Subnostr

Replying to nobody

it most certainly does have a record, serial numbers could be traced to the mint, to the bank, to the atm, to the person who withdrew.

and money has everything to do with believing and collective belief

geodesic 2y ago

A serial number is not a record. If bill 1234 changes hands from Alice to Bob to Charlie to Dave to Eric, Eric only knows that he received the bill from Dave. The history of transactions from Alice to Dave are unknown to Eric or anyone else. The bank of course will know Alice withdrew the bill and Eric deposited the bill, but no other information exists.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, shares publicly for all to see, that Alice gave a coin to Bob, then Bob to Charlie, then Charlie to Dave, etc forever until the coins are destroyed or mixed.

Hopefully you can see that Bitcoin is fundamentally non-fungible while cash is.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

nobody 2y ago

I understand the perspective on objective fungibility (and its definition) that you are correctly describing. But it’s also (and only) true based on the system in which our experience and interaction occurs. That is to say because there is a massive set of agreed upon premises; that is the way fungibility works.

But just as with any concept, mental framework and most particularly societal heuristics, it is A) an entity of the mind (you can’t touch fungibility) and B) only remains true/valid until a consciousness revolution takes place.

I want you to know I’m sort of playing devils advocate here but Id ask you to broaden your threshold for possible simultaneous accurate perspectives. Its a basic tenant of Bitcoin that it holds a mirror up to the house of cards that fiat is. Its BTC 101 to understand that a 20 dollar bill is actually just a piece of paper. Its not the paper that is of valuable material; it’s the belief behind it. The collective acceptance that how ever many jumps down the layered money line, there’s a backing at the end transmitting assurance of value.

There are people in tribes that no doubt would see a dollar bill as just paper. And as current events and inflation show, the value and regard for those USD is changing, globally. But they are all still the same pieces of paper.

so, accepting what I just laid out as true and valid; you can’t talk ab money without including consideration for value. And value being also a mental construct is subject to change, conscious or un.

so yes it would be ideal that Bitcoin would receive a BIP that increased it fungibility; but I prefer to recognize another core aspect of Bitcoin. It is not an asset or entity under the umbrella of the current monetary system, or even societal perspective. It is a separate and closed system all of its own.

because of this I argue that there’s actually nothing a government can do that’s any different that a basic street mugger. They can make labels and lists and say any coins that exhibit x,y,z. are illigitimate: but that carries no weight in the Bitcoin network. They aren’t going into the code and altering it to reflect their preferences. Thier demands and regulations only exist in their fiat world and fiat brains.

You are not wrong. But I’m absolutely correct as well. Society is nothing if not a set of unwritten, agreed upon rules.

geodesic 2y ago

I'm not saying lists aren't a construct of the mind. Sure, you cant touch a list or kill a list, but how does that relate to the discussion? The entire notion of money is a mental construct, but that doesn't change the fact that some design choices are better than others...

Fungibility (be it a mental construct or not) does not exist for Bitcoin, but does exist for cash/coins/Monero. It would be better if Bitcoin was fungible. I, like the OP, would like to see renewed interest in improving Bitcoin's fungibility

nobody 2y ago

And by omission, I just am a statist cuck who doesn’t want to see Bitcoin improve ld upon, I guess?

You keep pulling a single point out of what I’m saying and disconnecting it from the bigger picture of the perspective.

There are people who speak only in what they know to be reality via experience and there are those who enjoy speaking to the realm of possibility.

When someone says “let’s have a discussion” it’s absurd to engage with the intention of only considering the angle you already possess. That’s a debate, not a discussion.

But right on. Enjoy the box my friend.

🤘🙏🤘

geodesic 2y ago

I never said that. I'm just focusing on the one point of the thread, the point the OP was making. Your other points are fine and dandy, they just aren't relevant. I'm trying to stay on subject 🤙

geodesic 2y ago

I'm happy to continue the discussion about Bitcoin's fungibility if you care. I'm not really interested in playing word games about mental constructs and civil disobedience here, but maybe someone else wants to chat you up about that. Sorry if that upsets you.

nobody 2y ago

Close mindedness upsets me. And gaslighting.

geodesic 2y ago

I expect we agree about more than we disagree. Sorry if our wires got crossed. PV 🤙

Jac 2y ago

I just read Andrew Tate has been charged with rape in Romania…ok, those are his choices and problem, what I find interesting and relevant is that Romanian authorities seized his Bitcoin assets rumored to be worth $300 million. It seems likely Tate would have had those assets in some secure wallet. If it can happen to him, it can happen to you if you run afoul of the law. Bitcoin is not substantially different or better than fiat in the banking system, and because of the public blockchain it is substantially worse than fiat in a safe at home.

nobody 2y ago

So you don’t think there’s any way on this green and blue earth that they said “we know you’re vocal on social media and if you don’t give us that bitcoin we’ll make you disappear”

He gave them access/they found the keys, it doesn’t mean they hacked the Bitcoin network. Not close.

Jac 2y ago

Not hacked, compelled legally. There is a difference, and the distinction is important. They can prove you have the money using the blockchain and compel you to give it to them. No plausible denial of possession.

nobody 2y ago

He was shoulda coin joined.

Also he could have lost his keys. But yes no theater would be nice

nobody 2y ago

Let’s take it all the way to the extreme what you doing when/if government says “holding btc is illegal” 1971style

Jac 2y ago

This is another argument in favor or plausible deniability and an encrypted blockchain. Maybe the answer is for people who are interested in privacy to manage it themselves. Shared IP exchanges, obfuscation, and new Bitcoin send and receive addresses for every transaction. With those protocols in place, I suspect transactions would be practically impossible to trace. Maybe it’s like this, you can advertise your money by putting it in a bank, or you can obfuscate your money by putting it in a safe.

nobody 2y ago

I think really the point I’m trying to make is if you’re dealing with a centralized authority and they WANT you as the person of interest? There is no such thing as plausible deniability.

Jac 2y ago

This is exactly my point. There is plausible deniability unless there isn’t. Your approach to this is well, it’s difficult so let’s assume it’s impossible and somehow therefore unimportant. Difficult does not in any way equal unimportant. Stick to principals in all things. A principled person dies with fewer assets and regrets than a treacherous one. I’ll always be the one to sacrifice a few dollars for a clear conscience, or some difficult work for a truly tenable solution.

nobody 2y ago

There’s no such thing when you’re trying to make change as a unimportant perspective.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

Jac 2y ago

I don’t consider any of these discussions to be a waste of time. I didn’t mean to insult you, if I did then you have my sincere apologies.

nobody 2y ago

It’s not insulting and my feelings don’t matter; it’s just surprising how often people say things like “let’s discuss!” And someone will offer a line of thinking that doesn’t quite perfectly fit in the way others think and they refuse to use or engage with it like they would/do others more traditional views.

Nothing wrong with that; I just find it strange. And that’s on me so I apologize if you feel somehow less or inadequate.

nobody 2y ago

Ignore that post. I’m bowing out; no hostilities intended.