> Monero is a fiat shitcoin
There was this guy once, his name was Satoshi Nakamoto, you might have heard of him. He said that if the problems of ledger privacy could be solved, it would lead to “a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin”. Exact quote:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg8637#msg8637
He also posted a very nascent implementation of ring signatures, though he clearly hadn’t read any of the historical literature on the subject and it didn’t know it was actually a maturely researched idea. But he absolutely understood the concept and knew it was necessary to eventually implement! Of course, these days jerkoffs like Saylor say it is unacceptable for Bitcoin. But Satoshi knew otherwise.
So maybe Monero is a fiat shitcoin, but it has definitely become “a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin”. And if Monero is a fiat shitcoin, Bitcoin is a worse, harder to use, and less convenient version of blockchain payments.
I don’t think you can call Monero a fiat shitcoin. It is specifically not fiat, and has a strict definition of what its supply is. Today its inflation rate is much lower than Bitcoin! It does have a tail emission (0.6 XMR per block forever), so maybe its inflation rate is lower on the ten thousand year timeline, but we’ll let people in ten thousand years determine if that was a good tradeoff.
> Remittances are downstream of what you're remitting having value, the killer application is infinity divided by 21M.
Scarcity is only a singular component of value. If immutable scarcity is the killer app, our economy would be delineated in units of Tantalum-180m or something. Bitcoin is now a digital paperweight and you are not giving us a good argument for its fundamentals of value.
