I still think you have it backwards. Scarcity is the result of demand outpacing supply not the other way around.
Fixed or less supply doesn't give something value by itself. We can easily see this by looking at coins with a fixed supply and less supply than Bitcoin like 42-coin, Quant, MKR, and Aave. There are many examples. There is obviously other things contributing to Bitcoins value besides it's supply (being first, largest network effect, auditability, security, etc - bitcoin has many advantages). There are unique one of a kind paintings from artists all around the world with a supply of 1 and no one values them. The list goes on. But we can just agree to disagree on this.
All things equal I agree it's a fact that Monero requires more resources to run a node if it was the same size as Bitcoin, and that less users would run one if that was the case (for the advantage of privacy and fungibility). Monero centralizes faster. The question is will it actually ever manifest as a problem and will advancements in technology and cryptography outpace adoption? We can ask this same question about Bitcoin (the whole world wouldn't be able to use it right now without it becoming too large and centralized). So far it hasn't been a problem for either one.
There are coins that exist like Grin and Beam that require far less resources than Bitcoin to run a node, even if they were the same size, because they're based off MimbleWimble. It's easier for users to run those nodes even on a phone. Does that necessarily mean Bitcoin is centralized or will be? I don't think so. It all depends on pace of adoption and technology, it's not a forgone conclusion, that is all I am saying. But I agree that Bitcoin has the advantage (and disadvantage) of being transparent and stronger confidence in auditing it's supply because of that.
SaberhagenTheNameless / Saberhagen The Nameless
npub14a…yz6rn
2025-05-19 21:37:34
in reply to nevent1q…ckzw
Author Public Key
npub14a6q6xvt4wuv0wpdpfr336e4fweldtu6np3ehpw55h83xuw2h2zsgyz6rnPublished at
2025-05-19 21:37:34Event JSON
{
"id": "b0e0bb0b823782f37e855d08bb6a35bf33a8ebb68be21cf44ffb7669c8905886",
"pubkey": "af740d198babb8c7b82d0a4718eb354bb3f6af9a98639b85d4a5cf1371caba85",
"created_at": 1747690654,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a71fec26314bbb55283ce4f493f9471cad1c46aeb0b94cf32dfec249ddc883e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f3e10dd59ee64885c4496f22e393a65f1c13c10d9f4664febd3271999a89437e",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"reply",
"04ce30c2c48aceca367178c984b8365bb1fdd2b59ff2929d68545a3459ea576a"
],
[
"p",
"04ce30c2c48aceca367178c984b8365bb1fdd2b59ff2929d68545a3459ea576a"
],
[
"p",
"5fd417333fe658f9637b2fa263f80b7f08a7dcd320f0eca4cc8cecc2d826d891"
],
[
"p",
"af740d198babb8c7b82d0a4718eb354bb3f6af9a98639b85d4a5cf1371caba85"
]
],
"content": "I still think you have it backwards. Scarcity is the result of demand outpacing supply not the other way around. \n\nFixed or less supply doesn't give something value by itself. We can easily see this by looking at coins with a fixed supply and less supply than Bitcoin like 42-coin, Quant, MKR, and Aave. There are many examples. There is obviously other things contributing to Bitcoins value besides it's supply (being first, largest network effect, auditability, security, etc - bitcoin has many advantages). There are unique one of a kind paintings from artists all around the world with a supply of 1 and no one values them. The list goes on. But we can just agree to disagree on this.\n\nAll things equal I agree it's a fact that Monero requires more resources to run a node if it was the same size as Bitcoin, and that less users would run one if that was the case (for the advantage of privacy and fungibility). Monero centralizes faster. The question is will it actually ever manifest as a problem and will advancements in technology and cryptography outpace adoption? We can ask this same question about Bitcoin (the whole world wouldn't be able to use it right now without it becoming too large and centralized). So far it hasn't been a problem for either one.\n\nThere are coins that exist like Grin and Beam that require far less resources than Bitcoin to run a node, even if they were the same size, because they're based off MimbleWimble. It's easier for users to run those nodes even on a phone. Does that necessarily mean Bitcoin is centralized or will be? I don't think so. It all depends on pace of adoption and technology, it's not a forgone conclusion, that is all I am saying. But I agree that Bitcoin has the advantage (and disadvantage) of being transparent and stronger confidence in auditing it's supply because of that.",
"sig": "e93139467c3d4a8264897012b16651973a11eed45271161507cf53aa2f4a48c5fa98eec3e8694ecfd098b30112005a021b3ce4e147c5d637fe039379e273eab9"
}