Bitcoin is the pioneer and first platform in the crypto market. One difference between 2009 and 2014 could be the innovation from monero. However, I think bitcoin is still doing so well in creating a consistent flow of user community. Monero has improved the bitcoin distances encountered and is one of the best choices for privacy and security. It is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of monero and bitcoin. However, monero in the future is a good use.
Thats right its still too early to distinguish a good coin,true BTC is a pioneer and has become one in the form of the most community.XMR looks good in the last year and was over ETH but more much of the other ALT enthusiasts so XMR had to undergo a new update to start follow BTC first. 
Topic: Bitcoin vs Monero - page 4. (Read 4578 times)
i heard about this monero but i didn't get clarified with full details about this.
why are you think that monero is equal to bitcoin. typically it is not possible i think.
why are you think that monero is equal to bitcoin. typically it is not possible i think.
This is for the present issues that we talk about bitcoin vs monero. Both have in common coins and basically develop to success on what the goal says. Different aspect but will meet in one word the best base on there own platforms. We agree that we don't like the other one because of mistakes and not upgrading the system by dev.
Bitcoin is the pioneer and first platform in the crypto market. One difference between 2009 and 2014 could be the innovation from monero. However, I think bitcoin is still doing so well in creating a consistent flow of user community. Monero has improved the bitcoin distances encountered and is one of the best choices for privacy and security. It is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of monero and bitcoin. However, monero in the future is a good use.
Can you tell exactly why are you think that bitcoin have more profit than monero? and what profit did you mean, holding, investments, trading?
Bitcoin is the king of all the coins as well as the established coin of the crypto market. On the other hand, Monero will travel a very long journey to prove himselves in the market and also to reach on the top.
There is no compatibility between them.
But i think Monero has a potential to grow faster and reach nearby Bitcoin.
There is no compatibility between them.
But i think Monero has a potential to grow faster and reach nearby Bitcoin.
Bitcoin vs monero ? If monera is compared to bitcoin then monero is well below bitcoin but monero also has its own appeal where bitcoin price decreases monero even its reverse, and monero price is now stable enough, during the last 2 months monero price has a nice increase unlike bitcoin every day its price decreases.
There is no comparison between bitcoin and monero as bitcoin is number one and well established coin of this market and monero is a growing coin and it will take long time to prove itself.
Correct. Bitcoin is the king of crypto market and Monero is just a start up thing compared to Bitcoin, we cannot compare even Ethereum with Bitcoin and how come Monero can be compared with Bitcoin. Anomaly of a coin is not the only factor to show its potential and there are tons of other factors which will drive the potential of a coin.
My two most favorite coins, but monero is closer to my heart. If you can see the current run on the coinmarketcap, monero is one of the few top coins whose on green or upward trend. Good for anonimity and team behind this coin are great and you can see they're serious about improving the project.
There is no comparison between bitcoin and monero as bitcoin is number one and well established coin of this market and monero is a growing coin and it will take long time to prove itself.
for now because bitcoin is still down and its movement is not so stable then you better hold it and now I also hold some bitcoin in my wallet because I'm sure bitcoin will change my life someday.
I think if bitcoin vs monero, I prefer bitcoin because bitcoin is more profitable than monero.
I think monero does not match than bitcoin, because it is so far compared. and in my opinion the match compared to monero is ethereum.
ah this prove that full anonymity can be detrimental, and that bitcoin is actually the king in the dark web too, i always thought that monero was rising because it was used but now that you posted this i think it was a pump and dump
It's pretty easy to prove payments with Monero, it has nothing to do with anonymity. Here is all you need to know: https://getmonero.org/resources/user-guides/prove-payment.html
I have to think about the first conjecture, about spamming transactions to undo anonymity.
However, the second thing, about "tax declarations". Taxes as a function of economic relationship are extortion. Taxes to pay for public services are normal. So I don't even consider "declaring crypto transactions". If you want to declare it, do it with fiat. Use crypto when you don't want to declare it, or when you don't care at all about anonymity (use bitcoin).
I have a totally different proposal for taxes, if they need to exist. Note that as an anarchist, I think that the state shouldn't exist, and hence taxes are not a useful concept. But if a form of state has to exist and must be financed, I propose the following. The first is that you pay for services, like "police and law protection". Ownership you didn't declare (and didn't pay the "protection premium" on) will not be protected by law, but you are free to do so. If you don't declare your house, police will not come and kick out squatters: it is not legally recognised to be yours. If you declare it, you pay a permium as a function of its value.
The second is that nobody can own natural resources, including land. You can only lease land and natural resources. This essentially kills the real estate market as collectible, because you can't own a house for ever, given that it can only be yours as long as the leasing period of the land lasts, something you negotiated when making your offer for that piece of land. This is an old and wise American-Indian principle: land cannot be owned. Maybe you have a leasing for 50 years or so. Society ("the state") decides upon what parts of nature are open to bidding and what remain public ; people make different proposals (leasing price, period, usage restrictions....), and the state picks out the most lucrative one. When a leasing comes to an end (either because the contractor didn't pay, or because the period comes at the end), the state decides anew whether this piece of land (and every capital on it, like real estate) goes back into the public domain, or is leased out again. The former leaser can of course, bid again. This bidding can even be done 10 or 20 years before the end, so that the actual leaser knows whether to invest or not on it.
All the income of those leasings of land and natural resources is the "tax income" of the state. No more compulsory declarations, no more limitations of economic freedom because of taxes.
I was thinking about getting into monero but now that I hear that it is used for deepweb or darknet purposes have turned me off it all together,
I don't want to be part of or support something that makes me feel bad everytime I use it.
Atleast bitcoin has had it's bad times but it is trying very hard to separate it's self from those "Dark Days" of it's questionable beginnings.
So atleast it is trying to make a new dawn in a good light for itself.
I don't want to be part of or support something that makes me feel bad everytime I use it.
Atleast bitcoin has had it's bad times but it is trying very hard to separate it's self from those "Dark Days" of it's questionable beginnings.
So atleast it is trying to make a new dawn in a good light for itself.
Btw, I agree that the focus on marketing to dark markets is not wise. Isn't a mainstream nor appropriate way to teach thinking about organizing for freedom. I've been happy to stand back and watch Monero shoot themselves in the foot.
Please understand that Bitcoin joining the fiat system is not a good thing:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17966654 <--- READ @dinofelis's point please
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17960724
Instead we need anonymity that is compliant with a civilized society:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17968724
Note anonymity will never be 100% iron-clad. The bad guys can still be tracked down. But we need privacy, else we will have totalitarianism. We can't take away the power of the little guy because then we will end up with an asymmetrically all-powerful corrupt State (1984).
I was thinking about getting into monero but now that I hear that it is used for deepweb or darknet purposes have turned me off it all together,
I don't want to be part of or support something that makes me feel bad everytime I use it.
Atleast bitcoin has had it's bad times but it is trying very hard to separate it's self from those "Dark Days" of it's questionable beginnings.
So atleast it is trying to make a new dawn in a good light for itself.
I don't want to be part of or support something that makes me feel bad everytime I use it.
Atleast bitcoin has had it's bad times but it is trying very hard to separate it's self from those "Dark Days" of it's questionable beginnings.
So atleast it is trying to make a new dawn in a good light for itself.
So the only potential liar in this case is the receiver of funds (who knows he's lying), and he's lying to a particular audience.
The sender can prove to this audience that the payment took place (and has to sacrifice anonymity for this transaction in that case).
The sender can prove to this audience that the payment took place (and has to sacrifice anonymity for this transaction in that case).
You should become an architect. With such elaborate philosophical meanderings I'm sure you could successfully argue that since "most buildings are rectangular" therefore "most rectangular structures will stand up".
(It'll also be easier for you than trying to convince anyone who understands money and 'audits').
I'm sure people like you said that to Euclid too, when he tried to explain geometry.
So the only potential liar in this case is the receiver of funds (who knows he's lying), and he's lying to a particular audience.
The sender can prove to this audience that the payment took place (and has to sacrifice anonymity for this transaction in that case).
The sender can prove to this audience that the payment took place (and has to sacrifice anonymity for this transaction in that case).
You should become an architect. With such elaborate philosophical meanderings I'm sure you could successfully argue that since "most buildings are rectangular" therefore "most rectangular structures will stand up".
(It'll also be easier for you than trying to convince anyone who understands money and 'audits').
Jump to: