[andutu]

Anything I talk about below is not financial advice. Full disclosure: My crypto holdings consist of around 1 ETH and $5 worth of BTC on Coinbase.

Anyone remember Monero? A POW crypto using state of the art cryptography such as ring signatures and Bulletproofs to guarantee private, secure transactions? It's secure enough that almost half of all dark web transactions are done using it despite its market cap being a fraction that of BTC. So secure that the IRS put out a $675,000 bounty for anyone who could find critical vulns. There's RandomX which is Monero's POW algo which is designed to run best on general CPUs and actually run terribly on ASICs? And to top it off, it has transaction fees in the fraction of cents.

With all of the talk by many crypto hustlers about banking the unbanked, "digital freedom", etc., that Monero would be perfect! So, why aren't VCs pouring money into developing it like they are into new web3 stacks?

It's because it's old news. It doesn't get enough eyeballs like a listing on Coinbase. You can't build digital fiefdoms using Monero, no ICOs, no pump and dumps. You can't have middlemen like OpenSea skim off the top and gatekeep. There's no artificial scarcity of coins. Monero isn't "useful" for the vision of web3 that investors have.

Most people don't have the time to read through every single whitepaper put out. It's easier to join a Discord server waiting for an airdrop, to read a bunch of Tweets, and check what's on Coinbase. It's just more convenient.

True, Monero doesn't have smart contract support and there are things like Tornado Cash which can emulate what Monero offers. Monero is still a sizeable player in the space and a lot of developers behind it. On top of that are all the controversies around Monero such as certain bad actors abuse CI integration services to mine it. But as the article points implies, for the majority of crypto investors/whales it's mainly about making a quick buck before moving on to the next pump.

I'm optimistic for a crypto future. Smart contracts are a great idea (though there's polishing needed) and there are other decentralized technologies out there I'm excited for. The Ethereum Foundation, Starkware, and others have helped push new and exciting cryptography research. Hopefully when the next correction comes, all the noise dissipates from the space.

[opportune]

Monero isn't listed in lots of the most popular exchanges because, since it actually works and has a utility beyond speculation, regulators have threatened exchanges with retribution. See [0] in which Brian Armstrong (Coinbase CEO) does express passing interest in listing it.

If HN people are still interested in acquiring it, the most secure fiat onramp is through localmonero.co [1]. It's listed on some centralized exchanges [2] if you're ok with the really invasive checks they will run you through, and on some Dex's if you already have crypto [3].

[0] https://decrypt.co/36731/heres-why-coinbase-still-hasnt-list....

[1] https://localmonero.co/

[2] https://www.kraken.com

[3] Haveno, but not sure how production-ready it is. Probably others.

[vmception]

I would say AVOID fiat meetups.

The centralized exchange issue with Monero is over now because you can access Monero through bridges.

Secret Network has wrapped Monero, full defi functionality and and a bridge to the Monero network and vice versa. These are autonomous and permissionless, so the trusted swappers and goodwill of exchanges is no longer needed. Regulators were playing whack a mole with their relationships to exchanges that listed Monero and now the technology improved to make that approach irrelevant: Antifragile in action.

[opportune]

Localmonero doesn't just use fiat meetups, though that's one option.

Agreed that atomic swaps/crypto:crypto are the way to go for the best UX though in general the fiat->crypto ramp will still be invasive.

[saurik]

> True, Monero doesn't have smart contract support...

This is way more central to why people aren't building on it than you seem to give credit to: people simply can't build on it... I mean, even Bitcoin is programmable (which is how people have been able to build stuff like Lightning and bridges to contract side chains like rsk). Not being programmable--which sadly is kind of a trade-off for their core premise of being "actually private" (not that I am saying that is insurmountable, but it hasn't been solved yet)--means you don't see an ecosystem built on it and thereby no software dependent on it and thereby no "investment" in the platform is really possible. What makes the smart contract platforms potentially interesting is that actually DO SOMETHING problem might be willing to pay for: provide a trustless transactional data store on which you can build other more complex behaviors.

[andutu]

I probably am massively understating it yes, but I see no reason why an ecosystem around Monero can't flourish that enables sort-of smart contract capabilities. But like you said, it would take a huge amount of effort to enable smart contracts on Monero while not compromising privacy guarantees.

It does seem to be a tradeoff. Solana has smart contract support with low fees, but its network is very centralized compared to other ones and even went down twice. Despite being relatively young, they have flashy PR events in Lisbon and high profile VS backers to hype it up, but again so far most applications built on Solana go back to some form of tokenomics/financial engineering and NFTs.

Writing smart contracts is getting easier and easier with the barrier of entry being how much you're willing to spend on gas really. Hopefully they start expanding into more interesting apps.

[opportune]

Solana has a company behind it, Monero has a couple foundations I think but it's mostly a bunch of independent devs behind it (some of which, like Fluffy Pony, definitely have enough money to spend on marketing if they wanted to). It's the difference between something that is pseudo-decentralized and actually decentralized.

I don't see how you can implement smart-contracts in general on Monero because it's not programmable. You can write small arbitrary messages via tx_extra and in theory some other chain that looks at the Monero chain could read that, but because tx_extra messages are direct-writes and aren't automatically encrypted using the wallet keys or anything, there is nothing special about them besides them being immutable. In fact in some ways tx_extras could contribute to deanonymizing the chain if it created correlations between ring signatures, and Monero devs have discussed removing it several times.

There's a question of whether Monero itself could be extended to be programmable and actually do things with those messages, but I'm guessing the answer is probably no because it would bloat the chain and have questionable value (right now Monero is "unixy" in that it does one thing and does it well), even if it were possible to do.

[vmception]

Monero is also probably big enough with a $4bn marketcap. It is liquid enough for the problem it solves for people.

Some use it as a payment conduit, some use it as a store of value, both of those particular private-by-default use cases are solved in other ecosystems good enough, for now.

There is $500mm in Tornado Cash at the moment

[jack_pp]

I won't comment about the gold rush aspects of crypto right now because they're pretty obvious but regarding the PoW algorithm of Monero, I think that's its fatal flaw long term. Any coin that doesn't have a huge moat of ASIC miners backing it up is vulnerable to attack. You can't attack bitcoin without coordinating existing miners but any coin that can be mined with general CPUs could be attacked by govts or corps which have access to large general compute resources.

[b112]

Any government with large stockpiles of unused, general compute resources, could snap its fingers, and make large stockpiles of any compute resources appear.

The 'buy military gear' police budget of any medium sized US city, could be diverted for one year, and probably buy any specific compute resource you cite.

This just isn't a defense against governmental or corporate attack.

It's not even defense against a bored billionaire.

[thebean11]

How long do you think it would take a government to develop ASICs that compete with what’s on the market, and build enough of them for an attack (would need to be >50 of the power of all existing ASICs!)?

How much do you think it would cost?

I think you massively underestimate what’s involved there..general compute resources are just not going to help.

[nuclx]

Declare them illegal and confiscate them from the miners.

[thebean11]

Not even China did that. You think it’s likely?

[nuclx]

Not sure. This article [1] sounded plausible, when I first read it. It will be interesting to see how governments' stances will settle.

[1] https://joekelly100.medium.com/how-to-kill-bitcoin-part-1-is...

[b112]

Develop? Manufacture? They'd just buy them.

The cost is trivial.

[jack_pp]

That's easy to say in theory, in practice supply of these ASICs is much more limited than you might think. Maybe if they throw enough money at the problem they could buy from existing miners..

Even so, they would have to spend a very large sum of money on this, money which will simply be "burnt". If you would want to attack a coin that works on general compute then you can use that general compute for whatever you want thus that would be "free"

[thebean11]

The supply doesn’t exist. Attempting to purchase large quantities would drive the price up, obviously not trivial..

[b112]

Good grief. Outside of pandemic supply issues, eg, in normal times, a entity (gov, corp, billionaore), would go to a large producer, and place an order.

I assure you, they'd pay less per unit, in bulk, not more.

You think they'd buy off of ebay?! Amazon?

No! They'd bypass the little guy, and get a large run done themselves. And yes, it isn't a big deal.

If they had to, they'd put out a RFP and get corps to submit quotes on qty whatever.

Here's a secret... people love money. If someone wants a large order of something, it happens.

Even in the pandemic, if govs want anything, gloves, masks, they get it well before you or I, before corps.

[andutu]

That's true, but then again usually the miners using ASICs do so in large warehouses that draw lots of power and are part of large mining pools (some of which are publicly traded I believe) i.e it's easy to target a large portion of mining capacity with certain POW coins.

On the flip side, RandomX optimizing for general CPUs does mean that it can be easier for certain actors to launch a 51% attack on the network. However, it also means the network is more robust in a way. IMO it's a marginally better situation.

[vmception]

Speculation drives innovation in every economy.

The privacy play is a supercycle aspect of crypto worth checking into every 4 or 5 years.

State level actions are hindered because even the state knows they can only make a move once before the anti fragility of crypto kicks in. Crypto becomes more resilient under pressure because there is no financial incentive to improve these kinds of boring technologies, and so the pressure galvanizes people to develop the boring thing they already knew needed to be done.

So you are not inaccurate, but it will come.

Check out SECRET network, its hide smart contract states which effectively means token privacy. They have a trustless enough bridge to and from Monero, and bridges to the broader defi ecosystem.