Nostr Web Client

No evidence is only in your head.

2. Shitcoin propaganda about "Bitcoin is not fungible"

Answer: Only idiots propagate that lie. Bitcoin coins do not have identification number. 1 BTC = 1 BTC. 1 Bitcoin is divisible in 100 Million sats. 1 sat = 1 sat. So Bitcoin is fungible. The idiot shitcioners probably mean that Bitcoins can be traced from one address to the other because the blockchain is public which is the main feature that ensures Bitcoin integrity. But the fact that Bitcoins can be mixed using Bitcoin coinjoins completely destroys the shitcoinrs propaganda and lies. Bitcoin is fungible money.

Here is a definition about fungibility from AI:

Fungibility refers to the property of an asset or good whose individual units are interchangeable and essentially identical in value and function. Fungible assets can be exchanged or substituted on a one-to-one basis without any loss of value or distinction. For example, money is fungible: a $1 bill is equivalent to another $1 bill or to a combination of coins that sums to $1. Other fungible assets include commodities like gold or corn, and cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, where each unit is identical and holds the same value as another unit of the same kind.

Non-fungibility, by contrast, refers to assets that are unique and cannot be replaced by another identical item. Non-fungible assets have distinctive characteristics that make each item different in value and identity. For example, a specific car, house, piece of artwork, or diamond is non-fungible because it cannot be exchanged on a one-to-one basis with another item of the same type without affecting value or uniqueness. The distinguishing features and uniqueness of non-fungible assets mean they hold individual value and cannot be substituted directly.

Hanshan 1d ago 💬 1

"The AI said something I want to believe is evidence" LOL

your AI slop specifically says "fungible assets can be exchanged or substituted on a one-to-one basis without any loss of value OR DISTINCTION."

you can distinguish between UTXOs of the same value.

The slop that you're sharing *specifically refutes* the thesis that you want to use it as evidence for.

again, for fungibility to be a property of the asset, units must be equal *and indistinguishable.*

I suggest NOT relying on AI slop without careful consideration.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

BitcoinIsFuture 1d ago 💬 1

nostr:nevent1qqsg9jl5wngjuzzfk0c77csjehud9ykr3l3hmm55csxkd2xn396ty3sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgkwaehxw309ahx7um5wfjkc6t5v4ejummjvuhswensj7

Hanshan 1d ago 💬 1

you want this to be applicable to UTXOs but you completely fail to show how UTXOs function like cash bills.

a 100k sat utxo with coinjoin history is NOT "considered entirely equivalent" to a 100k sat straight from a miner.

your peer might not care,

but he CAN *distinguish* between them.

unlike cash bills.

for a value transfer system to be fungible, units must be BOTH 1. equal and 2. indistinguishable.

therefore UTXOs are not fungible like cash bills.

BitcoinIsFuture 1d ago 💬 1

Wrong.

> "but he CAN *distinguish* between them.

> unlike cash bills."

Cash bills have serial numbers and are absolutely distinguishable.

> "a 100k sat utxo with coinjoin history is NOT "considered entirely equivalent" to a 100k sat straight from a miner."

Wrong again.

Hanshan 1d ago 💬 1

when was the last time you looked at the serial numbers on cash?

what are you going to compare it to?

this is not the same as a transparent blockchain that anybody with a internet connection can audit.

autistically pretending like that doesn't matter is just fucking stupid.

Hanshan 1d ago

it's very simple.

cash bills are different. they have physical serial numbers.

but they're "considered entirely equivalent" because that unique identifier is not recorded in any accessible way.

UTXO are different. they are all completely unique.

and they are NOT "considered entirely equivalent" because that uniqueness is recorded in a publicly accessible location.