your AI slop analysis is incorrect.
if you can differentiate a coinjoined UTXO from a noncoinjoined UTXO of the same value,
then they are EQUIVALENT but they are not INDISTINGUISHABLE.
therefore they fail to fungibility litmus test.
for money to be truly fungible, units must be *both* equivalent and indistinguishable.
Your BS is ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility
"For example, the fungibility of money means that a $100 bill (note) is considered entirely equivalent to another $100 bill, or to twenty $5 bills and so on"
and cash has even identification numbers on it.
1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin
and because Bitcoin is decentralized and is peer-to-peer no one can stop anyone accepting Bitcoin
Bitcoin is fungible money!
Is one 2023 Honda civic Sport Touring equal to one 2023 Honda Civic Touring?
*desperately consults chat GPT*
nope, this is so retarded that I am not bothered to answer it
no sense of humor either 🫣
most federal agents tend to be boring people, and when online they cannot divert from their mission asigned by their boss, which must explain the unhuman levels of refusal of the truth.
this bitcoinisfuture is almost nearly a bot, which means he's an agent who has no real discussions or even thoughts, you can make all the good points, he'll leave and repeat the same slop over the other corner.
Haha I knew it was a good gotcha.
this is interesting actually.
because a physical asset like a car might *look different, as cash might be physically different.
but unlike cash, which is usually accepted at the same value regardless of physical appearance, a busted up car isn't worth the same amount.
otoh the car might have *reputation attached to it, like an accident on its history report. this is similar to a UTXO coming from a questionable " high risk" address.
so we probably should see fungibility as a function of market forces, and not something intrinsic to the asset itself.
I don't know about Honda civics, but generally reliable cars like this are probably considered *more fungible* than other make/models that are more prone to failure and have high maintenance costs.
but at the end of the day, since the value of Bitcoin UTXOs are sometimes compromised based on reputation, it's obvious that they have *very delicate* fungibility due to bitcoins transparency.
repeating stuff doesn't make it true.
cash bills are actually non-fungible as well (they have unique serial numbers!).
but they're "considered entirely equivalent" because they're NOT tracked on a transparent blockchain that anybody with an internet connection can audit.
if they were, then it would be very important that they have unique serial numbers on them, instead of something that everybody just ignores.
people would hesitate to accept cash that they knew came from drug cartels, banks would look at the history of notes to avoid accepting "high-risk" deposits.
this is a disadvantage of a digital value transfer system over a physical one and why actually understanding fungibility in the real world is important.
instead of the bullshit dogma that you just repeat autistically, encouraging a misunderstanding of fungibility that puts real users at risk.
More of your own clown theory?
its a very obvious.
maybe try refuting the argument...?
or AT LEAST try to say why it doesnt matter that the movement of utxos are publicly recorded and cash bills aren't.
You are making up your own clown theory and its ridiculous.
You just said that dollar bills are not fungible money which every definition gives as example of fungible money.
You are just writing ridiculous BS.
Per your own clown definition of fungible money it seems only Monero must be fungible, although we have seen traceability on Monero.
I have already said countless times that no one can stop anyone accepting Bitcoin because Bitcoin is decentralized peer-to-peer Freedom Money and 1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is fungible money. And your BS argument about tainting is refuted via coinjoins and #Lightning. Thats it.
cool 👍
obviously we've reached the end of your critical thinking abilities.
but for the discerning reader,
the whole argument boils down to whether or not UTXOs of the same value are accepted *in practice* as fungible (like bills).
or whether they are seen as different because of their history.
we have plenty of examples of the history of specific UTXOs being 1 known and 2 compromising their value perception
we don't have so many examples of the value of cash being compromised because of its history. except in cop dramas where they paint the bank money with ultraviolet ink and shit.
so, the fungibility of UTXOs is much easier to compromise. it takes very little effort for a peer (or any interested party) to discern between UTXOs of the same value.
but it is SO extremely difficult to discern between cash bills of the same value that basically nobody does it except for law enforcement in specific situations.
