the market made it’s choice

Theses networks usage peaked the last bullrun

Perhaps by “the market” you mean like exchanges, where investors trades tokens. Most ppl here use xmr to buy things or services. That might be why you sound a bit off.

Both in the EU and in the US… things are not looking too good.

Pysh also objected to FinCEN’s record-keeping demands regarding “anonymity enhanced CVCs.” These refer to digital assets with enhanced privacy protocols like Monero.

To FinCEN’s credit, malicious actors like North Korea’s Lazarus Group have certainly used Monero to launder money while covering their tracks. However, everyday US citizens also use Monero for legitimate purposes, like purchasing art, video games, or even gifting presents when the sender wants the gift to be a surprise even for tech-savvy recipients.

I meant the situation. Your assumption that Nitter instances are generally Tor-friendly (with only a few exceptions) used to be true, but anymore. The situation has changed and as such your understanding is slightly outdated.

about time 😊 that’s not the goal; one of the first basic steps!

EDIT Sorry I should not have said it like this. Even though that was my honest feelings, said as free speech without any meany connotations, this should have been treated as good news, like someone finally ditched Windows.

One of the next steps might be to figure out how not to load GA.js GTM.js Google Fonts etc.

There is a long way to go to de-Google oneself, and unfortunately it’s not easy nor trivial. One subtle example: Google is a broker of Tor Snowflake, which could cause a difficult dilemma.

Thank you for confirming that there would be indeed some COIs between Cake and Moon, and that at least one of Cake’s contributors or ex-contributors has started this anti-Monero (?) blockchain analytics provider.

A dilemma is: if Cake is not a honeypot, of course you deny the claim that it’s a honeypot; if Cake is indeed a honeypot, of course you deny the same claim. If Moon and Cake are totally unrelated, you say, “They’re unrelated.” If Moon and Cake are secretly or subtly collaborating in some way, you say the same thing. So asking or answering a question about something like this is largely pointless.

Probably an ideal solution is not trust, but math and technology. Yet pure P2P doesn’t look very realistic, so a centralized big player like Cake may be necessary to some extent. There is always a trade-off between privacy and convenience.

As of writing this, GitHub shows Justin Ehrenhofer as your contributor. You may want to erase the past to avoid “misunderstanding” about what happened. Things must be much easier on Reddit or Twitter 🤭 sorry about that, but this is Monero.town.

Could you add your comment(s) to the thread so that they can read them? (I’m not the author of the proposal, only shared a link.)

Maybe ideally this should be decentralized, e.g. with 2 or 3 mirror sites. One could post/edit things using whichever instance, and it’ll be visible on every mirror, etc. Like, fail-safe redundancy?

I see your point. If they get a lot of donations and actually the said software will never be released or is poorly made, that can be said a development scam. On the other hand, if hypothetically UI is outsourced, a price tag like that may be rather usual.

If Haveno is released and actually works well, perhaps people will overlook questionable financial aspects related to development/management. Bisq too might have somewhat shady aspects if you ask how Bisq fees are used and distributed, although the project may not be sustainable if all the devs have to work without getting paid. Also one could question the nature of its native coin BSQ (which is basically just BTC dust, colored and sold high; conceptually it may be a good system, though if you use BSQ, the fact that you’re a Bisq user is trivially visible to everyone).

Ultimately there are two kinds of people in a community like this: philosopher-type idealists (who tend to be disillusioned eventually as reality is obviously not idealistic), and for-profit business-minded persons (who may be able to get rich quick if they make a “smart” move). While idealistic volunteers are respectable, business people are also realistically important as they may provide a lot of useful services. If they “overdo“, there will be of course ethical questions, though… You boldly pointed out something touchy but important; kudos.

IIRC they even fixed a serious bug in Bisq.

Anything could be a scam and it’s important to always think critically, not blindly believing what others say; but Haveno is not yet publicly available so it couldn’t be a scam nor a non-scam — a non-existing service couldn’t steal your money.

Personally I do hope it’ll be great and convenient, if not perfect, like bisq — we’ll see.

If an inveterate Monero addict (lol) created this kind of wallet list, they'd likely to note: "If you use p2pool (and you should!), you may need Feather or CUI too, because blah blah"

I mean, although many articles on https://simplifiedprivacy.com/ are nice and informative, the web site seems to be for-profit, selling privacy-related products and services; which is okay, but this conflict of interest (COI) is not necessarily transparent there:

To promote and sell their products, naturally they tend to slightly over-emphasize the danger of "non-privacy-oriented" tools and rather quick to say, "This is too difficult for normal users. Let us help you!" even for something trivial like using Linux or using command lines. For example, a neutral party might say, "Command lines are fun, and sometimes much more convenient (and you get a long battery life too). Let me explain some basics. If you type ls (or dir on Windows) blah blah..." but when you're selling tech support, it's kind of better for you if the customer doesn't know that. As another example, Proton, a supposedly privacy-oriented webmail provider, also over-complicates things by only providing HTML-mail view, proudly saying "We block tracking images for you!" Honestly, just provide Plain Text mail view like others do, and such heuristic blocking is not necessary to begin with. I think there can be COIs like that between privacy-as-philosophy and privacy-as-business; a privacy-oriented but for-profit website/service should be seen with that in mind. This doesn't mean that the said website is useless, though. Just a thought.