if they can differentiate between UTXOs it is not fungibile.

they can, so its not. one is NOT "as good as another" because reputation is also transfered due to a known history.

known difference, not fungible.

that's all.

thank you responding to the point under discussion

and NOT just posting a page of AI slop that reiterates the Bitcoin Standard

Wrong because I said so, no other arguments needed lol

That's not what fungible means. Fungible means one is as good as the other, like cash, you can give anyone any dollar, hence it's fungible. Regardless of bar codes.

That doesnt mean the state cant track dollars or arbitrarily withold certain dollars. They will try and have tried with all forms of money.

Because they try to make bitcoin non fungible does not make bitcoin non fungible.

Part of the reason bitcoin is revolutionary is because it defunds oppression and arbitrary, forced state overreach. Its an important point and relevant

Again, no one deems something fungible or not, including governments or individual actors, value is subjective always.

Privacy is not equal to fungibility.

This isn't my opinion, this is objective fact.

Now more on why transparency is important, why privacy is on secondary layers instead of the base layer is critical (tied to transparency), early iterations of secondary privacy layers on bitcoin that allows for privacy in perpetuity.

And worth noting up top here that these secondary protocols will only continue to advance, because of the critical base layer properties.

Transparency, far from a liability, enables verifiable auditability, reinforcing trust, integrity and resilience - a feature absent in opaque systems like Monero.

Bitcoin’s transparent, auditable blockchain lets everyone see there’s nothing nefarious going on, like double-spending or attacks, and enables proactive countermeasures if something shady pops up.

The transparency ensures the system’s integrity (no hidden manipulation) and resilience (ability to withstand or respond to threats), which fosters trust among users.

For example, anyone can verify the blockchain to spot a 51% attack attempt or confirm transaction legitimacy, and miners or nodes can adjust to counter threats, like rejecting invalid blocks.

More layer twos will be built of course, maybe some will outdo lightning.

To state the obvious, like Nik Bhatia in layer money talks about money is built on layers. Gold takes too much energy, it's too costly - not possible to move fast hence paper money and wire transfers.

Critical aspects of a base layer being robust security, transparency, immutability, decentralization and proof of work; it's a feature to have privacy and near instant transactions on secondary layers.

Once you open a payment channel and commit funds, it can stay open indefinitely as long as both parties keep it active, no need to settle on the Bitcoin blockchain.

This lets you transact privately off-chain, potentially forever, creating a kind of self-contained, circular economy within the channel.

The base layer only gets involved if you close the channel or someone tries to cheat, triggering the on-chain settlement.

It’s a powerful setup for privacy and efficiency, as long as the channel stays funded and both sides cooperate.

Lightning channels do involve a degree of trust, but it’s minimal and technical rather than interpersonal.

Both parties need to trust that the other won’t try to cheat by broadcasting an old channel state, but this is deterred by the protocol’s penalty mechanisms-like the watchtower feature or timelocks that let honest parties reclaim funds if someone tries to close the channel maliciously.

But yeah, if someone unilaterally closes the channel, it settles on-chain, and that privacy layer shifts.

Trust in Lightning Network channels often ties to reputation and incentives, especially in practical scenarios.

If you're running a channel with a big player like a mastercard or visa equivalent (some entity with a strong track record) they're heavily incentivized to keep the channel open and act ethically to protect their brand and business.

Same goes for smaller, private setups; reputation and the promise of ongoing business creates a strong motive to avoid screwing over a partner by closing a channel maliciously.

Plus, legal recourse, adding another layer of deterrence. Even in off-grid or remote cases, mutual benefit and social trust can keep things stable. It's less about blind trust and more about reputation and track record and or aligned incentives backed by the protocol's safeguards.

Bitcoin’s transparent blockchain enables countermeasures by anyone seeking to support or protect the network, including those holding Bitcoin, ensuring robust, self-sustaining security through incentivized participation.

Transparency allows for awareness and protection, not only from within (people holding bitcoin) but from outsiders or newcomers who learn about Bitcoin when threats like a nation-state, corporate or central bank attack becomes known.

The transparent blockchain makes any nefarious action-like a 51% attack or regulatory overreach-obvious, which can spark action from people who aren’t yet in the ecosystem.

They might buy Bitcoin, run a node, or even push back politically, all because they see the threat, learn about it and want to protect or support the network’s integrity or the ideas and or the associated implications (private property rights, free speech, sound money etc).

This underscores Bitcoin’s strength: its openness turns potential vulnerabilities into a call to action, growing its resilience and adoption.

Tools such as CoinJoin, Lightning Network, and eCash, alongside platforms like Nostr, enhance practical fungibility by enabling private, uncensorable transactions without sacrificing the base layer's integrity.

External interventions, like government restrictions, may attempt to distort market behaviors, as seen historically with gold bans or cash tracking, but these do not undermine Bitcoin's intrinsic properties.

Rather, Bitcoin's decentralized, unalterable cap and nation-state-resistant design erode centralized control, defunding mechanisms of arbitrary regulation.

This ensures its sound money properties-scarcity, portability, divisibility, fungibility, durability, verifiability, and universal demand-sustain unmatched global adoption, outstripping alternatives prone to centralized risks.

First, to address the strawman claim: I'm not misrepresenting anything.

You implied certain market actors reject certain utxos or treat the differently, this often happens to honor lgovernment restrictions (like blacklisting bills) but not always, its also by individual choice and again, all such cases are irrelevant. None of that affects fungibility, as I said.

I know Seth's work, and he is wrong. You should trust one persons article. I'd recommend a variety of sources, historical and acclaimed economists are valuable here.

Seth's point about utxos is half right but misses the mark on fungibility.

UTXOs have unique blockchain histories, so some exchanges or users might reject ones linked to, say, illicit wallets.

But fungibility in Bitcoin applies at the level of satoshis, the smallest unit, not UTXOs.

The market generally treats one satoshi as equal to another in value 100 million satoshis make a Bitcoin, always.

If some market actors reject a utxo, that’s an external preference, like refusing a worn $10 bill or a blacklisted dollar or bank account the government warns you about or tells you not to use, or a bank account you choose not to so business with or money that you know was connected to something you don't want to be apart of. None of that changes a satoshi’s inherent interchangeability.

As Investopedia defines it, fungibility is when units are substitutable with equal value in exchange, driven by market acceptance.

A 2024 FasterCapital article backs this, noting money (or crypto like Bitcoin) is fungible when its units are seen as equivalent, regardless of technical tracking like utxos.

Compare this to cash: even if a government tracks serial numbers (like utxos), a $10 bill remains fungible because the market sees it as equal to another $10 bill in trade.

Bitcoin’s satoshis work the same way, fungibility holds unless the entire market rejects specific units, which isn't common, like with dollars for example.

Economists like Mises (1912) and Hayek (1976) emphasize fungibility as market-driven interchangeability, not negated by specific rejections.

Fungibility’s about equal value in trade, not every single person accepting every single unit.

That's a quote from your note

First, to address the strawman claim: I'm not misrepresenting anything.

You implied certain market actors reject certain utxos or treat the differently, this often happens to honor lgovernment restrictions (like blacklisting bills) but not always, its also by individual choice and again, all such cases are irrelevant. None of that affects fungibility, as I said.

I know Seth's work, and he is wrong. You shouldn't trust one persons work/article. I'd recommend a variety of sources, historical and acclaimed economists are valuable here.

Seth's point about utxos is half right but misses the mark on fungibility.

UTXOs have unique blockchain histories, so some exchanges or users might reject ones linked to, say, illicit wallets.

But fungibility in Bitcoin applies at the level of satoshis, the smallest unit, not UTXOs.

The market generally treats one satoshi as equal to another in value 100 million satoshis make a Bitcoin, always.

If some market actors reject a utxo, that’s an external preference, like refusing a worn $10 bill or a blacklisted dollar or bank account the government warns you about or tells you not to use, or a bank account you choose not to so business with or money that you know was connected to something you don't want to be apart of. None of that changes a satoshi’s inherent interchangeability.

As Investopedia defines it, fungibility is when units are substitutable with equal value in exchange, driven by market acceptance.

A 2024 FasterCapital article backs this, noting money (or crypto like Bitcoin) is fungible when its units are seen as equivalent, regardless of technical tracking like utxos.

Compare this to cash: even if a government tracks serial numbers (like utxos), a $10 bill remains fungible because the market sees it as equal to another $10 bill in trade.

Bitcoin’s satoshis work the same way, fungibility holds unless the entire market rejects specific units, which isn't common, like with dollars for example.

Economists like Mises (1912) and Hayek (1976) emphasize fungibility as market-driven interchangeability, not negated by specific rejections.

Fungibility’s about equal value in trade, not every single person accepting every single unit.

Bitcoin’s fungibility, like that of cash, hinges on market acceptance.

One satoshi equals another because users treat them as interchangeable, as noted in economic definitions like Investopedia’s, which ties fungibility to equal value in exchange.

The UTXO distinction is irrelevant to Bitcoin’s fungibility because the market ultimately values satoshis, not their transaction history, unless specific actors (like exchanges) impose restrictions. Even then, those are external barriers, not a change to the intrinsic equivalence of satoshis, just as a blacklisted $10 bill remains worth $10 to anyone who accepts it.

Per a 2024 FasterCapital article, fungibility is about assets being substitutable, driven by market behavior, not technical quirks like UTXOs or government rules.

Sure, UTXOs have unique histories, but satoshis are fungible because the market treats them as equal, like dollars. That technical detail doesn’t change Bitcoin’s fungibility, it’s still about equal value in trade, not government control.

Since the first use of the term to present day, economists, governments, institutions and dictionaries universally have discussed fungibility as an economic property, particularly in the context of money, emphasizing its inherent nature rather than government control.

No one, not even a government backed source contradicts this.

The consensus is rock-solid across the board-fungibility is about units being interchangeable with equal value, as defined by market behavior, not government decrees.

Not even government-affiliated sources, like economic textbooks or a central bank publication, like those from the Federal Reserve or IMF, claims fungibility stems from state control; they focus on legal tender or regulation affecting circulation, which is a separate issue.

There is no credible professional, economist, institution, or government source that contradicts the definition of fungibility as an inherent economic property tied to market acceptance rather than government control.

Definitions from sources like Investopedia, Wikipedia (2025), and Black’s Law Dictionary (1891) consistently describe fungibility as the interchangeability of equal units, like money or commodities, based on their uniform value in trade.

Economists from Adam Smith (1776) to Carl Menger (1871), William Stanley Jevons (1875), Ludwig von Mises (1912), Friedrich Hayek (1976), Milton Friedman (1960), Murray Rothbard (1962), and Paul Krugman (1999) all frame fungibility as a market-driven trait, not something governments dictate.

A 2018 ResearchGate paper and FasterCapital’s 2024 article reinforce this, emphasizing fungibility’s basis in rational indifference to swapping equal units.

No institution or expert argues that government bans or decrees redefine a $10 bill’s intrinsic equivalence to another.

The term itself, derived from the Latin fungibilis (meaning substitutable), was used in legal texts as early as the 17th century to describe interchangeable goods, like grain or coins, and likely entered economics from there.

And in 18th-century English law, fungibility described goods where one unit is interchangeable with another, such as grain or money. It was often tied to commodities.

In late 19th century legal/economic discussions, such as those in Black’s Law Dictionary (first published 1891), which defines fungible goods as interchangeable, like money or commodities.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) indirectly touched on fungibility when describing money’s role as a universal medium of exchange, where units are interchangeable.

Carl Menger, in his 1871 book Principles of Economics, further laid the groundwork by discussing how money’s value comes from its uniform acceptance in trade.

In Principles of Economics, describes money’s role as a fungible good because each unit is accepted as equivalent, based on its utility in exchange, not state control.

William Stanley Jevons in his 1875 book Money and the Mechanism of Exchange.

He uses the term explicitly when describing money’s properties, noting its fungibility as the quality that makes one unit interchangeable with another, emphasizing its role in trade.

Ludwig von Mises, in his 1912 work The Theory of Money and Credit, describes money’s fungibility as a core trait, where each unit is interchangeable because of its uniform value in exchange, independent of external restrictions.

He specifically to the market’s acceptance, not government authority.

Similarly, Friedrich Hayek, in The Denationalisation of Money from 1976, argues that money’s fungibility stems from its role as a medium of exchange, not from state mandates, even suggesting private currencies can be fungible without government involvement.

Milton Friedman, in his 1960 A Program for Monetary Stability, notes money’s interchangeability as key to its function, separate from government restrictions like capital controls.

Murray Rothbard, in his 1962 book Man, Economy, and State, emphasizes that money’s fungibility comes from its uniform value in trade, a market-driven trait, not something governments can redefine.

He sees it as a natural outcome of people treating units as equal.

And for the Statists out there, even Paul Krugman has touched on fungibility indirectly in his writings on currency, like in his 1999 book The Return of Depression Economics, noting that money’s interchangeability is what makes it function, regardless of regulatory barriers.

None of these economists frame fungibility as government-controlled; they treat it as an intrinsic economic characteristic.

Dictionaries, institutions, financial education websites written by experts, even wikipedia, institutions and economists including those backed by the government universally define money’s fungibility as its inherent interchangeability, and specifically not something governments dictate. It’s about market value, not legal status or any other imposed restraint.

Since the first use of the term to present day, economists, governments, institutions and dictionaries universally have discussed fungibility as an economic property, particularly in the context of money, emphasizing its inherent nature rather than government control.

No one, not even a government backed source contradicts this.

The consensus is rock-solid across the board-fungibility is about units being interchangeable with equal value, as defined by market behavior, not government decrees.

Not even government-affiliated sources, like economic textbooks or a central bank publication, like those from the Federal Reserve or IMF, claims fungibility stems from state control; they focus on legal tender or regulation affecting circulation, which is a separate issue.

There is no credible professional, economist, institution, or government source that contradicts the definition of fungibility as an inherent economic property tied to market acceptance rather than government control.

Definitions from sources like Investopedia, Wikipedia (2025), and Black’s Law Dictionary (1891) consistently describe fungibility as the interchangeability of equal units, like money or commodities, based on their uniform value in trade.

Economists from Adam Smith (1776) to Carl Menger (1871), William Stanley Jevons (1875), Ludwig von Mises (1912), Friedrich Hayek (1976), Milton Friedman (1960), Murray Rothbard (1962), and Paul Krugman (1999) all frame fungibility as a market-driven trait, not something governments dictate.

A 2018 ResearchGate paper and FasterCapital’s 2024 article reinforce this, emphasizing fungibility’s basis in rational indifference to swapping equal units.

No institution or expert argues that government bans or decrees redefine a $10 bill’s intrinsic equivalence to another.

The term itself, derived from the Latin fungibilis (meaning substitutable), was used in legal texts as early as the 17th century to describe interchangeable goods, like grain or coins, and likely entered economics from there.

And in 18th-century English law, fungibility described goods where one unit is interchangeable with another, such as grain or money. It was often tied to commodities.

In late 19th century legal/economic discussions, such as those in Black’s Law Dictionary (first published 1891), which defines fungible goods as interchangeable, like money or commodities.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) indirectly touched on fungibility when describing money’s role as a universal medium of exchange, where units are interchangeable.

Carl Menger, in his 1871 book Principles of Economics, further laid the groundwork by discussing how money’s value comes from its uniform acceptance in trade.

In Principles of Economics, describes money’s role as a fungible good because each unit is accepted as equivalent, based on its utility in exchange, not state control.

William Stanley Jevons in his 1875 book Money and the Mechanism of Exchange.

He uses the term explicitly when describing money’s properties, noting its fungibility as the quality that makes one unit interchangeable with another, emphasizing its role in trade.

Ludwig von Mises, in his 1912 work The Theory of Money and Credit, describes money’s fungibility as a core trait, where each unit is interchangeable because of its uniform value in exchange, independent of external restrictions.

He specifically to the market’s acceptance, not government authority.

Similarly, Friedrich Hayek, in The Denationalisation of Money from 1976, argues that money’s fungibility stems from its role as a medium of exchange, not from state mandates, even suggesting private currencies can be fungible without government involvement.

Milton Friedman, in his 1960 A Program for Monetary Stability, notes money’s interchangeability as key to its function, separate from government restrictions like capital controls.

Murray Rothbard, in his 1962 book Man, Economy, and State, emphasizes that money’s fungibility comes from its uniform value in trade, a market-driven trait, not something governments can redefine.

He sees it as a natural outcome of people treating units as equal.

And for the Statists out there, even Paul Krugman has touched on fungibility indirectly in his writings on currency, like in his 1999 book The Return of Depression Economics, noting that money’s interchangeability is what makes it function, regardless of regulatory barriers.

None of these economists frame fungibility as government-controlled; they treat it as an intrinsic economic characteristic.

Dictionaries, institutions, financial education websites written by experts, even wikipedia, institutions and economists including those backed by the government universally define money’s fungibility as its inherent interchangeability, and specifically not something governments dictate. It’s about market value, not legal status or any other imposed restraint.

A government can't decide if something is fungible or not.

The government can limit how you use a specific bill, but that doesn’t make it less fungible, fungibility is about the bill’s equal value, not whether it’s blocked.

Fungibility is an inherent economic property where one unit of a good, like a $10 bill, is interchangeable with another of the same value in a free exchange.

A blacklisted bill might be harder to spend in a regulated system, but in principle, its value remains equal, one $10 bill still represents the same purchasing power as another to anyone willing to accept it.

If a new $10 bill is issued and the old ones lose value, it's not because the government says they're illegal or worthless. It's because the market, meaning people, decide not to accept them at the same value.

Fungibility hinges on market agreement that each $10 bill is interchangeable with another.

If people start treating old bills as less valuable or reject them, that's what breaks fungibility, not the government's decree.

As Mises in 1912 and Hayek in 1976 pointed out, money's fungibility comes from its uniform acceptance in trade, not state control.

This isn't my opinion, this is objectively what fungibility means, regardless of what anybody thinks it should or wants it to mean.

If the government blacklists a bill’s serial number or restricts a digital transaction, it’s imposing an external restriction, not changing the bill’s intrinsic value or equivalence to another $10 bill.

Government actions, like tracking serial numbers or seizing assets, affect how money is used or monitored, but fungibility is about the asset's equal acceptance by other people.

Government singling out certain money doesn't change the money's inherent properties, they are imposing restrictions on those properties, not changing them.

Even with gold, its fungibility as a material (one ounce equals another) holds regardless of whether a coin is stamped or tracked.

If a coin is banned, the gold’s not just worth the same when melted down, it still is of the same economic value.

A banned book is still a book, same as a blacklisted $10 bill is still worth $10 to anyone who'll take it. Fungibility is about the bill's equal value, not government rules, per economic definitions like Investopedia's.

A book isn't fungible because they are unique, not because what the government says or does.

Other non fungible assets like real estate or art, governments don’t make them non fungible; their unique traits do. Money’s fungibility is the opposite, baked into its design as equal units.

From investopedia, fungibility means each unit is substitutable for another of the same kind, focusing on the asset’s nature, not external rules.

Government restrictions affect circulation, not the economic trait of fungibility, as noted in a 2018 ResearchGate paper: Fungibility implies rational indifference to exchanging one unit for another of equal nominal value.

A 2025 Wikipedia update even distinguishes fungibility from liquidity, noting that fungibility is about unit equivalence, not ease of exchange, which further separates it from regulatory control.

FasterCapital’s 2024 piece on fungible assets, which emphasizes money’s role without linking it to government control.

The 2018 ResearchGate paper titled The Identity, Fungibility, and Anonymity of Money for a scholarly take on money’s inherent interchangeability.

These all clarify that fungibility is an economic property, not a government-controlled switch.

The government can limit how you use a specific bill, but that doesn’t make it less fungible, fungibility is about the money’s equal value, not whether it’s blocked.

The ban only affects its legal use, not its identity or value in exchange.

How many dollar bills or digital dollar have you seen that are worth more or less than another digital dollar or dollar bill of the same amount? Answer: None, because they are fungible.

Notable economists have discussed fungibility as an economic property, particularly in the context of money, emphasizing its inherent nature rather than government control.

The term itself, derived from the Latin fungibilis (meaning substitutable), was used in legal texts as early as the 17th century to describe interchangeable goods, like grain or coins, and likely entered economics from there.

And in 18th-century English law, fungibility described goods where one unit is interchangeable with another, such as grain or money. It was often tied to commodities.

In late 19th century legal/economic discussions, such as those in Black’s Law Dictionary (first published 1891), which defines fungible goods as interchangeable, like money or commodities.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) indirectly touched on fungibility when describing money’s role as a universal medium of exchange, where units are interchangeable.

Carl Menger, in his 1871 book Principles of Economics, further laid the groundwork by discussing how money’s value comes from its uniform acceptance in trade.

In his 1871 Principles of Economics, describes money’s role as a fungible good because each unit is accepted as equivalent, based on its utility in exchange, not state control.

William Stanley Jevons in his 1875 book Money and the Mechanism of Exchange.

He uses the term explicitly when describing money’s properties, noting its fungibility as the quality that makes one unit interchangeable with another, emphasizing its role in trade.

Ludwig von Mises, in his 1912 work The Theory of Money and Credit, describes money’s fungibility as a core trait, where each unit is interchangeable because of its uniform value in exchange, independent of external restrictions.

He specifically to the market’s acceptance, not government authority.

Similarly, Friedrich Hayek, in The Denationalisation of Money from 1976, argues that money’s fungibility stems from its role as a medium of exchange, not from state mandates, even suggesting private currencies can be fungible without government involvement.

Milton Friedman, in his 1960 A Program for Monetary Stability, notes money’s interchangeability as key to its function, separate from government restrictions like capital controls.

Murray Rothbard, in his 1962 book Man, Economy, and State, emphasizes that money’s fungibility comes from its uniform value in trade, a market-driven trait, not something governments can redefine.

He sees it as a natural outcome of people treating units as equal.

And for the Statists out there, even Paul Krugman has touched on fungibility indirectly in his writings on currency, like in his 1999 book The Return of Depression Economics, noting that money’s interchangeability is what makes it function, regardless of regulatory barriers.

None of these economists frame fungibility as government-controlled; they treat it as an intrinsic economic characteristic.

Dictionaries, institutions, financial education websites written by experts, even wikipedia, institutions and economists including those backed by the government universally define money’s fungibility as its inherent interchangeability, and specifically not something governments dictate. It’s about market value, not legal status or any other imposed restraint.

Bitcoin’s fungibility, like that of cash, hinges on market acceptance.

One satoshi equals another because users treat them as interchangeable, as noted in economic definitions like Investopedia’s, which ties fungibility to equal value in exchange.

The UTXO distinction is irrelevant to Bitcoin’s fungibility because the market ultimately values satoshis, not their transaction history, unless specific actors (like exchanges) impose restrictions. Even then, those are external barriers, not a change to the intrinsic equivalence of satoshis, just as a blacklisted $10 bill remains worth $10 to anyone who accepts it.

Per a 2024 FasterCapital article, fungibility is about assets being substitutable, driven by market behavior, not technical quirks like UTXOs or government rules.

Sure, UTXOs have unique histories, but satoshis are fungible because the market treats them as equal, like dollars. That technical detail doesn’t change Bitcoin’s fungibility, it’s still about equal value in trade, not government control.

A government can't decide if something is fungible or not.

The government can limit how you use a specific bill, but that doesn’t make it less fungible, fungibility is about the bill’s equal value, not whether it’s blocked.

Fungibility is an inherent economic property where one unit of a good, like a $10 bill, is interchangeable with another of the same value in a free exchange.

A blacklisted bill might be harder to spend in a regulated system, but in principle, its value remains equal, one $10 bill still represents the same purchasing power as another to anyone willing to accept it.

If a new $10 bill is issued and the old ones lose value, it's not because the government says they're illegal or worthless. It's because the market, meaning people, decide not to accept them at the same value.

Fungibility hinges on market agreement that each $10 bill is interchangeable with another.

If people start treating old bills as less valuable or reject them, that's what breaks fungibility, not the government's decree.

As Mises in 1912 and Hayek in 1976 pointed out, money's fungibility comes from its uniform acceptance in trade, not state control.

This isn't my opinion, this is objectively what fungibility means, regardless of what anybody thinks it should or wants it to mean.

If the government blacklists a bill’s serial number or restricts a digital transaction, it’s imposing an external restriction, not changing the bill’s intrinsic value or equivalence to another $10 bill.

Government actions, like tracking serial numbers or seizing assets, affect how money is used or monitored, but fungibility is about the asset's equal acceptance by other people.

Government singling out certain money doesn't change the money's inherent properties, they are imposing restrictions on those properties, not changing them.

Even with gold, its fungibility as a material (one ounce equals another) holds regardless of whether a coin is stamped or tracked.

If a coin is banned, the gold’s not just worth the same when melted down, it still is of the same economic value.

A banned book is still a book, same as a blacklisted $10 bill is still worth $10 to anyone who'll take it. Fungibility is about the bill's equal value, not government rules, per economic definitions like Investopedia's.

A book isn't fungible because they are unique, not because what the government says or does.

Other non fungible assets like real estate or art, governments don’t make them non fungible; their unique traits do. Money’s fungibility is the opposite, baked into its design as equal units.

From investopedia, fungibility means each unit is substitutable for another of the same kind, focusing on the asset’s nature, not external rules.

Government restrictions affect circulation, not the economic trait of fungibility, as noted in a 2018 ResearchGate paper: Fungibility implies rational indifference to exchanging one unit for another of equal nominal value.

A 2025 Wikipedia update even distinguishes fungibility from liquidity, noting that fungibility is about unit equivalence, not ease of exchange, which further separates it from regulatory control.

FasterCapital’s 2024 piece on fungible assets, which emphasizes money’s role without linking it to government control.

The 2018 ResearchGate paper titled The Identity, Fungibility, and Anonymity of Money for a scholarly take on money’s inherent interchangeability.

These all clarify that fungibility is an economic property, not a government-controlled switch.

The government can limit how you use a specific bill, but that doesn’t make it less fungible, fungibility is about the money’s equal value, not whether it’s blocked.

The ban only affects its legal use, not its identity or value in exchange.

How many dollar bills or digital dollar have you seen that are worth more or less than another digital dollar or dollar bill of the same amount? Answer: None, because they are fungible.

Notable economists have discussed fungibility as an economic property, particularly in the context of money, emphasizing its inherent nature rather than government control.

The term itself, derived from the Latin fungibilis (meaning substitutable), was used in legal texts as early as the 17th century to describe interchangeable goods, like grain or coins, and likely entered economics from there.

And in 18th-century English law, fungibility described goods where one unit is interchangeable with another, such as grain or money. It was often tied to commodities.

In late 19th century legal/economic discussions, such as those in Black’s Law Dictionary (first published 1891), which defines fungible goods as interchangeable, like money or commodities.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) indirectly touched on fungibility when describing money’s role as a universal medium of exchange, where units are interchangeable.

Carl Menger, in his 1871 book Principles of Economics, further laid the groundwork by discussing how money’s value comes from its uniform acceptance in trade.

In his 1871 Principles of Economics, describes money’s role as a fungible good because each unit is accepted as equivalent, based on its utility in exchange, not state control.

William Stanley Jevons in his 1875 book Money and the Mechanism of Exchange.

He uses the term explicitly when describing money’s properties, noting its fungibility as the quality that makes one unit interchangeable with another, emphasizing its role in trade.

Ludwig von Mises, in his 1912 work The Theory of Money and Credit, describes money’s fungibility as a core trait, where each unit is interchangeable because of its uniform value in exchange, independent of external restrictions.

He specifically to the market’s acceptance, not government authority.

Similarly, Friedrich Hayek, in The Denationalisation of Money from 1976, argues that money’s fungibility stems from its role as a medium of exchange, not from state mandates, even suggesting private currencies can be fungible without government involvement.

Milton Friedman, in his 1960 A Program for Monetary Stability, notes money’s interchangeability as key to its function, separate from government restrictions like capital controls.

Murray Rothbard, in his 1962 book Man, Economy, and State, emphasizes that money’s fungibility comes from its uniform value in trade, a market-driven trait, not something governments can redefine.

He sees it as a natural outcome of people treating units as equal.

And for the Statists out there, even Paul Krugman has touched on fungibility indirectly in his writings on currency, like in his 1999 book The Return of Depression Economics, noting that money’s interchangeability is what makes it function, regardless of regulatory barriers.

None of these economists frame fungibility as government-controlled; they treat it as an intrinsic economic characteristic.

Dictionaries, institutions, financial education websites written by experts, even wikipedia, institutions and economists including those backed by the government universally define money’s fungibility as its inherent interchangeability, and specifically not something governments dictate. It’s about market value, not legal status or any other imposed restraint.

Like all my notes, not spam, just lots of relevant information to what you expressed interest and misunderstanding in. some things reiterated to emphasize and explain points you brought up

Since the first use of the term to present day, economists, governments, institutions and dictionaries universally have discussed fungibility as an economic property, particularly in the context of money, emphasizing its inherent nature rather than government control.

No one, not even a government backed source contradicts this.

The consensus is rock-solid across the board-fungibility is about units being interchangeable with equal value, as defined by market behavior, not government decrees.

Not even government-affiliated sources, like economic textbooks or a central bank publication, like those from the Federal Reserve or IMF, claims fungibility stems from state control; they focus on legal tender or regulation affecting circulation, which is a separate issue.

There is no credible professional, economist, institution, or government source that contradicts the definition of fungibility as an inherent economic property tied to market acceptance rather than government control.

Definitions from sources like Investopedia, Wikipedia (2025), and Black’s Law Dictionary (1891) consistently describe fungibility as the interchangeability of equal units, like money or commodities, based on their uniform value in trade.

Economists from Adam Smith (1776) to Carl Menger (1871), William Stanley Jevons (1875), Ludwig von Mises (1912), Friedrich Hayek (1976), Milton Friedman (1960), Murray Rothbard (1962), and Paul Krugman (1999) all frame fungibility as a market-driven trait, not something governments dictate.

A 2018 ResearchGate paper and FasterCapital’s 2024 article reinforce this, emphasizing fungibility’s basis in rational indifference to swapping equal units.

No institution or expert argues that government bans or decrees redefine a $10 bill’s intrinsic equivalence to another.

The term itself, derived from the Latin fungibilis (meaning substitutable), was used in legal texts as early as the 17th century to describe interchangeable goods, like grain or coins, and likely entered economics from there.

And in 18th-century English law, fungibility described goods where one unit is interchangeable with another, such as grain or money. It was often tied to commodities.

In late 19th century legal/economic discussions, such as those in Black’s Law Dictionary (first published 1891), which defines fungible goods as interchangeable, like money or commodities.

Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) indirectly touched on fungibility when describing money’s role as a universal medium of exchange, where units are interchangeable.

Carl Menger, in his 1871 book Principles of Economics, further laid the groundwork by discussing how money’s value comes from its uniform acceptance in trade.

In Principles of Economics, describes money’s role as a fungible good because each unit is accepted as equivalent, based on its utility in exchange, not state control.

William Stanley Jevons in his 1875 book Money and the Mechanism of Exchange.

He uses the term explicitly when describing money’s properties, noting its fungibility as the quality that makes one unit interchangeable with another, emphasizing its role in trade.

Ludwig von Mises, in his 1912 work The Theory of Money and Credit, describes money’s fungibility as a core trait, where each unit is interchangeable because of its uniform value in exchange, independent of external restrictions.

He specifically to the market’s acceptance, not government authority.

Similarly, Friedrich Hayek, in The Denationalisation of Money from 1976, argues that money’s fungibility stems from its role as a medium of exchange, not from state mandates, even suggesting private currencies can be fungible without government involvement.

Milton Friedman, in his 1960 A Program for Monetary Stability, notes money’s interchangeability as key to its function, separate from government restrictions like capital controls.

Murray Rothbard, in his 1962 book Man, Economy, and State, emphasizes that money’s fungibility comes from its uniform value in trade, a market-driven trait, not something governments can redefine.

He sees it as a natural outcome of people treating units as equal.

And for the Statists out there, even Paul Krugman has touched on fungibility indirectly in his writings on currency, like in his 1999 book The Return of Depression Economics, noting that money’s interchangeability is what makes it function, regardless of regulatory barriers.

None of these economists frame fungibility as government-controlled; they treat it as an intrinsic economic characteristic.

Dictionaries, institutions, financial education websites written by experts, even wikipedia, institutions and economists including those backed by the government universally define money’s fungibility as its inherent interchangeability, and specifically not something governments dictate. It’s about market value, not legal status or any other imposed restraint.

I apologize if my response was taken as an insult.

I felt the need to defend myself against the blatant change of subject and the obvious, abrupt subject change away from the conversation

Your notes were not just pointing out a lack of information, they were clearly mocking the posts rather than addressing any point we were discussing or the clearly explained content i provided that included detailed information, historical references, examples and references.

I could add the notes i sent to ai and have it plot/list the specific points and the references/resources but im not going to waste my time.

It's quite a claim that you cant see the information in the notes i provided.

But if thats where your truth and integrity is, and that's what you want to say, then i guess i'll just say, for truth and progress, i hope you check it out again

sure, if you want. it just doesn't get us anywhere interesting.

Monero is not fungibile with Bitcoin, so what? we knew that.

but Monero is fungible with other Monero

Bitcoin isn't fungible with other Bitcoin.

on a related note

if the movement of cash was recorded on a ledger anyone could audit, it wouldn't be fungible either.

Couldn’t this debate about fungibility and UTXO credit scores also be applied to entire blockchains? I.e., Monero as a whole is discriminated against just because it is private, and can’t be bought on many exchanges. It seems like this is kind of analogous to the debate about UTXOs. Seems like the problem mostly stems from having to connect back into the fiat system at all, regardless of which asset you’re using.

if they can differentiate between UTXOs it is not fungibile.

they can, so its not. one is NOT "as good as another" because reputation is also transfered due to a known history.

known difference, not fungible.

that's all.

thank you responding to the point under discussion

and NOT just posting a page of AI slop that reiterates the Bitcoin Standard

That's not what fungible means. Fungible means one is as good as the other, like cash, you can give anyone any dollar, hence it's fungible. Regardless of serial numbers or bar codes.

That doesnt mean the state cant track dollars or arbitrarily withold certain dollars. They will try and have tried with all forms of money.

Because they try to make bitcoin non fungible does not make bitcoin non fungible.

Part of the reason bitcoin is revolutionary is because it defunds oppression and arbitrary, forced state overreach. Its an important point and relevant

These issues aren't flaws in Bitcoin's protocol-they're external constraints, like you said in your original post.

Fungibility at the protocol level still holds; one Satoshi is technically equal to another.

The taint or blacklisting is a human layer-governments, exchanges, or analytics firms imposing their rules.

Tools like CoinJoin and Lightning, while not perfect, are part of perpetual advancements on top of bitcoin. Incentives drive governments to try to capture and control, and people are incentivized to innovation to be free.

Bitcoin is revolutionary it is money no one can make more of, and tools can be built on top of it for privacy while bitcoin actively defunds the governments ability to rule arbitrarily by way of a hidden tax through endless debt and money creation, ending their ability to enforce tracking methods or unethical practices against bitcoin.

The tools you mentioned, coinjoin and lightning are still relatively new and there is much to come.

They do give users ways to opt out of that surveillance, and as adoption grows, these tools will become more seamless and advance greatly.

Plus, Bitcoin's decentralized nature means no single entity can enforce these restrictions universally-unlike fiat, where central banks can dictate terms.

That said, concerns about credit scores for addresses are real, repression is real. Chain analysis companies like Chainalysis are building profiles on wallet activity, and some services already use this to flag or block transactions. It's a privacy hit, no doubt.

But nothing in human history has been better at protecting against and defunding fiat money and the rule of law that comes with it.

Bitcoin's open source community is relentless, new privacy solutions keep popping up to counter this, like improved mixing protocols or layer two scaling that obscures transaction details.

Government actions like tracking coins or imposing regulations actually spotlight Bitcoin's value.

When people see moves against private property or sound money, it wakes them up, pushes them to advocate for Bitcoin, even if they're not deep in it themselves.

That growing awareness is huge; it fuels political and social momentum, awareness and education.

And yeah, Bitcoin's hard cap and decentralized setup kneecap governments' ability to print endless fiat to fund wars or prop up markets through subsidies.

It's defunding the very systems trying to enforce things like address blacklisting or coin taint.

These tracking methods are historically common tools of oppression, not new, just repackaged for the digital age.

Bitcoin's base layer fungibility, with one Satoshi always equaling another, stays untouched by that.

Its borderless, immutable, nation-state-resistant nature makes it a unique weapon to dodge centralized overreach.

Concerns about tainted coins and credit scores aren't trivial, but they're not fatal or cause for concern, they are to be expected and they are why bitcoin exists. It wont change in a day and provably, nothing has been as capable as bitcoin

Bitcoin's design lets it evolve through tools like CoinJoin or new privacy tech to keep pushing back.

Bitcoin is not just money but a revolution dismantling centralized control worldwide, ushering in individual human rights and a better, more peaceful world for every person on Earth.

I've had LLMs make shit up, including math, many times during my undergrad work. I used them as research assistants and never trusted them for anything serious. Mostly just for finding references and checking my work or whatever. People are out there making decisions based on what could be made up information. The Meta one admitted to me that it's trained to provide information that sounds plausible if it can't find information. Reassuring as fuck.

Seems a bit self promotional in spirit to me, but could be wrong

i’ve been buying bitcoin and wearing t-shirts my entire life. when did it become larping?

Then no double standard. The gov should use a public and transparent ledger so the people can trace every tax dollar, all military and war spending, etc.

I’m a self proclaimed bitcoin maxi and I do not subscribe to this “creed.” Bitcoin has zero counterparty risk, but there are certainly risks (loss of keys, theft of keys, kyc/privacy, send to wrong address, exchange risks, 51% attack, etc). There are tools/methods to minimize these risks but it would be foolish to call anything zero risk. That said I will happily take the risk/reward of Bitcoin to anything else.

governments and big tech are going to kyc most of the internet

most people will comply

Lol you're still arguing with that guy? That guy is still trying to call you a Keynesian lol these people man.

That's the problem. So your solution is a massive problem.

The egregore wants us to argue with one another instead of letting cooler heads prevail so we can analyze things directly and come up with solutions.

UoA is ultimately a consensus in our minds.

Change your mind and by that change the consensus. One by one. Live outside the system wherecfiat accounting bybothers has diminishing effects on your mental health.

Do you ever feel like fun times are fleeting?

Like going out with friends on a weekend or sleeping with a beautiful woman. Feels great in the moment but then the moment passes. You remember it but don’t derive the same pleasure from the memory. So what’s the point?

Is there an argument to be made that a fixed supply makes Bitcoin more in demand, which means merchants and other receivers in a transaction will start to demand it as opposed to other currencies?

Those people don't know what mempools are.

Me thinking the mempool is indicative of societies acceptance of current market price.

Empty/low fee pools indicate disagreement and hodling

Heavy pools indicating peak bull markets

MoE changes the game.

I don't trust ChatGPT to understand that lightning isn't Bitcoin