Some counter notes here to ponder on: "-Hash power, not even a state can attack it" Due to centralized ASIC mining, only a handful of companies control giant portions of mining power due to economies of scale. Companies are extremely susceptible to lawfare and state intelligence influence. Bitmain manufactures nearly ALL the ASIC miners used for Bitcoins simplistic sha256 algorithm. One backdoor in each can do anything to the blockchain remotely, and since they're proprietary black box chips you'd have no idea. US intelligence published an article stating concern about this I'll link it as a reply. Monero is mined most efficiently on gaming PC CPUs. Server CPUs are vastly more expensive relative to their hashrate, the most efficient is something you can buy on Amazon and any bro you plays PC games already has. Ryzen 9 series is crushing it now in price to performance. The egalitarian difference is clear here. Also regarding Moneros lower hash power, yes this is definitely true but only a result of price. I did an analysis a bit ago proving that Monero and Bitcoins hashrate is roughly equivalent when scaled for power expended per market cap, which is the real metric of security as energy is what's actually wasted in mining. RandomX is an intentionally inefficient algorithm so it takes an order of magnitude more energy to produce one hash than with sha256. So in synopsis, the energy spend on security would be equal for Monero as it would be for Bitcoin if market caps were identical. The difference would then be, with Monero you have an army of botnets and gaming PCs mining, vs an army of corporations mining all on the same chips from the same manufacturer designed to mine only Bitcoin. It's trivial to see which has the larger attack surface from state level adversaries. "-LN is very private when sending without extra configuration" I'd correct this to *LND* is very private when sending. Almost nobody uses their own LND node connected to a no logs peer behind onion connection etc etc. Most use either custodial solutions with worse than on-chain privacy, or LSP solutions like Phoenix which offer great sending privacy to the recipient but 0 to the LSP which is a huge centralized entity. This is a collosal issue with lightning. I'm not even getting into the hub and spoke centralization issue in routing paths which makes timing analysis way easier. "-Unlimited supply" this is deciding phraseology. More accurate to say, "No hard cap" or the like. The truth is Monero's supply is limited, it's limited to only 0.6XMR per block in perpetuity. This is about 0.6% supply increase a year at today's supply, and trails asymptotically to 0% given infinite time. Mathematically, this is by definition a limit. Search "Limits Calculus" or something to learn more about mathematical limits. "Not scaleable without losing decentralization" yeah you're kinda right in the sense that we'll get to a point if usage grows exponentially that nodes will run into bandwidth and processing limitations. I don't know when this is, most devs think it's far off, but still a methematical certainty. Still better than Bitcoin, though, which has successfully halted L1 scaling and moved it to L2s which I just discussed are extremely centralized with how almost all users use them. Monero has tail emissions and dynamic block sizes which eliminates the two biggest issues with Bitcoin L1 scaling: Fee bidding economy (more usage more expensive). Final point around hidden inflation. @Hanshan has been going off on this so I'll let him explain, but in synopsis: mathematics is either sound or it isn't. The simple arithmetic of adding up UTXOs to make Bitcoins total supply is no more sound than the Pedersen Commitments and Bulletproofs++ used in RingCT to hide transaction amounts in monero. Yeah you may not understand it, but your understanding doesn't change reality. These are mathematical proofs. Math isn't science, math is either true or it isn't. Not to say there can't be a bug, all software can have bugs, but any bug that arises will be found due to per transaction amount verification that occurs. This is all one verbal flow so excuse any typos I'm not gonna proofread this haha. I hope this helps and welcome your response.