>>60795540
Correct and that's barely the fault of the mining but mostly fabricated news (like the qubic case) or some governments speaking vague threats
>>60795549
>Tor and i2p aren't same as a PoW cryptocurrency network.
Correct but the principle still holds. There is no reason for people to differentiate between 'Network I need to donate for' and 'Network I need to donate for to use money'
>Also i2p has had sybil attacks in the past that crippled its route making
That's because of lower popularity - a direct result of less education. The 'solutions' for sybil attacks make it often less likely for anybody to participate, see lokinet
>tor is also under constant threat of a small number of actors running majority of exit nodes
That's because of their static setup which node can function how. This issue is completely resolved not by monetary incentives but making everyone a peer, see I2P
>You wanna compare Monero to an obscure science project?
No, I mean the project that had mainstream attention during the pandemic not because of economic incentives but because of the inherent value in it
>>60795554
That's how P2P systems work, fren
>>60795555
>This is a strawman of my point. I am not saying this, and you are attacking this nonsense point as if I put this forth.
That's how the current systems function.
>No such thing as "resistance against whales", so no idea what you are talking about.
ASIC resistance. John who has 100x of what I can afford doesn't have a significant advantage because the entry of barrier is so low we can both easily participate.
None of the issues by these concerned posters had economic solutions as its silver bullet but instead lack of education (still a problem with XMR but it reaches the people it's supposed to reach), lack of popularity (see previous point), archaic hierarchies (also not a given in randomx). None of the proposed problems in these P2P networks would be solved by 'economic incentives' but loads of issues would be introduced.
