Nostr Web Client

Your argument’s a pile of nonsense, and you're dodging the points harder than a politician in a debate.

There is no credible professional, economist, institution, economic textbook, dictionary or government source (even including central banks) that contradicts the definition of fungibility as an inherent economic property tied to market acceptance rather than government control.

All of these sources agree unanimously that fungibility has nothing to do with everybody having to accept every note. That is an absurd claim.

Again, after this note I'll post a list of many economists from the time the term was first used until now, showing there universally agreed upon meaning of fungibility.

I'll also add definitions from legal dictionaries and institutions.

The universally accepted term meaning of fungibility is objectively as I described. Not the term you threw a tantrum about wanting it to be.

If you read the information instead of trying to protect your ego, you would have addressed the information with integrity and honesty, even if you couldn't refute them and not diverted the conversation every single time.

Bitcoin defunds authoritarianism, and I'll include in this note why transparency on the base layer is necessary for that, and how it enables privacy in perpetuity. I know it's not what you want to hear, so I'll expect more disrespectful pivoting.

But if you are willing, you should take the time to consider information other than what you want to be true.

We have all been wrong about things and no one is perfect. I of course have been wrong and am always trying to learn. It can definitely be hard to accept or be open to new information. I promise, if you had any compelling information or points, I would concede.

It's just obvious to every person who sees this, you went from gold to fungibility to a whole new topic here and none of the points you have made are well rounded, well researched or articulate.

It looks much more foolish to lash out or speak passionate with no credible information and obvious missteps and diversions to protect yourself from admitting you were wrong.

I'm not trying to argue with you or make you feel bad. For me this, and all conversations or about truth and progress, not bullshit. I wish you well sir.

Now, to respond again, you kept harping on UTXOs being traceable, but that’s irrelevant-fungibility isn’t about everyone accepting every unit; it’s about equal value in exchange, as Jevons (1875), Mises (1912), and all other economists, institutions, governments and textbooks spell out.

Fungibility isn’t about some arbitrary level of acceptance.

It’s about the market treating units as interchangeable with equal value, per all credible sources.

By your logic and definition, nothing’s fungible if a single person can say see that two units have differences which is laughably wrong. Or whatever you shift to other than this definitions.

Fungibility isn't about universal acceptance it's about a specific market treating units as equal in value.

For example, raffle tickets are fungible in a park where they're worth one ride each, even if the broader public outside sees them as worthless.

Similarly, satoshis are fungible because the market values them equally, regardless of some actors rejecting UTXOs.

It's not that every single person has to accept them; it's that the market's general agreement on equal value defines fungibility.

One satoshi equals another, just like one $10 bill equals another, even if a bank flags a serial number.

It’s like saying a worn out $10 bill isn’t fungible because a shop won’t take it, it’s still worth $10 to anyone who does.

Bitcoin’s satoshis are fungible because the market, not you or some exchange, sets their value as equal: 100 million satoshis = one Bitcoin, always. And your UTXO obsession? It’s a technical red herring.

Sure, some exchanges flag UTXOs for compliance, just like banks might reject marked cash or freeze accounts. That’s external regulation or choice, not a break in Bitcoin’s inherent fungibility.

Cash stays fungible despite serial number tracking-you agreed with that before! Bitcoin’s the same.

Your claim that any differentiation means non-fungible is absurd. By that logic, nothing’s fungible, not gold, not dollars, if someone, somewhere can be picky.

That’s not how economics works; fungibility’s about market-accepted value, not universal agreement.

Now, let’s flip to your Monero crush. Privacy’s great, but it’s not fungibility, stop mixing them up.

Bitcoin’s transparent base layer, as Nik Bhatia’s Layered Money explains, is a feature, not a bug. It ensures auditability, catching double spends or attacks like a 51% attempt, which Monero’s opacity risks hiding.

Transparency fuels trust and resilience anyone can verify the chain, spot threats, and react, from miners to newbies buying in to defend Bitcoin’s integrity.

And don’t sleep on Bitcoin’s Layer 2 solutions like Lightning Network. Open a payment channel, and you’ve got private, near instant transactions that can run indefinitely off chain, as you noted.

If someone tries to cheat, timelocks and watchtowers punish them. Trust? Minimal and backed by protocol rules, not blind faith.

Plus, with reputation and incentives, like big players wanting to protect their brand or small setups banking on mutual benefit Lightning channels stay open and private, no Monero needed.

Layer 2 solutions, like CoinJoin and eCash, only get better, building on Bitcoin’s rock solid base layer of transparency, immutability, and decentralization.

It’s like saying cash isn’t fungible because a few banks won’t take crumpled bills-give me a break.

Fungibility’s about the market agreeing one satoshi equals another, just like one digital dollar or a $10 bill equals another, even though they track cash, it's still fingible, same with gold, same with digital dollars.

Economists from Jevons (1875) to Hayek (1976) and sources like Investopedia and FasterCapital (2024) back this: fungibility’s an inherent property, not altered by some picky exchanges or government rules.

You’re trying to dodge the core issue by waving around UTXO traceability like it’s a gotcha, but it’s not, bitcoin’s satoshis hold equal value, period.

And back to your Monero fantasy. Privacy by default sounds cool, but it sacrifices transparency, which Bitcoin leverages for trust and resilience.

A transparent blockchain lets anyone spot threats, rally support, or build defenses like nodes rejecting bad blocks or new users jumping in to counter a state attack.

Monero’s opacity hides that, risking blind spots, it takes away any possible emergent reaction to any problem.

No one can react because no one can see the issue, and then, if someone can or does notice nefarious activity, significant trust is required for others to participate in defense.

Bitcoin’s open design allows for robust awareness and defense capabilities through trustlessness. Free market reputation and track record incentivize quality secondary layers that offer privacy.

Its transparency fuels its global adoption scarcity, divisibility, fungibility all intact, no matter how many times you cry UTXO. So, stop dodging with weak article links and twisted logic.

Bitcoin’s fungible at the satoshi level, and no amount of exchange flagging or your hand wringing changes that.

Hanshan 5mo ago

great

so satoshis are fungible

yes we agree on that.

UTXOs arent.

anyone observing the ledger can differentiate between same-value UTXOs

individuals, governments, anyone.

therefore they are not fungible.

its really that simple.

and the market DOESN'T treat them the same. we have plenty of examples of UTXOs being treated differently.

so if your litmus test for fungibility is market acceptable, it still fails.

your entire argument (without the obnoxious AI bullshit and grandstanding ) is simply "UTXOs are treated equally by enough market participants to call them fungible"

but ANY observer can still differentiate between them.

so they're not.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Hanshan 5mo ago

also

nobody fucking asked you for more AI spam about LN, privacy and Bitcoins original value proposition.

if you want to have respectful discussion, try posting respectfully.

Corbin 5mo ago

Your claim that the market doesn’t treat UTXOs the same incorrect, fungibility’s about satoshis having equal value in trade, like collectors swapping coins 1:1, not every actor treating every transaction identically, per Hayek, Mises and all credible economics.

You're misapplying fungibility to UTXOs, which are just transaction containers, not the units of value.

Your claim that UTXOs' traceability makes them non fungible is absolutely wrong. Again, even if they had a record of all serial numbers on dollars or tracked digital dollars, cash and digital dollars would still be and are fungible too.

Fungibility is about equal market value, not identical treatment by all, per Mises, Hayek, and all credible economic sources.

The market treats satoshis as equal, and your flagging cases or that people can choose not to because they can distinguish between the two does not change that.

It's like saying dollars aren't fungible because some shops reject flagged, torn or worn out bills, or because they can tell the difference between the two. Or whatever you pivot to outside the definition these economists and academic sources provide in the bottom half of this note.

UTXOs' traceable histories don't break Bitcoin's fungibility, their history are irrelevant to the general market, their value is still equal to anyone who accepts them per Hayek (1976), Mises (1912) and all credible economists.

Your claim that any rejection alters fungibility is nonsense; markets, not individuals, define equal value.

Even Forbes just highlighted BitChat with eCash, showing bitcoin's transparent base layer powers anonymous, peer to peer satoshi transfers no one checks UTXOs, proving fungibility in action.

Starting with a variety of notable economists, then to a variety of other credible sources, present day and all the way back to the inception of the term, showing universal, unanimous disagreement with your idea of fungibility.

For the Statists out there, even Paul Krugman has touched on fungibility indirectly in his writings on currency, like in his 1999 book The Return of Depression Economics, noting that money’s interchangeability is what makes it function, regardless of regulatory barriers.

Similarly, Friedrich Hayek, in The Denationalisation of Money from 1976, argues that money’s fungibility stems from its role as a medium of exchange, not from state mandates, even suggesting private currencies can be fungible without government involvement.

Murray Rothbard, in his 1962 book Man, Economy, and State, emphasizes that money’s fungibility comes from its uniform value in trade, a market-driven trait, not something governments can redefine.

He sees it as a natural outcome of people treating units as equal.

Milton Friedman, in his 1960 A Program for Monetary Stability, notes money’s interchangeability as key to its function, separate from government restrictions like capital controls.

Ludwig von Mises, in his 1912 work The Theory of Money and Credit, describes money’s fungibility as a core trait, where each unit is interchangeable because of its uniform value in exchange, independent of external restrictions.

He specifically to the market’s acceptance, not government authority.

William Stanley Jevons in his 1875 book Money and the Mechanism of Exchange.

He uses the term explicitly when describing money’s properties, noting its fungibility as the quality that makes one unit interchangeable with another, emphasizing its role in trade.

Carl Menger, in his 1871 book Principles of Economics, further laid the groundwork by discussing how money’s value comes from its uniform acceptance in trade.

In Principles of Economics, Menger describes money’s role as a fungible good because each unit is accepted as equivalent, based on its utility in exchange, not state control.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) indirectly touched on fungibility when describing money’s role as a universal medium of exchange, where units are interchangeable.

In late 19th century legal/economic discussions, such as those in Black’s Law Dictionary (first published 1891), which defines fungible goods as interchangeable, like money or commodities.

And in 18th-century English law, fungibility described goods where one unit is interchangeable with another, such as grain or money. It was often tied to commodities.

The term itself, derived from the Latin fungibilis (meaning substitutable), was used in legal texts as early as the 17th century to describe interchangeable goods, like grain or coins, and likely entered economics from there.

A 2018 ResearchGate paper and FasterCapital’s 2024 article reinforces this, emphasizing fungibility’s basis in rational indifference to swapping equal units.

The consensus is rock solid across the board, fungibility is about units being interchangeable with equal value, as defined by market behavior, not government decrees.

Not even government affiliated sources, like economic textbooks or a central bank publication, like those from the Federal Reserve or IMF, claims fungibility stems from state control; they focus on legal tender or regulation affecting circulation, which is a separate issue.

There is no credible professional, economist, institution, or government source that contradicts the definition of fungibility as an inherent economic property tied to market acceptance rather than government control.

Dictionaries, institutions, financial education websites written by experts, even wikipedia, institutions and economists including those backed by the government universally define money’s fungibility as its inherent interchangeability, and specifically not something governments or anyone can dictate.

It’s about market value, not legal status or any other group or individuals imposed restraint.

If you reject a dollar at a farmers market because you don't like its history, like where it came from, that's your subjective choice, but it doesn't make dollars non fungible.

If the entire farmer’s market rejects a dollar, like all $1 bills, because they suspect counterfeits or prefer $5s, those dollars remain fungible among themselves. One $1 bill is still worth another $1 bill in any market that accepts them, (per economists, institutions and textbooks) because fungibility is about equal value in exchange, not universal acceptance.

Their rejection is a localized market choice, like shops refusing torn bills, it doesn’t break the inherent interchangeability of dollars. Your claim that any rejection (like UTXOs) ends fungibility or makes the money not fungible, is absurd.

Fungibility is about the market treating one dollar as equal to another in value, (per all credible sources), not about everyone accepting every bill.

All credible sources disagree with your claim that if anyone can differentiate between two units of equal value and refuse one for any reason, they're not fungible.

Fungibility is about the market treating units like satoshis as equal in value, not every individual accepting them.

Your definition absurdly implies nothing's fungible if a single person rejects a unit, which dodges the economic reality of market driven equivalence.

Corbin 5mo ago

*Your claim that the market doesn’t treat UTXOs the same is incorrect