It seems that many high-quality things (or otherwise aspirational things) take on Esperanto names (disclosure, I am an Esperantist). While Monero is no doubt a cool crypto-currency, it is even cooler that it has inspired some crypto-curious people to learn Esperanto[1] instead!
While I am here, I might as well give you a brief Esperanto lesson. Mono = money, ero = piece/quantum. So, "pano" = bread, "panero" = bread-crumb. Thus, "monero" = coin.
Many previous international currencies (all of them created with Swiss involvement), were also given Esperanto names: Spesmilo (thousand speso's (speso is analogous to "penny")), Stelo (star).
There is even a luxury watch-brand (from Switzerland) called "Movado", which is Esperanto for "Movement" (made back when watches were made with mechanical movements).
And I also learned, from the linked thread (disclosure, I am a participant), that there is a soft-drink called "Mirinda". This is an adjective that means "awe-worthy".
> interestingly, it's one of the least-used least-hyped options. It's as though we didn't actually want privacy in our money system.
There is lots of interest from
individuals. But governments all around the world have done their best to suppress it. They indeed do not like privacy and independence. They are the ones who sued and pressured exchanges into delisting Monero.
wouldn't that defeat the privacy purpose? wouldn't someone be able to see that it was your card in the ATM, when they traced back the monero as exchanged for a coin that was exchanged for your fiat?
ETA: just to be clear - that's a genuine question. I don't know much about monero, so if it really is possible to have untraceable money, that seems like a prudent investment for precaution. I've just always assumed that digital money is inherently traceable, so I always assumed genuine privacy is a mirage. I assume I'm wrong about that, somehow, so I'm curious about the mechanisms of that anonymity.
so would that be a feature of monero-to-monero transactions? I'm still confused as to how it would actually be anonymous? like if I used another coin to exchange for monero, that's obviously traceable. so then I use monero to purchase something else which I then sell for other monero (or I just trade monero directly? if that's possible?). and I'm to believe that there's no way to trace that back and say "okay, monero from wallet X was traded to wallet Y" or whatever other intermediate steps (like"monero was spent on X from wallet A, and then X was resold using monero from wallet B")? like, assuming they don't get in to my wallet, no one would be able to track down a transaction on the chain to a wallet? Or they would be able to track it to a wallet, but they couldn't tie that wallet to me for... some reason?
sorry to ask, but the website seems very light on any actual technical detail about how they are achieving their privacy claims - at least in terms I can parse to make them understandable to me.
very cool, thanks! And since I can't respond to that poster, I'll say it here: thanks for that detailed answer! That definitely seems like a pretty anonymous system. I'm convinced that monero is a pretty private coin!
Because of government pressure. It was delisted by lots of exchanges purely based on government fear of privacy and independence, not any technical or demand reasons.
The CEX that do list it, it is essentially a trap. As soon as you do something with XMR they start freezing your account and demanding all sorts of KYC/AML. That is my experience after playing with it by pulling out a couple hundred $ and doing nothing with it other than putting it back on an exchange.
Monero is far more bloated than Bitcoin, paying a high price
for its privacy features, most of which (no visible amount or address) can be had while making even Bitcoin look bloated [1].
And Monero's fees decrease with larger block sizes (Monero has dynamic block sizes) whereas Bitcoin has a fixed block size and fees must increase to compete to be included in the block.
Coinbase doesnt sell it which annoys me, but probably due to legal regulation I am sure. Its a shame too, I think its probably one of the most interesting cryptocurrencies.
Privacy is available in bitcoin as a layer-2 solution such as Lightning. When Trump made the popular and media-broadcast bitcoin transaction during his campaign, he did so over lightning. Privacy alone is thus not a big reason to abandon bitcoin and move over to another chain.
I also cancelled my 20x and switched to Codex. At this point even the Codex CLI seems to perform better than Claude Code... And so far I'm on the OpenAI Pro plan and haven't even needed to upgrade to their $100/mo plan. I'm getting more value for almost 10x cheaper.
This can help and hurt. E.g. if you run a very successful Shopify plugin, you risk Shopify implementing it natively and wiping you out in one fell swoop.
Right.. Countless times I see people struggle with something then complain about the fact that nobody wrote anything down ahead to hand hold them through the problem. As if the old experts would've known to write that. And often times they did write stuff, but it either wasn't read or it ran into this issue of instruction being incapable of transmitting everything you actually need.
I agree with you and follow the same principles myself, but JavaScript already has HTTP, and yet everyone still uses Axios. So the problem isn't that JS doesn't have batteries, it's that people don't want to use them for some reason.
I'm guessing it's similar to the tragedy of the commons phenomenon. When things are freely available people tend to overuse or carelessly use them. NPM is just too easy to use. If a package offers a 1% ergonomics increase over a builtin function, many folks will just go for it because it costs them nothing (well, it seems to cost them nothing).
This seems more like a KDE thing then a Wayland thing. At least for me on GNOME Wayland is strictly better. And the newer Wayland-only desktops like Niri are arguably better then that.
This is the first time I've seen MCP's push capabilities come in handy. I'm not much of an MCP nerd though so I don't know much. But when I read the spec it looked extremely over engineered partly because of the 2 way nature of it.
Unfortunately, we're all stuck moving at the speed of the model labs because of the subscription models that they've provided.
The rest of us were able to implement things like push a long time ago, but because Claude Code and Codex stubbed those things out, we couldn't really use them for 'most agent users'.
In fairness to OpenAI, they have been generous in allowing for example OpenCode to sign in with your ChatGPT subscription – so you _could_ build a more powerful agent (which OpenCode is... not) – but unfortunately GPTs' instruction following just isn't up to snuff yet. Hopefully they pre-train something amazing this year!
I think it's an old stereotype. When Rust started gaining popularity, I did see comments like that. Even felt compelled to post them sometimes. But now that we have real production Rust experience, we're a bit more nuanced in our views.
And interestingly, it's one of the least-used least-hyped options. It's as though we didn't actually want privacy in our money system.
I think a hint into this is actually in one of these posted features: https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/me...
One of the reasons for building a proper payments system is "Casino games"...
reply