Bitcoin's Existential Crisis: Surveillance Is Winning | Hacker News Reader

Bitcoin's Existential Crisis: Surveillance Is Winning

substack.com

1 pointaminoche13 comments

You can get most of the privacy benefits of Monero without its complexity and chain bloat [1], and with a much fairer emission to boot [2].

[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart

[2] https://phyro.github.io/grinvestigation/why_grin.html

Grin is like a private chat where both people have to be online. Monero is like sending a sealed letter that’s always private. Grin’s privacy depends on network activity, while Monero makes every transaction private by default. If privacy is the goal, Monero is still the best choice.

No; Grin doesn't require transacting parties to both be online. The necessary back and forth can be done by email, by direct message, by carrier pigeon, or what have you.

What do you mean by "Grin’s privacy depends on network activity" ? Grin's hiding of amount and address doesn't depend on that. Only the use of CoinSwap to hide the tx graph would depend on a sufficient amount of daily CoinSwap txs.

While Monero's privacy is a little better, it pays a large price for it: having a 20x faster growing chain, and the need to remember randomly accessible data from every output ever spent.

Grin adds friction. You need extra steps to finalize a transaction, which makes it clunky compared to Monero’s simple send-and-forget model.

Its privacy isn’t default—linkability depends on high network usage. If volume drops, transactions become easier to trace. Monero doesn’t have this issue because every transaction is private by design, no matter what.

Yes, Monero’s blockchain is bigger, but that’s the price of real privacy. Grin stays lightweight by cutting corners on privacy guarantees. If privacy actually matters, Monero is the clear winner.

Grin is lightweight by design, obtaining most of the privacy benefits (hiding amounts and addresses) while staying 4x smaller than bitcoin.

The extra transaction step adds robustness, letting the receiver state and sign for the purpose of payment (e.g. the item purchased or the service rendered).

Monero obscures the tx graph with decoys (effectively only 4 as recent research by Rucknium shows), which cuts corners compares to the much stronger privacy guarantees of Zcash's shielded txs.

Grin stays small by sacrificing privacy. Hiding amounts and addresses isn’t enough if transaction linkability depends on network conditions. If privacy weakens when volume drops, that’s a design flaw, not a feature.

The extra step isn’t robustness, it’s friction. Payments should be fire and forget, not a back and forth process. Monero works because it just sends, no hassle.

And Zcash? Please. Over 95 percent of its transactions aren’t shielded. What good is stronger privacy if almost nobody uses it? Monero may have only four effective decoys, but every single transaction is private by default. A privacy coin that relies on opt in privacy isn’t a privacy coin, it’s a compliance coin.

Monero gains a little privacy by sacrificing scalability. Grin is designed for simplicity, scalability, and fairness, not privacy at all costs. In such a design, the optional CoinSwap protocol for untraceability is a scalability preserving feature.

Ensuring the correct recipient and purpose of payment is not only robustness, but also added privacy since payjoins obscure the direction of payment, something Monero lacks.

With only 4 effective decoys, Monero's privacy is deficient, while Zcash shielded txs enjoy far superior privacy, independent of all the transparent txs.

What’s better: a bulletproof safe that nobody locks or a well-worn disguise that everyone wears?

Grin prioritizes scalability over privacy, which is fine if you don’t actually need strong privacy. But let’s not pretend optional CoinSwap is a real substitute for built-in, default anonymity. Privacy that depends on extra steps and high network usage is fragile by design.

Monero doesn’t need payjoins because every transaction is already private. And calling 4 effective decoys “deficient” ignores that Zcash’s superior privacy is irrelevant when 95% of transactions don’t even use it.

If privacy is optional, it’s just a feature. Monero makes it the foundation.

I’ve been a Bitcoin believer for years. But belief without scrutiny is dogma. Bitcoin’s greatest strength—its radical transparency—has now become its biggest existential threat.

Today, governments, surveillance firms, and regulated chokepoints co-opt Bitcoin without ever needing to ban it.

KYC exchanges, chain surveillance, and permissioned off-ramps are turning Bitcoin into the most easily trackable financial system in history—a dream come true for compliance hawks and authoritarian regimes.

This is not an anti-Bitcoin argument.

It’s a wake-up call: If Bitcoiners don’t demand privacy at the protocol level, Bitcoin won’t be outlawed—it will be assimilated.

The idea that financial privacy will “work itself out later” is dangerously naive.

This piece explores:

-Why Bitcoin’s transparency is its Achilles’ heel (and how chain surveillance firms exploit it).

-The Lightning Network myth—why it doesn’t fix Bitcoin’s privacy problem (and might make it worse).

-Why Bitcoin risks becoming a de facto CBDC if privacy isn’t fixed now.

-The path forward: How Bitcoiners can fight back with privacy tools before it’s too late.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Is Bitcoin still “freedom money,” or has financial surveillance already won?

It blows my mind that there are governments that are trying to track down to every penny. Grey/black markets will always exist. But trying to breath down everyones neck because you paid your friend $20 in cash is very concerning.

You're absolutely right—it’s dystopian overreach, but it's happening in slow motion. The real concern isn’t just "black markets will always exist"—it’s that the window for lawful, private transactions is closing faster than most people realize.

Governments aren’t just tracking major criminal activity; they’re normalizing total financial surveillance under the guise of “anti-money laundering” and “counter-terrorism.” But let’s be real—this isn’t about crime. It’s about control.

- Europe’s AML rules are already targeting self-hosted wallets. - Canada blacklisted Bitcoin donations for protests, freezing accounts without due process. - The U.S. Treasury treats every crypto transaction as a taxable event, requiring constant disclosure.

The endgame? A financial panopticon where every transaction is linked, traced, and scored—making cash obsolete and forcing people into fully permissioned, state-approved transactions.

Yes, grey/black markets will always exist, but the bigger question is: Will there be any legal, mainstream way to transact privately? Right now, privacy is being framed as a “red flag,” and once that stigma is fully ingrained, opting out won’t just be difficult—it’ll be criminalized.

The time to push back isn’t when financial privacy is illegal. It’s now.

I do think that XMR is the one crypto (at least that I'm aware of) that actually delivers on the original vision. But that's exactly why governments despise it. It's very difficult to buy. I am really into the tech behind XMR. But I do feel that a bet on it is a bet on a future where governments completely lose control of things. And I am just not convinced that it will come to pass. As you say, surveillance is winning.

You’re absolutely right—Monero XMR is arguably the closest thing to Satoshi’s original vision in terms of actually delivering private, censorship-resistant transactions. But that’s also exactly why it’s under fire. Governments don’t need to ban privacy coins outright—they just have to make them inconvenient, illiquid, and unprofitable to use at scale.

Your hesitation is understandable: betting on XMR feels like betting against the trend of ever-increasing surveillance. And right now, surveillance is winning.

But here’s the thing. Privacy isn’t just for criminals—it’s for everyone. And yet, it’s being pushed into the fringe by design. If we accept that surveillance is inevitable, we lose by default. Governments thrive on inertia—on people shrugging and saying, well, that’s just how things are.

Monero doesn’t have to win completely to be necessary. It just has to exist—as an option, as a hedge, as a last line of defense against a world where every financial move is monitored.

Maybe XMR never goes mainstream. But what happens if it’s erased entirely? That’s the real nightmare scenario.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com