-
@ Super Testnet
2025-05-23 19:17:08
> this wasn't just about privacy
Figures -- he'd like to compare monero to bitcoin on every metric except the one it's for.
> Here's a challenge
I recommend doing my challenge before you issue a counter-challenge. Looks a bit sus.
> the OP was talking about spam
Your post contradicted itself on this point. The statement "spam exists [on monero]" is incompatible with the statement "only monetary transactions." The fact that few people bother to bypass your filters is probably just because few people care about monero.
The statement "small, 300kb blocks" is incompatible with the statement "dynamic to increase." Imagine if I pointed to a block like this one from two days ago (https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000000463103ac48ed3c8887e59ba7d0078683c4fa4913e7b) and said it proves that bitcoin has "small, 500kb blocks" but that they are "dynamic to increase to 4mb." The statements are incompatible because the first implies they can't increase and the second explicitly says they can.
The reason why the first sentence implies they can't increase is this: if you don't adopt that implication, then you're just commenting on the lack of usage in a particular block. Which is a pointless observation. Just because a particular block doesn't take up the max size doesn't mean the max size is temporarily lower. Monero's blocks do not have a max size, which is a centralizing force, and as for the "penalty" for creating large blocks, that's what fees are for. If monero had any volume, huge blocks would make it even more centralized than it is today.
> no mining centralization
Very funny
https://i.ibb.co/mVr37HYc/monero-pool-centralization.png
source: https://miningpoolstats.stream/monero