XMR vs DRK

[G2M]

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

Money has never needed 'cryptography' or any kind of meta-layer obfuscating technology to implement a fundamental monetary property (such as fungibility). Any monetary medium that works will have self-generating fungibility - like the cash drawer or gold's low melting point.

If I melt down 10 gold coins to make a gold bar and then use that in a transaction, I'm not "hiding" the fact that I'm making the transaction. The fungibility does not come from any form of encryption, but rather from the fact that gold coins could be combined from 10 distinct "inputs" into one indistinct "output".

It's an inherent part of cryptocurrencies that that is possible - which is why they make an almost perfect monetary medium. Darkcoin / Dash levers that characteristic. I'm not saying that a cryptographic approach like cryptonote isn't interesting or potentially useful in many cases, but I'm saying it's not necessarily the optimal solution to botcoin's fungibility problem from a monetary point of view.

In this case, money is being transacted across a communication medium thousands of years in the making. In doing so, it's transmitted through an input terminal (computer, phone, CC, etc..) by means of digitally constructed software on hardware that's designed to interpret our thoughts and perform actions with the click of a button. Anyways, after clicking that button, it's transmitted through an internet relayed through a moderately unique IP address that's recorded through your ISP, and then generally some more software and hardware interaction along the medium, until it gets to it's point of use where it's again generally met with a terminal (be it a POS terminal, another phone, etc..). Sure, you can make the analogy that it's like taking cash out of your wallet, but in this case it has to go though all of that, and it's enforced by a cryptographically-secured universally available blockchain file.

So saying "it's just like digging gold out of the ground and handing it to the guy at the corner store and putting it into a bank" doesn't make it so.

These things we're dealing with, they're not 'money'. They're what we define to be money. They're cryptocurrencies, that are indeed cryptographically secured, from the cryptographically secured PoW to prevent double spending and network havoc, to the elliptic curve designed to both send someone money and receive change back. Cryptography is the very essence of what we're dealing with here, it's the root of every single thing on this board, even DRK I promise you.

Money does need cryptography, how do you think you do online banking without everyone stealing it?

When it's not "obscured or 'hidden' " then it loses that very powerful descriptor of being fungible. Take for fact that certain bitcoins have no value on coinbase, or btce - it's because there is no 'obscured or hidden'. Not in the sense that wrong doing must be covered up - but in the sense that we all must maintain a totally fungible transaction medium, despite that. We can bear the cost of the inefficiency ourselves, because the necessity to transact is paramount to catching criminals just as we have been doing for years. It's just worth more than that.

I get what you were saying about mixing them, but there's a whole lot of inbetween that you just can't argue by analogy, and the point made above about the TLA's really does lend to the idea that whatever 'mixing' is happening with masternodes is done so in a manner that will be traceable if the private key is compromised. So the argument that a view key can be compromised in the same being an actual edge over XMR just doesn't hold water when the two are compared.

[illodin]

G2M is correct. If you're able to do two-way mapping of hash functions, then everybody is collectively screwed independent of XMR v. DRK or on-chain v. off-chain.

OK gotcha.

I wonder why people go on about the off-chain benefits....doesn't sound like any benefit at all in this case.

G2M is not correct, as he's probably not aware that Darksend doesn't reuse addresses.

[Joshuar]

 

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

Money has never needed 'cryptography' or any kind of meta-layer obfuscating technology to implement a fundamental monetary property (such as fungibility). Any monetary medium that works will have self-generating fungibility - like the cash drawer or gold's low melting point.

If I melt down 10 gold coins to make a gold bar and then use that in a transaction, I'm not "hiding" the fact that I'm making the transaction. The fungibility does not come from any form of encryption, but rather from the fact that gold coins could be combined from 10 distinct "inputs" into one indistinct "output".

It's an inherent part of cryptocurrencies that that is possible - which is why they make an almost perfect monetary medium. Darkcoin / Dash levers that property without changing the fundamental characteristics of the blockchain. I'm not saying that a cryptographic approach like cryptonote isn't interesting or potentially useful in many cases, but I'm saying it's not necessarily the optimal solution to bitcoin's fungibility problem from a monetary point of view.

Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of  Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?

This is a very interesting topic.  If a solution was found, a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible.

Originally, a coin can be just a chain of signatures.  With a timestamp service, the old ones could be dropped eventually before there's too much backtrace fan-out, or coins could be kept individually or in denominations.  It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions.

The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist?  It seems a node must know about all transactions to be able to verify that.  If it only knows the hash of the in/outpoints, it can't check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before.  Do you have any ideas on this?

It's hard to think of how to apply zero-knowledge-proofs in this case.

We're trying to prove the absence of something, which seems to require knowing about all and checking that the something isn't included.

Something interesting also is this, the user "ByteCoin" is probably not related to Cryponote, but:

Nope, this is a much different solution.

I quoted the following portion of your post

When you are done parsing the block list, you will have the minimal set of valid and unspent out-points.

That's exactly what a balance sheet is. As long as everyone agrees on this list then transactions work fine. Why store anything else? The block chain is merely a device for ensuring the integrity of this list. Why not just download and store the list, verify its hash in the block chain on startup along with a sufficient history of block chain to be confident it's not falsified?
This provides superior bandwidth, disk space and privacy to your scheme.

The general public doesn't get to see any transactions or balances.

The public has to see the transactions to verify them, the balances can be calculated from them. I'm neglecting your embryonic scheme involving not incompletely broadcasting transactions due to unresolved obvious security problems.  

If you want to provide more privacy you could always change transactions so that nobody can tell who the recipient is and how much until the recipient spends the money.

At the moment the beneficiary of a transaction is a certain bitcoin address. If that address has ever received coins before then everyone knows that all the money is in the same place. Alternatively, that address has been publicized as a receiving address so you know exactly where the money is going.

Instead you specify that the recipient of the money is the address that can decrypt a certain message that you have signed. So your transaction would comprise a load of signed TxIns and a signed public key encrypted message saying how much of the BitCoins goes to the person able to decrypt the message. All the network nodes try to decrypt the message with each of their public keys. The one who succeeds knows that they have received the money and updates their displayed balance accordingly. When the recipient decides to spend the money their transaction includes  the decrypted message. Only when the other network nodes see this do they know who the recipient was and how much the transaction was worth. Any change is ascribed to the signing key and the decrypted message and original are cited when the change is spent in subsequent transactions.

I wonder why transactions weren't designed like this in BitCoin from the start.

ByteCoin

[generalizethis]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

[wpalczynski]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Incredible.  The height of too muchery.

[majamina]

Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of  Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?

genuine question:

you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?

[othe]

Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of  Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?

genuine question:

you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?

Sorry,
too of topitc, monero doesnt have this issue, but you can discuss it with Bitcoiners, BTC-E for example who already block accounts.

[BlockaFett]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

[vokain]

Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of  Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?

genuine question:

you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?

Aristotle's definitions of money:
1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.

2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.

3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:

"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."

4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself.

In essence, the less you can differentiate one coin from another, the more fungible.

[majamina]

Sorry,
too of topitc, monero doesnt have this issue, but you can discuss it with Bitcoiners, BTC-E for example who already block accounts.

Are there levels of fungibility though? Isn't it a binary condition?

Going back to my example for DRK above, the funds moving from DirtyWallet > CleanWallet shows fungibility. In XMR the mechanism is different, but we have the same result.

[Joshuar]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so. "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_bitcoin_works" - There are several cryptographic technologies that make up the essence of Bitcoin.

[BlockaFett]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.

so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please

[BlockaFett]

Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of  Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?

genuine question:

you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?

Aristotle's definitions of money:
1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.

2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.

3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:

"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."

4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself.

In essence, the less you can differentiate one coin from another, the more fungible.

ergo there are no degrees of fungibility. it's a boolean concept. so asking if something is 'more fungible' is nonsensical.

[Joshuar]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.

so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please

Hmm? I hold/sell darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there were things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in(Use of external masternodes to provide "anonymity") and couldn't get past(The scam-like instamine), compared to other cryptocurrencies.

[BlockaFett]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.

so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please

Hmm? I hold darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there are some things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in, compared to other cryptocurrencies.

sure, you made a lot of posts saying that already. why do you feel the need to keep saying it?

[Joshuar]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.

so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please

Hmm? I hold darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there are some things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in, compared to other cryptocurrencies.

sure, you made a lot of posts saying that already. why do you feel the need to keep saying it?

Because of what you originally said...I'm saying firsthand that it isn't true and how when I was a Dash/DRK supporter, that was downright toxic trying to figure out ways to justify things that I see now couldn't be justified.

[generalizethis]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, ."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

So cryptography isn't a significant part of cryptography? Yet , as you just stated, it's a significant part (essential's pretty significant by most estimations): "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already"

Do things not require essential parts now?

[illodin]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.

so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please

Hmm? I hold/sell darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there were things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in(Use of external masternodes to provide "anonymity") and couldn't get past(The scam-like instamine), compared to other cryptocurrencies.

Before you dumped in October at 0.005 were you aware that a single DRK coin was divisible by 100,000,000?

[Anon136]

Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of  Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?

genuine question:

you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?

Aristotle's definitions of money:
1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.

2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.

3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:

"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."

4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself.

In essence, the less you can differentiate one coin from another, the more fungible.

ergo there are no degrees of fungibility. it's a boolean concept. so asking if something is 'more fungible' is nonsensical.

This is a black and white fallacy. Of course there are degrees of fungibility. For example suppose you are facing the problems bitcoin is facing now with btc-e. You could have an alternative crypto where the cost of discovering whether coins are stolen is 1 dollar, or 10, or 100, or 1000 or a million. Or any number you might imagine inbetween any of those numbers. For different given costs we might imagine that fungibility concerns arise more or less often. Even gold is not perfectly fungible, you can do an analysis of the atoms and make determinations about what parts of the world it was sourced from, maybe some could be associated with criminality, like maybe someone wouldnt want gold that came out of a rain forest because strip mining takes place there. Sure you could mix a ton of different gold from different places togather, but maybe someone would only be interested in gold that had no content from that region what so ever. Dollar bills can be marked in subtle ways. For example a bank might make tiny changes to some of their dollars and keep them in permanent storage and then if a robber takes the bills they could be traced. So many possible scenarios can be imagined.

The truth is no good will ever be perfectly fungible, ever.

[wpalczynski]

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.

so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please

Hmm? I hold darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there are some things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in, compared to other cryptocurrencies.

sure, you made a lot of posts saying that already. why do you feel the need to keep saying it?

Because of what you originally said...I'm saying firsthand that it isn't true and how when I was a Dash/DRK supporter, that was downright toxic trying to figure out ways to justify things that I see now couldn't be justified.

That is called cognitive dissonance.