No. I don't have a critique. My point is only what I've said. Two satoshis aren't necessarily interchangable. This means they're not fungible. That is all I've said.
Discussion
“aren’t necessarily interchangeable” that’s where you are sneaking in subjectivity.
I knew we would find the leak eventually.
have to not cross the wires.
fungible is an objective material characteristics.
the code, the ledger, doesn’t treat sats any differently.
that’s why it’s maximally fungible
fungibility has nothing to do with what people think. it’s a measure. like length
There's no leak lol. There are sats I wouldnt trade for ones I already have. I am not alone in this. Therefore not fungible. You're making this more complex than it is, I think deliberately, because you know it's bullshit.
(Answer to only this note, since I would have to read into what is fungibility first)
But when I hold dirty coins to say and now send them to a silent address (BIP-352), would they still be distinguishable by network analysis?
I'm not familiar enough with BIP-352 to be able to answer that definitively, but I do know that you can see when coins come from such an address, so they get treated like dirty coins regardless if they are or not.
But BIP-352 is diffrent. They bring complete privacy to Bitcoin through cryptography. You have a single adress to give away, while every sender will send the bitcoins to a diffrent address. Cakewallet uses it already, if you want to try it.
As far as I have heared this brings perfect privacy to Bitcoin without making the holding addresses any diffrent from other adresses.