i see this as all positive:

"We are now going to use our name, reputation and global index provider stature to provide bitcoin values that the rest of the market can look to," says Tom Farley, who serves as president of NYSE, the venerable financial institution that has come to symbolize Wall Street and capitalism more broadly."

"New technology does not intimidate us, it excites us," Farley says, effectively summing up the new mindset of NYSE. Bitcoin in particular excited him, both because of the interest in the currency and the blockchain technology behind it, which serves as a transaction database. "It was that curiosity and also... let's not wait for this to fully evolve; let's get a seat early on and see how this matures."

http://mashable.com/2015/05/19/new-york-stock-exchange-bitcoin/

i agree completely.  

altcoin early adopting devs and their supporters would rather have everyone switch to their "new, improved" altcoin for maximum individual profit at the expense of Bitcoiners losing value from having to be later adopters.  working to improve Bitcoin isn't sexy or motivational enough for most of them despite the fact that any BTC holdings they might have would likely increase in value from their contributions to the Bitcoin protocol.  most of them probably don't even have BTC hence there is no motivation for them to become later Bitcoin adopters (even though it is still EARLY).  

constantly switching to newer altcoins, even if they represent true improvements, is destructive to SOV.  thus, the whole concept of cryptocurrency as a SOV fails miserably.  they fail to see this thus their activities are destructive to the SOV concept.  ideally, they should help Bitcoin improve and keep all innovations on the mainchain so the market can develop confidence.  otherwise, as you say, we could be set back a hundred years.

i think the cryptocurrency market senses this which is why the relative value of all the altcoins to Bitcoin is decreasing.  eventually the losses will pile up and there should be a final capitulation of most altcoin supporters in deference to Bitcoin.

here we go again.  will we break the $DJT support once and for all?

a bad sign; gold is turning down again:

you're missing the point that it might not need to be assured by the technology.

what might assure fungibility is mere market behavior.  it's quite possible the community herd instinctively understands that by accepting blacklisted coins we encourage a massive crowd effect which might positively determine Bitcoin's outcome as a successful currency despite your individual technical privacy concerns.

the way i see it, the market has already beaten down most of your concerns.

yes, there has been lotsa discussion but i'm just looking at the results.  and that is that there is no formal blacklisting services that exist yet that i know about.  and if there is one, i'm sure it's not significant.  do i care when about origin when i buy coins nowadays?  no.

also, i view what CB is doing differently.  i do believe they are dedicated Bitcoin advocates and know and care deeply about fungibility.  it's just that they don't want to go to jail so they track the first hop and i'm sure they'd cooperate with any legal investigation.  but that doesn't mean they are in favor of blacklisting.  in fact, i'm quite sure they aren't.

that's your choice.  but i expect that you continue to accept USD bills routinely despite them being covered in drug taint.

likewise if most of the actors in the Bitcoin system don't care or more importantly understand that tracking tainted addresses makes no sense in light of the fact that UTXO's are what gets joined and split in essentially non-trackable ways then what you decide personally to do doesn't matter.

and this is what i see as happening; at least for the last 6 yrs.

exactly right. 

also, think about the edge case where an attacker decides to send blacklisted coins to every known address in the system.  are all the UTXO's in those addresses now tainted?  given my emphasis on UTXO's being the more valid way to conceptualize this topic, blacklisting addresses doesn't even make sense.

yeah, and what has happened since Evo?  nothing as far as i can tell.  coins continue to move freely.

let's do it this way.  show me evidence of a blacklist of coins that is currently operational and effective.

Not true. There have been numerous attempts to blacklist and track coins from every failed exchange in Bitcoin's history all the way back to MyBitcoin. Yet we all probably have those coins in our wallets to various degrees.

doesn't matter. at some point, just b/c you might be in a linear linkage with an address owned by SR at some time doesn't mean you're a criminal.

after analyzing the report, i think 21 is going to be big.

i think privacy is an important aspect of money.

at least if you want it to be adopted by the broadest swaths of the population which you should.  and that even means adoption by druglords and money launderers who absolutely need their privacy.  not that i advocate those sorts of activities but that's unrelated to my point.

i also don't think Coinbase is a privacy destroyer except if you try to do something illegal with coins one hop away from them.  as the coins spread out through the economy though it's extremely difficult to link illegal activity with those original coins.

i think 21 is seriously going to mess with credit card companies.

what's this about a viewkey?

seems to me that at the very least we will see companies like Qualcomm opening their own mining pools at which all these devices will be pointed.  this would be fantastic in further decentralizing mining in terms of increasing pool choices.  especially here in the US.  and if Qualcomm opens a pool, others are sure to follow.  like Whirlpool, GE, Subzero, etc.

to me, Bitcoin is fungible when you think in terms of UTXO's. 

which half of 1BTC is tainted from joining 0.5BTC taint with 0.5BTC pure from 2 UTXO's?  when you then split that 1BTC into two 0.5BTC payments, are they both uniformly tainted or is there a discrete 0.5BTC that is tainted?  how do you distinguish?

yes, an address can be tainted if identified with a drug dealer.  but that's not the same as UTXO's, which is where the real action is.

this is good news:

Ultimately, though, it is the community of electrical engineers and computer scientists that will judge whether embedded mining technology solves their problems. Towards that end, our team of PhDs in EE from MIT, Stanford, and CMU has built not just a chip, but a full technology stack around the chip — including reference devices, datasheets, a cloud backend, and software protocols. And we have already engaged with a wide variety of early access partners across the industry, from small startups to multibillion dollar hardware companies.

https://medium.com/@21dotco/a-bitcoin-miner-in-every-device-and-in-every-hand-e315b40f2821

new high on $DJI.  the non-confirmation is now wider.  can the $DJT get all the way to a new high from here?  doubtful, but hey:

good work Justus.  kudos to the others as well.

projects like this will increase pressure to keep privacy innovations coming.