So cash isn’t fungible either so Monero can’t be p2p digital cash because it isn’t traceable by SN like real cash is.
This is about as strong an argument as bitcoin isn’t fungible. It’s weak sauce.
Discussion
Come on buddy, I know you aren't blind AND wrong. You saw my post the first time; I don't need to repeat myself.
Ok let’s update the dictionary
Fungible: cannot be traced
Let's not update the dictionary. For one thing there are many untraceable things that are not fungible, so that definition is insufficient. For another, I don't need to be appeased.
Instead, I would like to ask you some questions. Firstly, have you heard the term "tainted Bitcoin" before? And secondly, is there a notion of fungibility that you actually like?
Yes.
I’ve used bitcoin for many years with 100% success that is fungible enough for me. I understand on a macro level some ppl get into trouble because their coins were used for some illicit purpose. This doesn’t make it non fungible it makes it traceable they are separate things.
If you use cash stolen from a bank heist and you get busted that doesn’t make all cash non fungible.
Do you sell any goods and services using Bitcoin
I don’t sell any goods or services with or without Bitcoin what’s your point?
I've seen posts from merchants who have to worry about what Bitcoin they accept. Are you a merchant?
If I don’t sell good or services then obviously I am not a merchant I have however bought goods and services with bitcoin for years with 100% success if that isn’t fungible then fuck me.
No, there is no need for you to get fucked. It is the merchants who get fucked by the lack of fungibility. The lack of traceability makes Bitcoin a pain for merchants to use, and makes some Bitcoin worth less to merchants than other Bitcoin. As a committed consumer, you are priveleged enough to never have to worry about tainted Bitcoin. And because Bitcoin fanatics hate being reminded of Bitcoin's fungibility, you will prefer to dismiss the experiences of merchants. Am I right?
I’m not denying there are any privacy issues with bitcoin I am denying that it makes it non fungible. If you measure fungibility by the same standard as any other non crypto thing Bitcoin would be considered fungible. And if I use Bitcoin with 100% success it’s a hard sell to say non fungible.
See? You have to ignore the experiences of merchants because you hate the idea of Bitcoin being non-fungible to someone. Traceability and tainted Bitcoin isn't a privacy issue for merchants. It's a fungability issue for merchants. Merchants don't experience these kinds of issues when accepting cash you know.
And you ignore all the successful times it’s used fungible by many users like me all around the world because you hate the idea of it being fungible. Merchants that accept cash worry about counterfeit.
Yes. It is certainly a virtue of cryptocurrency that there is no need to worry about counterfeit money. Why would I hate the idea of Bitcoin being fungible?
your utxos are nonfungible becasue they have a different history than other utxos.
even if they are the same value.
generally, when cash is concerned, ie bank heists
cops will do something (UV ink etc) to make the cash *nonfungible* and identifiable.
Bro oil from different drums has different history’s doesn’t make oil non fungible. Cmon.
dude
this isn't hard. stop being deliberately dense.
if oil or cash was uniquely identifiable and txs recorded on a public ledger anybody with an internet connection could audit,
it wouldnt be fungible either.
we can keep track of the movement of utxos ny default.
nonfungible.
don't overthink it.
Luckily cash is only barely traceable. But yes, cash is not 100% fungible either. That's just another reason why I would never refer to Monero as "digital cash".
You guys confuse traceable with fungible too much they are not the same thing.
Adam Back talking about the fungibility problem of Bitcoin years ago:
https://xcancel.com/DontTraceMeBruh/status/1880019339027575222#m
Full video:
I'm not trying to be antagonistic btw. I don't think fungibility is binary either, but I think compared to Lightning sats or Monero, Bitcoin on-chain fungibility is definitely lacking (distinguishability among coins because they are inseparable from their histories - I understand on a protocol level they are fungible, but in the real world those coins carry their histories with them.)
I always think of this of this quote from BinaryFate:
"You don't ask nicely that everyone else not spend your coins; You just protect them using a cryptographic key.
Similarly, you don't ask nicely everyone else not distinguish your monetary units; You just make them *technically* indistinguishable AKA fungible."
Yes I can agree that there are some fungibility issues but to call it out right non fungible is simply not true. That is the part that erks me.
It’s almost like saying Bitcoin has no value when definitely does have value in the market.
It just makes my BS meter go off.
I always like to link this article. Very didactic 👇
I’m aware I first saw this years ago. The problem with this “Bitcoin is non fungible” statement is not true. If in fact Bitcoin were non fungible it couldn’t and wouldn’t be used as a medium of exchange AT ALL it wouldn’t work AT ALL. No one would accept a non fungible medium of exchange so the fact that people use it all the time as such proves this statement false. It’s traceability causes payment issues in some cases but this doesn’t make all bitcoin non fungible it’s a ridiculous assertion.
Indeed not every single sat actually is tainted, but the fact that SOME are is a real and valid concern. And over the years the quantity of tainted btc will just increase, making the situation worse. Paper over this problem is hypocrisy from BTC maxis
Yes denying there is any concern is just as ignorant as saying it is non fungible.
this is just being obnoxiously pedantic.
cash is defacto fungible.
monero is fungible.
Bitcoin isnt.
utxos with different histories are nonfungible by definition.
The units (sats) exchange at equal value that is fungible.