I do not have any issues with running my nodes now in terms of bandwith, surfing, netflix, gaming, streaming ect. Everything works fine with the full nodes that I have setup and they do not interfere with the rest of the things I use the internet for in my home. I can also predict that eight megabyte blocks would also personally not be a problem for me. However like I said I am in the minority in terms of the quality of my connection here in the Netherlands, I can download over two hundred gigabytes overnight using bit torrent while still allowing enough bandwidth for my full nodes to operate. We could all careless about your own node experience. The only important node is the one I run. There has indeed been a trend in the reduction of full nodes over the last few years, which was to be expected from the introduction of simplified payment verification and the existence of custodian type services like Coinbase. Fortunately however recently at least it seems like it has stabilized somewhat most likely in part due to the existence of competing implementations, in this sense at least having competition on the implementation level can give people more reasons the run full nodes.
It is also good to keep in mind that node count will increase with adoption, since when more people discover Bitcoin there will be increased numbers of people that have reasons to run full nodes, whether it is a business requiring independent full validation or it is individuals running full nodes for altruistic or idealistic reasons. Which is why I think that possibly hampering adoption in order to maintain decentralization would be counter productive. So first you recognize the negative trend in the context of major historic growth in adoption then you go on to propose the exact opposite, that node count will increase with adoption when all signs point to the opposite. Hampering decentralization in order to further adoption is not counter productive?  |
|
|
|
If the time comes that certain coins are considered permanently clean and others permanently dirty in a future regulated world system,
the community as a whole should purposefully contaminate all clean coins found on the blockchain.
And what incentive does anyone have in doing that? Should we use the Bitcoin Honor System(TM) and hope people are willing to devalue their clean money? I have a better idea. Fungibility. The idea is not that one should have an incentive to do it but that it is possible. If I can willingly contaminate every known addresses containing "clean" coins this just goes to show you how worthless and patently unworkable the concept of blacklisting is. |
|
|
|
Hold on here. I'm not dismissing the privacy issues. While the two may seem related they are not the same and my position is that fungibility is not a problem.
OK, I understand that you are differentiating privacy and fungibility, but I believe you need perfect privacy to have perfect fungibility. If you are intent on going through Coinbase to process your Bitcoin transactions then you are completely missing the point and might as well use your VISA credit card. Bitcoin enables unprecedented proliferation of the black market/informal economy. There are no government regulations or "blacklists" that will resist this change of paradigm. Discrimination of economic participants based on the origins of their money is a one way street to destruction of your market reputation. Again: Bitcoin exists so that you can work outside of this system. I understand it takes a bit of foresight to imagine a world where KYC/AML are not a thing anymore but understand that it is coming and it will be all because of Bitcoin.
I'm intent on the best a crypto can be, period. Who mentioned FIAT? If, one day everyone is using only Bitcoin, how will you buy your passport from the government if they won't accept your tainted coins? This here, shows how little imagination and foresight you have. In a world where everyone is using Bitcoin, there will be no such thing as state issued passports. |
|
|
|
The thing is... the fungibility of Bitcoin is hardly a thing you can criticize. Privacy issues? Sure, go right ahead but a careful analysis of the fungibility FUD shows that the arguments simply do not hold up. That is because most of them are looking at Bitcoin from behind fiat lenses which is the definition of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Which argument doesn't hold up? The fact that the units aren't interchangeable? Hmm let's see: So far we have: - Exchanges refusing previously stolen coins - Wallet services banning customers who use gambling sites - Miners selling freshly minted coins at a premium I don't know about you, but to me it's starting to seem like the units aren't interchangeable. - Arbitrary third-party discrimination - Arbitrary third-party discrimination - Arbitrary user preference. If I decide to pay 2000$/oz for certain gold coins, that doesn't make gold non-fungible does it? |
|
|
|
I'm guessing you also hail from the bizarro fiat zombies world where money is literally burning holes through pockets and you have got to spend it like RIGHT NOW.
Actually, I'm part of this community because I want to see a future where decentralized crypto eventually replaces fiat. Sure, it's fun to be a hippie anarchist living outside "the system" for the time being. But some of us are trying to change the world. And in the real, modern world, consumers transact with businesses. Understand that I was mostly addressing your interpretation of what "money is useful for" as if your bitcoins are only good if you can spend them at Bitpay affiliated merchants. Transacting with businesses that are only interested in Bitcoin because of the free press it provides them and proceed to dump your payments to fiat are in no way helpful in "changing the world". Either way.. yes I do believe the future of crypto commerce depends on participants not relying on third parties.
I'm not sure why that sounds so strange? If that is not the plan why bother with crypto at all?
It sounds so strange because crypto is supposed to be trustless! It shouldn't have to "depend" on anything! It shouldn't have to depend on businesses being cool and it shouldn't have to depend on people not shopping at Walmart and it shouldn't have to depend on us all using side chains. Yet you choose to depend on Bitpay, Coinbases and the likes to handle your Bitcoin business. That's a rather curious rhetoric. Again, I could careless if some fiat store starts using all kinds of blacklisting services I'll be glad to avoid doing business with them and as I've previously said they'll soon discover this is not an economically sustainable model.
You should, because it's proof your money isn't equal! And pretending otherwise won't make it so. No, it shows that economic participants may enforce arbitrary preference especially when they have to suck up to their banking sponsors. If the Chinese spot down the street doesn't accept my gold bullion it doesn't mean my "money is not equal", they just don't want to deal with it. In the same way, fiat businesses don't want to deal with Bitcoin so they rely on third-parties to process these transactions. Users that decide to deal with such businesses do so at their own risk as it works against the p2p principles of Bitcoin. How will you feel, as a customer, being discriminated because a couple of your satoshis once crossed paths with "tainted" coins?
I would feel shitty knowing that such discrimination wouldn't even be impossible if only Bitcoin were fungible. And are you actually suggesting that businesses have never discriminated against their customers despite it being bad for business? Do you live in the United States? Again, the problem is not one of fungibility, but that a Bitcoin business would decide to snoop into his customers' coin history and discriminate him on that basis. I would advise you stay away from these kinds as surely no good will come out of them. |
|
|
|
These recurring fungibility threads have FUD written all over them.
It is not a problem and will never be if you use Bitcoin as intended.
Why design it to rely on something when it can be built into the core protocol, eliminating "improper use"? You don't have to rely on anything to use Bitcoin and not be involved with any of this "fungibility" FUD. Quite the opposite: as long as you deal with your Bitcoin business in a purely peer-to-peer way, as Satoshi intended, this is not a problem. A fully private chain involves trade-offs, it is not so simple as "stick ring signatures into Bitcoin and we're done here". That's why sidechains are the most natural evolution if you desire to transact anonymously. You seem to dismiss the privacy/fungibility problem, and at the same time suggest a solution. If privacy/fungibility were not a problem, you wouldn't need a side chain to fix it. Perhaps a side chain will give the privacy/fungibility desired. But then only coins which spend their entire life on that chain will remain private and fungible. Will people also need to check so they can be sure they are using a privacy side chain? There's that reliance again... What if the side chain decides to remove its privacy features at some stage? Find a new one? Fungibility issues are not FUD, they are fact. The evidence shows this - so the only example I know if is Coinbase, but that's just the beginning. Say at some stage government regulations stipulate tainted coins will not be accepted in certain institutions/retailers/wherever. Are your Bitcoins still fungible then? There is also the fact that leaving Bitcoin unchanged is enabling one of the greatest surveillance tools of all time. It may not be as simple as sticking ring-signatures in there to fix it, however I think we should do something instead of ignoring a glaring problem. Hold on here. I'm not dismissing the privacy issues. While the two may seem related they are not the same and my position is that fungibility is not a problem. Do we need a sidechain to eventually accommodate private transactions? You bet. Does Bitcoin's transparent ledger creates a fungibility issue, absolutely not. (By the way you seem a bit confused as to what sidechains are. May I advise you read up a bit on them before we move forward with this particular aspect of our discussion ) Now as for your "facts", let us address them. Somehow you propose that because a fiat regulated third-party discriminated certain coins based on their history that it reflects on Bitcoin's fungibility. Should we be any surprised that a US bank attempts to undermine the viability & trust of a currency they do not control? If you are intent on going through Coinbase to process your Bitcoin transactions then you are completely missing the point and might as well use your VISA credit card. Bitcoin enables unprecedented proliferation of the black market/informal economy. There are no government regulations or "blacklists" that will resist this change of paradigm. Discrimination of economic participants based on the origins of their money is a one way street to destruction of your market reputation. Again: Bitcoin exists so that you can work outside of this system. I understand it takes a bit of foresight to imagine a world where KYC/AML are not a thing anymore but understand that it is coming and it will be all because of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
These recurring fungibility threads have FUD written all over them.
Well, next time I won't waste my time explaining myself if you label it as mere FUD in the end. Did you start this thread? I appreciate your "explanations", I simply disagree with them. I'm not certain whether you are involved or not with the Monero project but you should know I appreciate the efforts made toward more private alternatives. I'm merely pointing out that there is a recurrent trend recently from certain pundits that seem interested in making this "fungibility" debate the next great "Bitcoin issue". The problem is that it's becoming impossible to criticize bitcoin without it immediately being labelled "FUD". The criticism is necessary for it to evolve, but unfortunately a lot of people think that it's already perfect and no improvements can be made ... we can all just sit on this platform that was designed 6+ years ago and expect there to never be issues. That's not the way the world works. There will always be incentives to do things that work against Satoshi's intentions, and there has to be constant evolution to stay ahead of that. Of course. The thing is... the fungibility of Bitcoin is hardly a thing you can criticize. Privacy issues? Sure, go right ahead but a careful analysis of the fungibility FUD shows that the arguments simply do not hold up. That is because most of them are looking at Bitcoin from behind fiat lenses which is the definition of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Bitcoin exists so that you can work outside of this system. I understand it takes a bit of foresight to imagine a world where KYC/AML are not a thing anymore but understand that it is coming and it will be all because of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Quite the opposite: as long as you deal with your Bitcoin business in a purely peer-to-peer way, as Satoshi intended, this is not a problem.
Right. As long as I don't use Bitcoin for anything that money is useful for, then fungibility won't be a problem So the future of all crypto commerce depends on everyone doing it correctly. Let's stick with localbitcoins and craigslist trades forever. And while we're at it we should all be living in coops. And fuck those businesses who refuse to accept your stolen money because of "liability concerns" ... they're obviously doing it wrong. Satoshi's vision has no room for such B.S. monetary principle's like fungibility. I'm guessing you also hail from the bizarro fiat zombies world where money is literally burning holes through pockets and you have got to spend it like RIGHT NOW. Either way.. yes I do believe the future of crypto commerce depends on participants not relying on third parties. I'm not sure why that sounds so strange? If that is not the plan why bother with crypto at all? Again, I could careless if some fiat store starts using all kinds of blacklisting services I'll be glad to avoid doing business with them and as I've previously said they'll soon discover this is not an economically sustainable model. How will you feel, as a customer, being discriminated because a couple of your satoshis once crossed paths with "tainted" coins? A relevant read: https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/only-the-black-market-matters/ |
|
|
|
These recurring fungibility threads have FUD written all over them.
Well, next time I won't waste my time explaining myself if you label it as mere FUD in the end. Did you start this thread? I appreciate your "explanations", I simply disagree with them. I'm not certain whether you are involved or not with the Monero project but you should know I appreciate the efforts made toward more private alternatives. I'm merely pointing out that there is a recurrent trend recently from certain pundits that seem interested in making this "fungibility" debate the next great "Bitcoin issue". |
|
|
|
These recurring fungibility threads have FUD written all over them.
It is not a problem and will never be if you use Bitcoin as intended.
Why design it to rely on something when it can be built into the core protocol, eliminating "improper use"? You don't have to rely on anything to use Bitcoin and not be involved with any of this "fungibility" FUD. Quite the opposite: as long as you deal with your Bitcoin business in a purely peer-to-peer way, as Satoshi intended, this is not a problem. A fully private chain involves trade-offs, it is not so simple as "stick ring signatures into Bitcoin and we're done here". That's why sidechains are the most natural evolution if you desire to transact anonymously. |
|
|
|
|
These recurring fungibility threads have FUD written all over them.
It is not a problem and will never be if you use Bitcoin as intended.
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin wants to be the best that a currency can possibly be, then surely we need:
1. As close as possible to 100% fungibility.
2. Privacy in transactions - the same as cash transactions.
Anything less than both of these is probably some kind of compromise and/or influenced by institutions (banks, gov, etc). Without the best efforts to achieve these two things, Bitcoin will never be as good as it could be. But that's OK, there is another.
1 & 2 will never happen with bitcoin. Too much political hurdles to overcome to even make a change in the size of blocks, let alone adding anonymity features to the protocol. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain. |
|
|
|
When pruning support is finalised, and the major propagation optimisations are improved, then at that point 2MB seem possible and probably more, but not just because we like the number but we start deploying and observing that the transition is working safely.
Pruned nodes still need to initially download and verify the whole blockchain which remains one of the major pain points in running a node. Moreover we can not rely only on a network of pruned nodes. |
|
|
|
Centralized fiat is fungible by decree.
The only way for a decentralized money to be fungible is for its units to be completely indistinguishable. Sorry, but Bitcoin does not meet that requirement.
Now, perhaps you can argue if it will matter in the future, but the question of whether or not Bitcoin is fungible has been asked and answered. It simply is not
Satoshis are undistinguishable. If I spend two different inputs of one satoshi to the same output you will not be able to identify which is which. |
|
|
|
[...]
I don't disagree that this happens or will happen but IMO the issue as you present it is a construction of fiat parasites especially interested in undermining the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin.
As we slowly move away from this paradigm I believe it will eventually become a non-issue. Moreover I understand there is significant progress being made toward implementation of privacy related features in things such as sidechains which contribute to solve the related issues.
I agree that this is exacerbated by "fiat parasites", but I disagree it comes only from this. Even in a fully Bitcoin-based economy, I don't see why it would disappear. You could still refuse to deal with coins out of belief or social pressure. Think of the US dentist who went to kill this lion and was everywhere in the news: imagine if he had paid for the "right to kill" with bitcoins, that the entire world would know at a given instant would be on an address X. Don't you think some people out there would refuse them for a payment? I believe it will always happen, if you can attach history to coins (in practice outputs). You could also refuse to deal with coins out of legal fear. If you own anything (money or objets) that you know is coming from a theft, you're legally liable as well (fence in English?). If you don't know but didn't take sufficient precautions, and the circonstances should have raised suspicions from you, you're liable as well; at least where I live. Why would the legal system be any different with coins? In fact it's worse: it is much easier to do your due diligence with bitcoins than with real world items, so you can be also accused more easily. EDIT: I forgot about sidechains. A sidechain implementing "confidential transactions" would help with privacy (despite not providing untraceability - that is not hiding the origin of the funds). But they don't solve fungibility: they could be seen like a mixer, and with limited liquidity. Coins seen entering in to be made more private, then seen going out. It is easy to be "hey why did you sent coins to this sidechain?", or "I don't want coins that visibly were mixed on the sidechain!". The reason I believe no meaningful functionality to bring more privacy to the bitcoin protocol any time soon or ever is because it would violate the social contract bitcoin has in place with corporations and businesses that are attempting to be compliant with regulators in their respective countries of operation. Get outta here.... Bitcoin has no such "social contract" with fiat corporations and regulators. That is absolute nonsense. We obviously disagree. Go tell Coinbase that you as a user (hypothetically YOU are) are going to now operate on a side chain or with CT which may make it difficult for them to determine where you coins came from given the original definitive protocol for bitcoin is 100% transparent blockchain. See how much they disagree that the social contract was NOT broken by developers of bitcoin and its users (i.e. Coinbase) for this example. Fuck Coinbase. The only reason why they'd bother with these details is because they need to suck up to fiat institutions. What the hell would I use Coinbase for anyway? Coinbase could go bankrupt for all I know Bitcoin doesn't care and it certainly has no social contract with these banking parasites. The whole system was built on the premise of being permissionless. You think they have a right to say anything if somehow chooses to develop privacy features on top of Bitcoin? I dont use Coinbase either but if you use my example you will see my point. People will use centralized services for some time to come. And I think it will be that way to a certain extent for a very long time, doesnt matter the system. Your supposed perfect world where everyone uses bitcoin to transact and says "fuck you" to any business attempting to operate as an exchange, mixer, payment processor is not going to happen any time soon (within the next 5-10 years), if ever. Sure bitcoin will be still around but I doubt there will be that perfect scenario where the issues I've brought up do not exist. Just because you do not choose to use 3rd party centralized services to transact does not stop others from doing it. And ignoring that fact is actually very ignorant as sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of others to really understand what the implications of those people choosing to operate/transact mean for the overall marketplace. Coinbase is to be used to buy bitcoins. If you are intelligent enough you will move them out of there ASAP. If you are one of these noobs you describe you will buy from Coinbase and use their wallet but seeing as you've bought from them you should expect to have "clean" coins, no?  What you are essentially saying is that people unable to use Bitcoin as it is intended to be might encounter problems.... well frankly that's too bad for them but it has no incidence on Bitcoin. That's like saying Bitcoin has a security issue because of Mt. Gox. No, the problem is the user, not the technology. |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. I find this as a complete BS. You can start selling US dollars that were never used as well at a premium. I blame greed for these and these crazy business that never had enough and are just trying to find a way how to make another dollar more! That's their fault really, for starting this nonsense. Is it still BS principally when a customer gets coins that are not accepted by businesses because it was part of a theft in the past history of those particular coins? It is BS from the User's perspective in that they are being denied usage of the coins they bought legitimately. It is BS and the customer should move his business elsewhere. Assuming he can. There are a lot of hypotheticals to throw out there. But it will be interesting to see who is right in the end. I honestly dont believe bitcoin will ever successfully implement any other protocol level functionality which allows it to operate more privately for users, meaning 100% of users can utilize this function and not get backlash from businesses/corps/govts that want everything to be 100% transparent because "terrorists". Heck the devs can't even come to agreement on the block size issue yet we are to believe they will eventually implement a protocol level change that introduces new privacy features for users? No one is suggesting it would be implemented on the protocol level. Do you know what sidechains are? |
|
|
|
[...]
I don't disagree that this happens or will happen but IMO the issue as you present it is a construction of fiat parasites especially interested in undermining the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin.
As we slowly move away from this paradigm I believe it will eventually become a non-issue. Moreover I understand there is significant progress being made toward implementation of privacy related features in things such as sidechains which contribute to solve the related issues.
I agree that this is exacerbated by "fiat parasites", but I disagree it comes only from this. Even in a fully Bitcoin-based economy, I don't see why it would disappear. You could still refuse to deal with coins out of belief or social pressure. Think of the US dentist who went to kill this lion and was everywhere in the news: imagine if he had paid for the "right to kill" with bitcoins, that the entire world would know at a given instant would be on an address X. Don't you think some people out there would refuse them for a payment? I believe it will always happen, if you can attach history to coins (in practice outputs). You could also refuse to deal with coins out of legal fear. If you own anything (money or objets) that you know is coming from a theft, you're legally liable as well (fence in English?). If you don't know but didn't take sufficient precautions, and the circonstances should have raised suspicions from you, you're liable as well; at least where I live. Why would the legal system be any different with coins? In fact it's worse: it is much easier to do your due diligence with bitcoins than with real world items, so you can be also accused more easily. EDIT: I forgot about sidechains. A sidechain implementing "confidential transactions" would help with privacy (despite not providing untraceability - that is not hiding the origin of the funds). But they don't solve fungibility: they could be seen like a mixer, and with limited liquidity. Coins seen entering in to be made more private, then seen going out. It is easy to be "hey why did you sent coins to this sidechain?", or "I don't want coins that visibly were mixed on the sidechain!". The reason I believe no meaningful functionality to bring more privacy to the bitcoin protocol any time soon or ever is because it would violate the social contract bitcoin has in place with corporations and businesses that are attempting to be compliant with regulators in their respective countries of operation. Get outta here.... Bitcoin has no such "social contract" with fiat corporations and regulators. That is absolute nonsense. We obviously disagree. Go tell Coinbase that you as a user (hypothetically YOU are) are going to now operate on a side chain or with CT which may make it difficult for them to determine where you coins came from given the original definitive protocol for bitcoin is 100% transparent blockchain. See how much they disagree that the social contract was NOT broken by developers of bitcoin and its users (i.e. Coinbase) for this example. Fuck Coinbase. The only reason why they'd bother with these details is because they need to suck up to fiat institutions. What the hell would I use Coinbase for anyway? Coinbase could go bankrupt for all I know Bitcoin doesn't care and it certainly has no social contract with these banking parasites. The whole system was built on the premise of being permissionless. You think they have a right to say anything if somehow chooses to develop privacy features on top of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. I find this as a complete BS. You can start selling US dollars that were never used as well at a premium. I blame greed for these and these crazy business that never had enough and are just trying to find a way how to make another dollar more! That's their fault really, for starting this nonsense. Is it still BS principally when a customer gets coins that are not accepted by businesses because it was part of a theft in the past history of those particular coins? It is BS from the User's perspective in that they are being denied usage of the coins they bought legitimately. It is BS and the customer should move his business elsewhere. |
|
|
|
[...]
I don't disagree that this happens or will happen but IMO the issue as you present it is a construction of fiat parasites especially interested in undermining the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin.
As we slowly move away from this paradigm I believe it will eventually become a non-issue. Moreover I understand there is significant progress being made toward implementation of privacy related features in things such as sidechains which contribute to solve the related issues.
I agree that this is exacerbated by "fiat parasites", but I disagree it comes only from this. Even in a fully Bitcoin-based economy, I don't see why it would disappear. You could still refuse to deal with coins out of belief or social pressure. Think of the US dentist who went to kill this lion and was everywhere in the news: imagine if he had paid for the "right to kill" with bitcoins, that the entire world would know at a given instant would be on an address X. Don't you think some people out there would refuse them for a payment? I believe it will always happen, if you can attach history to coins (in practice outputs). You could also refuse to deal with coins out of legal fear. If you own anything (money or objets) that you know is coming from a theft, you're legally liable as well (fence in English?). If you don't know but didn't take sufficient precautions, and the circonstances should have raised suspicions from you, you're liable as well; at least where I live. Why would the legal system be any different with coins? In fact it's worse: it is much easier to do your due diligence with bitcoins than with real world items, so you can be also accused more easily. EDIT: I forgot about sidechains. A sidechain implementing "confidential transactions" would help with privacy (despite not providing untraceability - that is not hiding the origin of the funds). But they don't solve fungibility: they could be seen like a mixer, and with limited liquidity. Coins seen entering in to be made more private, then seen going out. It is easy to be "hey why did you sent coins to this sidechain?", or "I don't want coins that visibly were mixed on the sidechain!". The reason I believe no meaningful functionality to bring more privacy to the bitcoin protocol any time soon or ever is because it would violate the social contract bitcoin has in place with corporations and businesses that are attempting to be compliant with regulators in their respective countries of operation. Get outta here.... Bitcoin has no such "social contract" with fiat corporations and regulators. That is absolute nonsense. |
|
|
|
Click Here to WatchTravis Patron argues that bitcoin violates the principles of money fungibility - that each individual unit of currency being of the same value does not hold true in bitcoin. Already, businesses are springing up that are selling bitcoin with no previous transaction fee at a premium. This violates the principle of money fungibility. In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth. Nothing new... This is intimitely tied to the lack of privacy. The actual fungibility and privacy to expect from Bitcoin is wrongly grasped by most people, due to the technicity of the topic I suppose. Without a deep understanding of how Bitcoin works, you simply can't grasp it yourself and have to rely on other's claims. Those claims were wrongly of the kind "anonymous internet money!" for years. People did not take the same amount of precautions on silk road back then in 2012 than they do now. The perception is slowly changing, in that it is getting closer to reality. The reality did not change, and it comes to no surprise to those who could see it in the first place. An interesting evolution to observe is the different answers given by people over time, to support their view/claim that Bitcoin is fungible. Nowadays we're at "joinmarket does the trick!". Funnily enough this is the most trivial breach of fungibility we ever had (together with the premium for newly mined coins). Premium for newly mined coins is a matter of one individual's arbitrary preference and has no incidence on Bitcoin's fungibility. To the risk of repeating myself: send these coins to an exchange and see what the market thinks of your premium. Didn't you already advocate not to use centralized service providers that could possibly be "back doored" into black listing bitcoins from certain addresses? But now you use an example of sending coins to an exchange to see what the market thinks of this "premium". I did. That was just an example. I could've referred to any physical p2p exchange as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
