Fungibility is superfluous. It has no bearing on the perfect money. This is akin to saying the perfect money would look like a pear or would be able to bounce off of a steel table. Fungibility is unimportant because the previous owners of a money is irrelevant. An ounce of gold owned by a king is not a more or less perfect money because he can have been proven or not to have owned it.
Discussion
Fungibility has always been a property of money. A quick search would show you this. It does matters for crypto because it's a public ledger. You can say all you want that it doesn't matter but there are countless examples of tainted Bitcoin affecting users and it's price. A simple example is ordinals. That was only possible because of Bitcoins transparency.
It seems that at every turn you would like to debate facts. I am not really interested in doing that.
And you dont? What are we going to debate non-facts? Or should I just accept something that is blatantly false? Fungibility is a property of money. It's kind of ridiuclous I even have to debate that fact for someone who claimed to be an economics expert.
You don't debate facts. You debate opinions.
As to fungibility you are making a classification error. I can say: "All mammals have a nose."
This however does not mean that if an animal has a nose, that it is a mammal. The same goes for money. Many monies have a fungible nature. Not having this feature does not preclude it from being money. However if it is not:
Scarce, durable, divisible, verifiable, and portable, it can not be money.
Something can't be money without being fungible to at least some degree. There is no such thing as non-fungible money. Fungibility is a pre-requisite. Ideal money would be perfectly fungible.
I think you're confusing a medium of exchange with money. Money implies it's a MoE, but an MoE is not necessarily money.
Agree with the last part, but I've never heard "verifiability" as being required in the classic definition of money, although that makes sense to me (recognizeable maybe?)
I don't think we'll agree though, so not sure if there is any point in continuing. Agree to disagree, but appreciate the back and forth anyway.
Yeah, I think a lot of people use recognizable instead of verifiable. It just always sat with me as too ambiguous.
That's the whole reason debates exist.
And yes you're right, you don't like facts because the fact is people use monero as a form of peer 2 peer electronic cash but you don't care about that because it doesn't pump your fiat bags.
You don't debate facts. You debate opinions. Facts are things that exist in reality. Opinions are interpretations of reality. I am fine with facts. I don't care what people use as money. If you look through the thread I spend about 99% of it defining terms that seem to not be clear to the counterpart. I have no Ill will nor do I have an incentive to pump any bags, I am doing just fine with my own financial strategies. I find monero memes funny and you guys fairly smart and privacy conscious people.
That being said, I do think that several factors like first mover advantage, network multiplier effects, absolute scarcity, adoption, auditability, and invested capital put Bitcoin in a better position to be a global reserve currency. I've said many times monero is neat. It is just in a very disadvantaged position to become a global reserve. That's all. That last bit is my speculation read: opinion. So you can debate that all you'd like.
We don't Bitcoin, or Monero to become a global reserve asset, Gold, and The U.S. Dollar both facilitate those roles just fine.
We want cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, and Monero to become tools for medium of exchange to transmit value digitally around the world, if that requires it to become a "Global Reserve Assets" to do so then fine but I don't think so since Bitcoin was working just fine 10 years ago without Institutions, and governments hoarding it.
I mean, I hate to be pedantic yet again(sike I love this shit) but, a reserve asset is just an asset that is the preferred collateral for financial use. Global would be preferred by the world. If either weren't a global reserve asset they, by definition, wouldn't be preferred by the world and thus unimportant.
You do want monero to be important as I want bitcoin to be important. Reserve status is kind of the goal of all monies.
Cryptocurrency aims to solve two problems found in fiat, The Value Problem, and The Technology Problem.
Bitcoin was an over correction to the first problem, a supply cap doesn’t solve the issues with fiat, because the problem with fiat isn’t supply, the issue is at which rate supply is generated, in the fiat world fiat is created in excessive amounts.
In a way Bitcoin is the opposite of MMT.
Bitcoin also seeks to improve the technology problem by making value transmission faster, and more effective, and Bitcoin does solve that over the current system in most aspects, it transmit value faster, and more effectively than fiat systems, however the fiat systems are delayed intentionally to stop terrorism, money laundering, and double spending, etc., whether that’s a good thing, or bad thing is up to debate.
That being said Bitcoin is more effective than the current fiat system at maintaining value, and transmission of value, however based off of economic principles such as velocity, and supply, Bitcoin fails, since Bitcoin becomes too valuable to use as a Medium of Exchange, and while Bitcoin solves the technology problem, other technologies like XRP, and Monero solve it better but yes the counter argument could be that lightning is also sufficient as a global transmission layer.
I think the practicality of Lightning will be used as custodial services if adopted by the masses but that is counter intuitive to money which is developed to be against centralized entities (malicious or not).
Bitcoin is too valuable, Monero is valuable enough to spend but not so valuable that it can be replaced.
If I lost 1 Bitcoin I would be devastated due to the absolute scarcity, however if I lost 1 Monero I could easily recoup that in 4 minutes of mining (assuming I hit two blocks successfully solo mining).
My debate is focused around Medium of Exchange, not assets, or global reserves, and while money may benefit from that, I think Bitcoin is a sort of stand in/proxy for cryptocurrency at large.
I acknowledge Monero will not become a global reserve assets in publicly audited ledgers, however I assure you the Department of Defense will utilize Monero for their Black Budgets.
But we can argue semantics, it appears we have two different reasonings/logics, which is why our disconnect in debate keeps occurring.
How funny would it be if I just said "K"
To be honest, a lot of what you said is kind of gobbledygook. The bitcoin/ monero comparison is just kind of opinion stuff that we just simply disagree. Monero has all the 5 attributes of money I have stated before, no contention there.
As for assets, mediums of exchange, and a money being TOO valuable, I dunno it's a lot to kind of break down and there are again definitional issues.
Assets are goods, objects, or just property in general. Saying you are focused on medium of exchange not assets is kind of misunderstanding what the difference between a monetary assets and currencies are. The medium of exchange is a currency that is redeemable for the reserve asset. Focusing on a medium of exchange without establishing the reserve asset is exactly what fiat currency is. Gold not being redeemable for dollars is what makes dollars not a medium of exchange. It is the misapprehension that dollars are backed by an asset that keeps everyone in this delusion.
Also the problem isn't the rate of currency expansion, it is the mere ability to increase it arbitrarily.
As for bitcoin being too valuable, the fact that it is divisible kind of makes that a non issue. It's not as if you have to use bitcoin in whole numbers. So, I'm not really sure what that issue is. I mean "losing a bitcoin" is kind of a "well, don't do that" type situation. If you lost your car somewhere that isn't an argument against using a car.
As to your assertion that cryptocrurrency's (a moniker I despise BTW) goal is to solve a value problem, I don't see that as the issue exactly. Value is subjective so it's a very difficult thing to "solve" I think bitcoin, lightning specifically solves the debasement problem. (The arbitrary expansion of currency supply). The prominent currency of bitcoin, (not bitcoin itself) lightning, is smart contract tied in a 2/2 multisig contract. It is programmatically assured to be redeemable for bitcoin on chain. This is the solution to the fiat problem. Bitcoin is the solution to the technological problem of having the reserve asset be gold. Gold is heavy, not infinitely divisible, and can be hard(expensive) to verify with certain metallurgical tricks.
As far as the custodial nature of Lightning, it's just not true. People are lazy but it is not a barrier to entry to not have a custodian. You literally just run a computer. It's not insurmountable.
Boy, these discussions are a slog. I swear Mises and Rothbard wrote a lot of this stuff down already. (Minus the bitcoin that is) They might have mentioned Monero though.