It’s ok to laugh.
I don’t take it personal.
It’s not a personal theory.
I don’t expect many to be familiar with applying Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy to modern issues.
It seems your definition of “fungible” is simply, what which is exchanged, which mistakes accident for essence.
but we will just be talking past each other cause we don’t have a common staring point.
cool beans. speaking of Aristotle... 😂
Aristotle defined what sound money is ~350 B.C., and it includes fungibility. It's noteworthy that privacy is a result of fungibility.
"Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics."
1 BTC = 1 BTC*
*: Certain conditions may apply.
See: shum.fyi
1 XMR = 1 XMR no matter its history.
That's fungibility.
Monero is fungible, Bitcoin is a public blockchain shitcoin.
Dude I can literally point to any UTXO and tell you every single address that has held it all the way hack to a coin base transaction.
You can cite Aristotle as if that hand waves away the abject silliness of what you're saying. "Fungible" is a word that means something, whatever you're trying to extrude it into is not it.
"Fungible" means, if you put two of something on the table and tell me I can have one, I wouldnt give a shit one way or another which one I take. That's it.
correct, fungible means equally interchangeable, not identical.
So I have a sat in one address and a sat in another. how does their UTXO history make one more or less interchangeable than the other?
You don't know the answer to that question?
Have you ever heard terms like "no mixed coins", "chainalysis" or "blacklisted address"?
someone in the world will take ur sat
They're not of equal value or interchangeable with one another.
the two quarters in my pocket aren’t identical, yet they both go into a vending machine the same.
bricks are different, yet it doesn’t matter which one you grab to build the wall
If you are going to conflate interchangeable with identical at this point, you are obstinate.
I didn't say "identical" once.
Two saroshis don't go into a vending machine all the same.
your critique is that they are distinguishable, making it not private, is it not?
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.
“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.
