Topic: Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon? - page 20. (Read 33721 times)

One sends the coins to one's own address first. This is critical in every case. If one uses an exchange to send coins to a third party then in most cases the exchange has by law to ask questions about the third party. This is a very important difference that many miss. In this case it makes no difference if the coin is Bitcoin, Monero or even fiat. Withdraw 200 USD in cash form the bank. No problem. Now in the US ask the bank to send 200 US to your favourite non compliant gambling site and see what happens.

Edit: The problem with Coinbase is that their business model of sending Bitcoin payments on behalf of clients requires a much stricter level of regulatory compliance than if they just stuck to being an exchange and required clients to only withdraw from and deposit to a Bitcoin address under the client's control.

All i know about Monero is how they constantly troll in the Dash thread.  If they have to troll Dash so much i don't think they are replacing bitcoin any time soon, doesn't look like honest behaviour.

depends on your definition of soon.

( buh dum psshhh )

thank you, thank you! I'll be here all night. Don't forget to tip your local tea girl.

I'm not sure. Those transactions will be fairly identifiable and will cause problems. I'm told that already Coinbase asks if you are sending coins to an exchange and if so asks for additional documentation. Sending coins to a non-compliant exchange will likely be a serious problem at some point, if not already.

It is more important because fungibility in Bitcoin can in practice be fixed. The reason why Monero will not replace Bitcoin over fungibility is that in the process of trying to replace Bitcoin, Monero will actually make Bitcoin fungible. A signifcant increase of the market cap of Monero will lead to more exchanges along the lines of Shapeshift.io, Significant trading between Bitcoin and Monero in exchanges domiciled in jurisdictions with strong privacy; together with a large number of transactions well below tipical AML/KNC thresholds is one sure way to legally mix the Bitcoin blockchain. One must keep in mind that many of these transactions will have legitimate business reasons unrelated to trying to mix any Bitcoins.

On the other hand without adaptive blocksize limits Bitcoin will have to keep hard forking or simply not be usable. Most transactions will not be able to be confirmed regardless of how much or little "taint" they may have. Furthermore venture capital will simply flee when faced with the reality that there is little, if any, opportunity for growth in Bitcoin. This alone rather than fungiblity can cause Monero to replace Bitcoin.

Then there is the question of what happens when the Bitcoin emission runs out. How exactly is a fee market supposed to develop? I have yet to see an asnwer to this question. Monero has solved this with a tail emission. The only other top 20 POW other than Monero coin that has solved this more serious second question is Dogecoin. Dogecoin also has a tail emission.

Definitely not a fork! More of a fungibility and automatic blocksize scalability improvement

Monero isn't a fork of Bitcoin. Revolution.

NO, NEVER!

Bitcoin is the 1 true currency, and no fork of it will ever replace BITCOIN!

REVOLUTION!

I don't believe monero's role or goal is to replace bitcoin, but to compliment it.

If monero ever replaced bitcoin its value would be zero, because bitcoin would be zero, and so too would all crypto coins.

monero isn't going for no.1, but no.2

Yes, BBQ coin will replace bitcoin soon.

Bitcoin is already so much ahead of all the other coins. Doubt it if there will be one coin with comes close to Bitcoin.

I think it wouldnt happen in the first couple of years.

Perhaps "replace" is the wrong word for the question. Even when the importance of privacy privacy becomes better recognized, complete transparent will be good for some purposes.

Monero has a view key function to offer transparency, but Bitcoin is transparent by default with little effort needed to trace transactions. Of course the Bitcoin network effect is huge.

Monero can gain substantial market share in time but still not "replace" bitcoin.

They are different coins for different purposes.

Simple answer:  No.

People care about privacy a lot, but they mostly worry about privacy from a neighbor, a thief, or a random person from a street.

But they do not care much about mass survivable. They dont care much, or what is more likely they even dont know, that google has access to all emails, that windows 10's cortana is recording everything, skype recording conversations, etc. Most people view nsa, google, mircrosoft as the 'good guys'.

The most common way of thinking is "I have nothing to worry about, as I have nothing to hide". Meaning hide from police, nsa, google, etc.

I think the remark should be altered to," I don't care know enough about my digital life to achieve a similar privacy to the one I enjoy in the physical world." If you make digital privacy intuitive and easy enough, people won't feel like they need a computer science degree to even try. Imagine if learning to close the blinds took six years of schooling and the vigilance to monitor and evaluate all the newest OPSEC? Or if you had to make the blinds yourself? You'd probably hear a lot of, "I don't care about blinds."

The interesting thing is that people's ACTIONs depict that privacy is important to them.

Most people may say "Privacy doesn't matter" but in their actions they close their curtains, keep their email passwords safe/secret, and don't plaster their bank statements all over the city.

Privacy does matter all of us in some form or fashion.

Anyone saying they don't care about privacy is lying because in one way or another there is an action that that person does in their daily life that counteracts that statement.

I'm pretty sure people wouldn't want to take a shit in the open streets of manhattan while sitting on a toilet for all people to see right?

I don't see people handing out their SSN on the streets in the form of flyers.

I don't see people living in glass houses for authorities to be able to see every part of your home from the road.

The list goes on and on...

This topic is very important as people don't realize their privacy matters until they are under scrutiny by TPTB.

I have seen you make this argument before and I agree adaptive blocksize limits are important.  I am curious why you feel it is MORE important that the fungibility issue

It is possible but not because of fungibility / privacy. It is very possible because of adaptive blocksize limits and a tail emission that addresses the issue of developing a fee market after the block subsidy ends. The latter is the elephant in the room that very few people in the Bitcoin community are even talking about yet lies at the heart of the blocksize debate.