.
2. This applies to all crypto, not only Monero.
3. True!
4. The number of coins added by the tail emission is too small to affect the size of the pie. The inflation rate from tail emission is asymptotically zero.
5. Privacy or no privacy, it's still crypto, which protects your fiat from inflation.
6. Monero can scale on the lightning network to millions of transactions per second. The more technical reasons, like auditing supply and POW aren't big enough problems for consumers to worry about.
1. False. There are mobile wallets that download only part of the blockchain.
2. This applies to all crypto, not only Monero.
3. True!
4. The number of coins added by the tail emission is too small to affect the size of the pie. The inflation rate from tail emission is asymptotically zero.
5. Privacy or no privacy, it's still crypto, which protects your fiat from inflation.
6. Monero can scale on the lightning network to millions of transactions per second. The more technical reasons, like auditing supply and POW aren't big enough problems for consumers to worry about.
I think the fiat on/off ramps are a large problem for Monero, I say this as someone who is a huge proponent of Monero and would like to see adoption rise.
It is only offered on one exchange (Kraken) which inherently limits availability, there are certain vendors who do accept Monero such as Mullvad, and a popular wallet for iOS (CakeWallet) will soon allow you to redeem Giftcards for Monero.
Right now, if I gave my friend 1 XMR, what could he do with it?
It is only offered on one exchange (Kraken) which inherently limits availability, there are certain vendors who do accept Monero such as Mullvad, and a popular wallet for iOS (CakeWallet) will soon allow you to redeem Giftcards for Monero.
Right now, if I gave my friend 1 XMR, what could he do with it?
I have always wondered how much money laundering is in mining.
It seems pretty benign to buy a whole bunch of CPU/GPUs on the used market and then have them mine you cryptocurrencies (not just monero, but notably monero is CPU favorable). This might be a massive onramp for fiat to cryptocurrencies.
A quick google talks a lot about tumblers and other buy/sell strategies, but I'm curious about mining.
I would hate to be the lackey who suggested it to their boss last fall only for them to see their laundered money fall > 50% though.
It seems pretty benign to buy a whole bunch of CPU/GPUs on the used market and then have them mine you cryptocurrencies (not just monero, but notably monero is CPU favorable). This might be a massive onramp for fiat to cryptocurrencies.
A quick google talks a lot about tumblers and other buy/sell strategies, but I'm curious about mining.
I would hate to be the lackey who suggested it to their boss last fall only for them to see their laundered money fall > 50% though.
I admit that this is speculation because I don't have the free time or desire to do some sort of deep dive, but the NFT market absolutely reeks of money laundering. Point being - why bother going through all that effort to actually mine stuff when you can just buy and sell NFTs a few times to clean money.
> through all that effort to actually mine stuff when you can just buy and sell NFTs
Because buy and sell NFTs leaves a ledger trail that can lead you to your cash onramp being illegitimate money.
Whereas minted money is legitimate by default (and has no ledger history).
I suppose the IRS could ask "where'd the money to buy 1000 GPUs come from" though? IDK, I'm not smart enough to be a criminal :lol:
Because buy and sell NFTs leaves a ledger trail that can lead you to your cash onramp being illegitimate money.
Whereas minted money is legitimate by default (and has no ledger history).
I suppose the IRS could ask "where'd the money to buy 1000 GPUs come from" though? IDK, I'm not smart enough to be a criminal :lol:
But can you actually clean real money with NFTs? I assume no bank will accept your answer "I just exchanged my stock of coins"...
They're not widely adopted because they don't solve any problems faced by the masses.
Digital cash needs several features to even start getting adoption:
Stable value
Fast finality, low fees, high throughput
Privacy/anonymity/fungibility
Usability
No cryptocurrencies meet these requirements so far.
Stable value
Fast finality, low fees, high throughput
Privacy/anonymity/fungibility
Usability
No cryptocurrencies meet these requirements so far.
They have to do all of that and do it better than physical currency. I can hand you an envelope with $10 in it and I don't have to record it in a centralized ledger that everybody can see. I'm waiting for a cryptocurrency that is decentralized to that extent.
Because there's no need for them. Your average person, even your average tech savvy person gets by comfortably with a credit card, checks, cash, and Venmo.
Why would anyone use a less well understood, harder to use, less ubiquitous, and unstable currency?
Why would anyone use a less well understood, harder to use, less ubiquitous, and unstable currency?
No one is backing them. Users don't care about how crypto works they care if the product works. Take applepay for example, majority of merchants use it because users want to pay with it. Users don't care about a lecture on privacy and government overreach. Tell them it does 2 tap/click payment and also it manages your cc and then give merchants free crypto payment terminals. You can onlh use it online and only if the site owner cares enough.
Tell site owners "here is a service that manages all payments including a ton kf crypto and converts it to uour local currency, also, users can sign up with us and use as an idp so they don't have to register on your site" .
In other words, an Oauth2 extension for payment processing providers + federated identity and services that provide easy integration into your registration+payment workflow might be lacking. Also, with any crypto it is a PITA to just obtain crypto without KYC laws, so more accessible exchanges that are somewhat anonymous without needing Tor that let you barter cash or other payment with them (not other users, it's a mess) might help too.
Tell site owners "here is a service that manages all payments including a ton kf crypto and converts it to uour local currency, also, users can sign up with us and use as an idp so they don't have to register on your site" .
In other words, an Oauth2 extension for payment processing providers + federated identity and services that provide easy integration into your registration+payment workflow might be lacking. Also, with any crypto it is a PITA to just obtain crypto without KYC laws, so more accessible exchanges that are somewhat anonymous without needing Tor that let you barter cash or other payment with them (not other users, it's a mess) might help too.
> "No one is backing them"
There are many patents by Visa and Mastercard backing crypto. Paypal lets consumers buy products with crypto.
Do you seriously believe big payment processors have as one of their goals to never, ever, under any circumstance use blockchain?
There are many patents by Visa and Mastercard backing crypto. Paypal lets consumers buy products with crypto.
Do you seriously believe big payment processors have as one of their goals to never, ever, under any circumstance use blockchain?
No, but they aren't supporting as part of their network either. Their plans and actions are different things.
I watched as Monero was gradually dropped from a lot of the major exchanges over time with no real reason being provided. Same with zcash. My conspiracy theory is that there is a coordinated effort to make truly anonymous coins unusable.
It is not a conspiracy theory. It is literally how financial regulations mandate the financial system works.
Non-cash anonymous financial transactions have been no-no for a long while, in particular under AML/KYC.
Over a certain amount, even cash transactions get wrapped in KYC/AML papertrail for law enforcement facilitation.
Non-cash anonymous financial transactions have been no-no for a long while, in particular under AML/KYC.
Over a certain amount, even cash transactions get wrapped in KYC/AML papertrail for law enforcement facilitation.
[deleted]
Indeed. But I wouldn't consider ZCash to be in the same category as Monero, not with the way it was pre-mined, the sketchy key ceremony, the developers' willingness to co-operate with law enforcement, and the unshielded-by-default transactions.
I'm out of the loop. Why does it matter if they cooperate with police? That would be like signal's big brother, right? If it is secure then there's nothing to really give them. I did hear they are removing the unshielded wallets and fixing the ceremony process fwiw.
Because the main use-case of a privacy coin is for illegal transactions such as drug sales on the dark web, so co-operating with law enforcement entirely defeats the point.
note that if they lied in the ceremony process, the only thing they could do is undetectably mint zcash. they would not be able to deanonymize shielded transactions
That's not a very comforting thought...
That coordinated effort is not some big mystery; the exchanges that operate in major jurisdictions cannot offer Monero due to AML/KYC compliance rules.
Monero is only available on the exchanges operating on the fringes of the banking network, or which don’t connect to banks at all.
Monero is only available on the exchanges operating on the fringes of the banking network, or which don’t connect to banks at all.
Thats not a conspiracy theory, they're about to implement mandatory flagging of non-exchange addresses. If you want to send or receive from one you'll need to provide the name/address of the counterparty.
Is there any nice DEX that lets you trade Solana for Monero and vice versa?
I want to do some commerce in Monero but since Monero is banned on most/all marketplaces, it'd be nice to get it easily via decentralized exchange swapping it for Solana. Doing commerce with Monero and then swapping it back to Solana and later FIAT.
I assume the issue with this setup even if one builds it, you still have to tell the government what happened and how exactly you earned your coins? Or maybe you can build another DEX converting Monero to FIAT 'cash' avoiding such questions?
I want to do some commerce in Monero but since Monero is banned on most/all marketplaces, it'd be nice to get it easily via decentralized exchange swapping it for Solana. Doing commerce with Monero and then swapping it back to Solana and later FIAT.
I assume the issue with this setup even if one builds it, you still have to tell the government what happened and how exactly you earned your coins? Or maybe you can build another DEX converting Monero to FIAT 'cash' avoiding such questions?
The oracle problem rears its ugly head once more.
It's not a /nice/ DEX but amoveo exists, almost no liquidity but in theory it works.
It's not hopeless but it is important to understand how impactful solving the oracle problem would be. The implications are IMMENSE. Literally obviates the need for governance.
So idk, monero is too small (in some sense) to really be useful and the oracle problem is too big (in some sense) for a solution to it to be "one of many" - it'll transform everything and it can't happen unless people make it happen.
It's not a /nice/ DEX but amoveo exists, almost no liquidity but in theory it works.
It's not hopeless but it is important to understand how impactful solving the oracle problem would be. The implications are IMMENSE. Literally obviates the need for governance.
So idk, monero is too small (in some sense) to really be useful and the oracle problem is too big (in some sense) for a solution to it to be "one of many" - it'll transform everything and it can't happen unless people make it happen.
Reason this is interesting I think is that such a setup can let you avoid paying tax to totalitarian regimes such as Russia/China that use the money to crush opposition or wage war. As well as minimize fees in general such as Mastercard/Stripe.
Maybe it’s just a hopeless dream.
Maybe it’s just a hopeless dream.
I don't know of any DEX that does this currently, I'd be happy to make the exchange though
You guys can do it via amoveo. If you need veo then feel free to contact me by following links from profile to an email address.
I think it's because women haven't integrated the technology yet. Please let me explain :)
Women are high consumers of luxury goods across the world. The luxury goods market was estimated at more than $400b in 2020, and increasing. If you take into consideration the fact that a large portion of these transactions undergo banking fees at around 2%, that makes more or less $8bn of revenue turned into smoke, which luxury companies lose to banking intermediaries.
The two main reasons why these companies agree to pay banking fees is insured transactions (the buyer pays with a credit card then fails to reimburse the bank) and convenience (most luxury goods customers carry more than one credit card with them).
Pseudo-DeFi offers a good replacement to the first cost (insurance). However, first, most luxury clients actually don't need the credit card: they simply cannot pay easily without pulling out a bag of cash (and look like crooks) or use a credit card.
Second, crypto payment is not yet convenient: we need to offer women an attractive, portable and easy to use wallet mechanism that can easily withstand loss/theft of mobile device, easy to top up, and in the correct cryptocurrency that is accepted across luxury brands. Think of it as the iPhone problem: there were many smartphones with a touch screen before the iPhone, but none of them looked attractive.
Once luxury brands solve this problem (or Apple, I can easily imagine Apple solving this problem, because 94% luxury clients have iPhones), in my opinion, crypto payments will take off worldwide and there will be no looking back. They will reduce costs to both sellers and shoppers, which qualifies quite well to the "why" question.
Women are high consumers of luxury goods across the world. The luxury goods market was estimated at more than $400b in 2020, and increasing. If you take into consideration the fact that a large portion of these transactions undergo banking fees at around 2%, that makes more or less $8bn of revenue turned into smoke, which luxury companies lose to banking intermediaries.
The two main reasons why these companies agree to pay banking fees is insured transactions (the buyer pays with a credit card then fails to reimburse the bank) and convenience (most luxury goods customers carry more than one credit card with them).
Pseudo-DeFi offers a good replacement to the first cost (insurance). However, first, most luxury clients actually don't need the credit card: they simply cannot pay easily without pulling out a bag of cash (and look like crooks) or use a credit card.
Second, crypto payment is not yet convenient: we need to offer women an attractive, portable and easy to use wallet mechanism that can easily withstand loss/theft of mobile device, easy to top up, and in the correct cryptocurrency that is accepted across luxury brands. Think of it as the iPhone problem: there were many smartphones with a touch screen before the iPhone, but none of them looked attractive.
Once luxury brands solve this problem (or Apple, I can easily imagine Apple solving this problem, because 94% luxury clients have iPhones), in my opinion, crypto payments will take off worldwide and there will be no looking back. They will reduce costs to both sellers and shoppers, which qualifies quite well to the "why" question.
People don’t actually care about privacy. For those that do, they see a differentiation between privacy (for themselves) versus anonymity (for everyone else).
Let me correct that for you. People are willing to exchange their privacy for safety. If it was possible to have both i doubt anyone would choose nonprivate
It's actually for the perceived safety of the community. By exchanging your own privacy you also remove your own safety (you're more open to targeted theft, assault or stalking for instance).
I tried to mine it a few years ago on a couple of machines. The net benefit was close to zero and I realized even if I rented a lot of them, it was simply not worth the hassle. So this is from the "creator's" point of view.
As an user, I simply don't need it. Most of the time I buy physical products so I have to give them my real address anyway (I could set up an alternative way but again too much hassle for almost zero benefit). For these few times when I actually buy digital products, I simply don't care enough and I pay via Paypal. So yes, they can profile me using my Paypal address, but that's the price I'm willing to accept.
As a merchant, I simply wouldn't accept it because of high volatility and related problems. Also, in my country there are certain rules for entities of certain size and I'd need to do additional bookkeeping just for that.
As an user, I simply don't need it. Most of the time I buy physical products so I have to give them my real address anyway (I could set up an alternative way but again too much hassle for almost zero benefit). For these few times when I actually buy digital products, I simply don't care enough and I pay via Paypal. So yes, they can profile me using my Paypal address, but that's the price I'm willing to accept.
As a merchant, I simply wouldn't accept it because of high volatility and related problems. Also, in my country there are certain rules for entities of certain size and I'd need to do additional bookkeeping just for that.
Having worked for a startup designing cryptographic privacy protocols, I think I can say that it's simply not something most consumers are interested in.
Anonymity in particular over pseudonymity only has compelling use cases for frankly, illegal activities. There are others of course, they're just not compelling.
Anonymity in particular over pseudonymity only has compelling use cases for frankly, illegal activities. There are others of course, they're just not compelling.
Because there is a small group of people that care enough to use it. Most anti-crypto people do not want anything to do with it. Neutral-crypto people don't see the reason for enhanced privacy, or are afraid it might put them into trouble with regulators.
Pro-crypto people can be broken into different tribes. Bitcoin maxis feel that only Bitcoin is worth using, and they might think the privacy of Bitcoin is "good enough." Ethereum maxis want to use applications and smart contracts for DeFi, escrow, exchanges, lending, stablecoins, and Monero does not support that. Ethereum maxis also feel that privacy is solvable with ZK proofs and private rollups. Then there are other tribes like Solana users who are looking for scalability for games and apps, and don't care as much about privacy.
Pro-crypto people can be broken into different tribes. Bitcoin maxis feel that only Bitcoin is worth using, and they might think the privacy of Bitcoin is "good enough." Ethereum maxis want to use applications and smart contracts for DeFi, escrow, exchanges, lending, stablecoins, and Monero does not support that. Ethereum maxis also feel that privacy is solvable with ZK proofs and private rollups. Then there are other tribes like Solana users who are looking for scalability for games and apps, and don't care as much about privacy.
Over the past 3 years the number of Monero transactions increased 10x.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/monero-transactions.htm...
Over the past 3 years the number of Litecoin transactions increased 5x. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactions.h...
What do you mean privacy coins aren't seeing wide adoption? Are you deliberately being wrong on the Internet to have someone correct you to draw attention and increase adoption?
Over the past 3 years the number of Litecoin transactions increased 5x. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactions.h...
What do you mean privacy coins aren't seeing wide adoption? Are you deliberately being wrong on the Internet to have someone correct you to draw attention and increase adoption?
Sometimes something fails at a purchase: a misunderstanding, failed delivery, fraud, bad quality, and/or many other problems. In my experience, in about one of three of my online purchases there was some hitch.
Therefore we need arbitration and the possibility to roll back the purchase. This doesn't always work well in the traditional finance, granted, but not at all for privacy coin schemes.
Without these possibilities people tend to feel that they are doing something risky. They don't trust that they get something of value if they use the privacy coin. They are afraid that they get bamboozled or scammed and have a feeling of powerlessness. This deters people and hurts adoption.
Therefore we need arbitration and the possibility to roll back the purchase. This doesn't always work well in the traditional finance, granted, but not at all for privacy coin schemes.
Without these possibilities people tend to feel that they are doing something risky. They don't trust that they get something of value if they use the privacy coin. They are afraid that they get bamboozled or scammed and have a feeling of powerlessness. This deters people and hurts adoption.
Because few people actually care that much about their privacy. Compare the existence of social networks, which exist for the purpose of people being less private.
The vast majority of people want to purchase things as simply and cheaply as possible. And that's going to mean not paying a premium to purchase their money from other people. And since they'd be buying it via their existing non-anonymous means, it wouldn't do anything anyway.
If an economic system already existed, so that people could receive their paychecks in a cryptocurrency and spend it freely at any store, they'd accept that. But anonymity isn't going to be all that much of a draw for anybody who is used to making purchases already via non-anonymous means. The only people who feel compelled to do so are those purchasing things illegally -- which just makes people who would want to purchase things legally even less interested.
tl;dr: Privacy advocates put a lot more weight on anonymity than most people do.
The vast majority of people want to purchase things as simply and cheaply as possible. And that's going to mean not paying a premium to purchase their money from other people. And since they'd be buying it via their existing non-anonymous means, it wouldn't do anything anyway.
If an economic system already existed, so that people could receive their paychecks in a cryptocurrency and spend it freely at any store, they'd accept that. But anonymity isn't going to be all that much of a draw for anybody who is used to making purchases already via non-anonymous means. The only people who feel compelled to do so are those purchasing things illegally -- which just makes people who would want to purchase things legally even less interested.
tl;dr: Privacy advocates put a lot more weight on anonymity than most people do.
Because you can just use Tornado cash to anonymize Ethereum, and then you still have full access to the gamut of tokens, stablecoins and applications running on Ethereum.
Because the moment you use it, you are on their radar. The arrest of one of its developers was telling, who knows what terms he agreed to.
Very easy, because anonymity was never the point of cryptocurrency - it's all about ease of manipulation and Monero is the "outcast" because it can't be tracked and manipulated.
This is a case where the cryptocurrency world wants "anonymity on paper, but not that much anonymity"
This is a case where the cryptocurrency world wants "anonymity on paper, but not that much anonymity"
I don't see the value in it. Cryptocurrency in general is far riskier and more costly than I am willing to put up with unless there's a benefit that makes the risk worthwhile.
When I want to do pseudoanonymous transactions, I have a wide variety of ways to do that which appear to be lower risk.
When I want to do pseudoanonymous transactions, I have a wide variety of ways to do that which appear to be lower risk.
> I consider Web3/NFTs to be a scam
Not all NFTs are the same or even JPEGs. 90% of them are useless though.
The blockchain domains are the only valid NFTs that cannot be right-click saved and are useful.
> the only utility I see in cryptocurrency is the anonymous and decentralized transfer of value.
> However interestingly the coins that do this well like Monero are not seeing wide adoption.
The regulators would like you to pick one trait of (not so) 'anonymous' or (not so) 'decentralized' cryptocurrencies.
Those that can fully guarantee both decentralization and privacy are the privacy coins like Monero, MobileCoin, Grin, Zcash, etc (To some extent Litecoin with mimblewimble privacy) which will basically be banned from exchanges as they are attractive to money laundering, illegal activity, ransomware and payments between criminals and scammers. No legitimate business wants to be associated with that, hence why they haven't got any wide spread legitimate adoption.
But they all do have widespread adoption with illegal activity.
Not all NFTs are the same or even JPEGs. 90% of them are useless though.
The blockchain domains are the only valid NFTs that cannot be right-click saved and are useful.
> the only utility I see in cryptocurrency is the anonymous and decentralized transfer of value.
> However interestingly the coins that do this well like Monero are not seeing wide adoption.
The regulators would like you to pick one trait of (not so) 'anonymous' or (not so) 'decentralized' cryptocurrencies.
Those that can fully guarantee both decentralization and privacy are the privacy coins like Monero, MobileCoin, Grin, Zcash, etc (To some extent Litecoin with mimblewimble privacy) which will basically be banned from exchanges as they are attractive to money laundering, illegal activity, ransomware and payments between criminals and scammers. No legitimate business wants to be associated with that, hence why they haven't got any wide spread legitimate adoption.
But they all do have widespread adoption with illegal activity.
The regulators are acting in the interest of society, to a first order. People actively don’t want privacy and decentralization because it means crime, theft, and economic instability.
Money was initially private and decentralized. When it lost those attributes theft and economic instability became the norm.
I think it's the opposite. Theft and economic instability were the norm until we developed things like economic regulations and a banking system. The Wild West was not known for its economic stability for example. Neither were the Dark Ages.
What passes as economic stability these days just makes things more fragile, e.g. propping up failing businesses w/ other people's money.
Let's pretend that in my mind, "NFT === JPEG === scam for idiots and speculators" - what is a "blockchain domain," why does it have to be an NFT (or why is being an NFT better than not being one), and how is it different from the above?
blockchain domain are equivelent of domain names in DNS, i.e. they ae human readable wallet addresses.
Making them nonfungable is a requirment (If it pointed at two wallets someone else could get your payment). Making them decentralised is a requirement to prevent someone else (and so ultimatly govenments) to decide where your payments go.
broadly agree.
Weirdly you can trade mobilecoin on a major centralized exchange, but is "proof of intel" really a good consensus mechanism lol
Weirdly you can trade mobilecoin on a major centralized exchange, but is "proof of intel" really a good consensus mechanism lol
Well it's quite obvious isn't it? If you explain to the general population what it is and how it is used then I'd say most relate to criminal activity or tax avoidance.
Us tech-savvy we know there are probably a few privacy minded people using it honestly.
Us tech-savvy we know there are probably a few privacy minded people using it honestly.
Can my mom get started with it in under 5 minutes? If not, it will never see wide adoption.
Can your mom get started with Paypal in 5 minutes? When I set up a Paypal account recently, it took days to "get started", because that's how long it took them to verify my bank account.
> Can your mom get started with Paypal in 5 minutes
Absolutely. I can't talk about the merchant experience, but setting up a new Paypal account and paying for something via credit card takes like 2 minutes.
Absolutely. I can't talk about the merchant experience, but setting up a new Paypal account and paying for something via credit card takes like 2 minutes.
My mom doesn't have paypal.
As I mentioned in another thread, this is where MobileCoin excels. I encourage people to give it a try.
The only problem right now is buying the MobileCoin in the first place. I live in the U.S. and the process was, uh, sketchy at best.
But if the payer in the transaction already has MobileCoin, it's a breeze from there. If your mom can do Venmo, she can do it. It's instant, fees are basically zero, it shows you the dollar amount, and it comes with the same strong privacy as Signal itself.
From what I have seen, MobileCoin is positioned to be the winner on all fronts. It's the only cryptocurrency I've ever seen that actually feels usable -- and I'm including back when Bitcoin was $10 and you could actually send transactions on the network.
The only problem right now is buying the MobileCoin in the first place. I live in the U.S. and the process was, uh, sketchy at best.
But if the payer in the transaction already has MobileCoin, it's a breeze from there. If your mom can do Venmo, she can do it. It's instant, fees are basically zero, it shows you the dollar amount, and it comes with the same strong privacy as Signal itself.
From what I have seen, MobileCoin is positioned to be the winner on all fronts. It's the only cryptocurrency I've ever seen that actually feels usable -- and I'm including back when Bitcoin was $10 and you could actually send transactions on the network.
> The only problem right now is buying the MobileCoin in the first place.
That... seems like a necessary part of "get started"?
That... seems like a necessary part of "get started"?
Your drawback of Mobilecoin is identical to Monero.
Once you have Monero on a mobile wallet, its just as easy to send it.
Once you have Monero on a mobile wallet, its just as easy to send it.
It was never about the transfer of value (anonymous or pseudonymous) , it was always about price increase. Monero as a concept is too similar to Bitcoin, hence the story being sold lacks uniqueness.
The State is hostile to privacy-coins. Its kind of astonishing that the State is not hostile to all crypto as it seeks to separate money from state. Back in the olden days, I thought bitcoin would go to zero because of how the Feds neutralized the Liberty Dollar, this flaw in my modelling probably cost me $100m :(
(Liberty Dollar founder was convicted of "making, possessing and selling his own coins" which were either silver coins or paper-notes backed by metal)
fwiw I think NFTs will be a big deal b/c they will unlock experiences. If we ever move to a Metaverse-type system, this will enable the creation of uncopyable digital experiences (can't just rip an mp3/mpeg)
(Liberty Dollar founder was convicted of "making, possessing and selling his own coins" which were either silver coins or paper-notes backed by metal)
fwiw I think NFTs will be a big deal b/c they will unlock experiences. If we ever move to a Metaverse-type system, this will enable the creation of uncopyable digital experiences (can't just rip an mp3/mpeg)
> Monero are not seeing wide adoption
Because it us marketed with an actual use and not as a way to make money
Lack of fiat on ramps
The only answer is this: they are much harder to use.
Privacy against who? I don't particularly care if Visa / Mastercard know where I'm shopping.
HN is notoriously very anti-crypto as a community for valid reasons. While asking this question to crypto maximalists isn’t going to get an ideal answer, you’re not likely to get it here either for different reasons. Too much bias.
To answer your question, as others have mentioned very few people actually care about privacy vs finding another hedge against inflation.
To answer your question, as others have mentioned very few people actually care about privacy vs finding another hedge against inflation.
HN is notoriously very anti-crypto as a community for valid reasons.
While I don't disagree with that statement, I'd expand it to say that HN'ers tend to be anti-crypto in the sense of being against the absurd hype associated with crypto speculation, and a lot of the really scammy seeming NFT / Web3 stuff that's out there. I think more than a few of us could actually get behind something like Monero based on the privacy aspect. But as we've seen in a few answers already, there are legitimate technical reasons that make Monero (and its peers) less than ideal even for those who do emphasize privacy.
very few people actually care about privacy
Sad but true. :-(
While I don't disagree with that statement, I'd expand it to say that HN'ers tend to be anti-crypto in the sense of being against the absurd hype associated with crypto speculation, and a lot of the really scammy seeming NFT / Web3 stuff that's out there. I think more than a few of us could actually get behind something like Monero based on the privacy aspect. But as we've seen in a few answers already, there are legitimate technical reasons that make Monero (and its peers) less than ideal even for those who do emphasize privacy.
very few people actually care about privacy
Sad but true. :-(
I think the better way to put it is that very few people care about faceless credit card companies or banks knowing what they are buying, or about the government having subpoena access to those records.
That's very different from not caring about privacy at all.
That's very different from not caring about privacy at all.
[deleted]
Having an opinion and applying it to a situation doesn't make you "biased."