Eventually the FUNGIBILITY issue of bitcoin will make headlines ...

[smoothie]

Obviously I cannot prove it but I am confident much more Bitcoin moves OTC than on exchanges.

I''m not. If it were it would show up in blockchain analysis, at least under the category of "unknown". It doesn't. Most activity is fairly easy to categorize (speculation, mining, legal and illegal payments). Certainly there is some that isn't but not some massive hidden economy that is larger than all the known exchanges. It just isn't so

Where can one find such analysis?

How do you differentiate legal & illegal payments from OTC trading activities?

I don't know, maybe someone can point to some, but I've seen various reports published once or twice a year for the past few years.

The way you differentiate is by identifying what you can, and it seems a lot can be identified with reasonable confidence (probably not perfectly). If there is a huge swath of unknown that can't be then you ask these questions, but that has really never been the case.

Even gross statistics like coin movement on the blockchain relative to reported exchange volume shows a reasonably tight relationship over time. If there were massive amounts of money fleeing capital controls and FATCA now, that relationship would be break down (unless you think this was going on three years ago when FATCA wasn't in force at all and Bitcoin was $20). Instead it hasn't really broken down.

Don't buy all the hype. Some of it might turn out to be true, but be skeptical.

Where do you get these numbers?

I just did a "gross calculation" and a quick roundup of major exchanges + approximate total of minor ones brings me to about 3,500,000 BTC in volume over the last 30 days. That includes OKCoin's obviously bogus 1,850,000 reported volume.

This chart seems to indicate the blockchain sees an average of 250,000 BTC volume per day. 7,500,000 over 30 days.
https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

I think it's clear there's a lot left to be accounted for.

Yes there is a lot to be accounted for.

But just because there are transaction on the network does not mean that it isn't BitcoinBillionaire sending funds to himself on the chain to make it appear that those transactions are legitimate. There are some % of that left over volume.

[smoothie]

losing money due to receiving bad Bitcoin is nothing qualitatively new. I'm not saying it is a good thing though.

"Bad Bitcoin"? Wtf... I know you have some Monero to sell but this is beyond ridiculous

It took me a second, but I now appreciate the #bitcoin-assets 'there are no tainted Bitcoins, only tainted institutions' POV.

I love the smugness of that serene maxim, and look forward to the day when it has practical value for those of us with <100 BTC.

OTOH, I believe (smooth will have to back me up with The Science) that Bitcoins are not perfectly fungible at the protocol level because they are uniquely identifiable, and thus may be discriminated against (ie, considered "bad") by individuals, if not in the aggregate.

AFAIK, the Monero protocol couldn't tell "good" coins from "bad" ones even if it wanted to, so its coins are perfectly fungible (no matter what, and without need to invoke rosy assumptions about the future of crypto vs fiat).

Bitcoin Black/Whitelists: technically trivial to implement and enforce, commonly done in status quo (eg stolen Evolution coins at BTCE)

Monero Black/Whitelists: technically impossible to implement or enforce (is it true?)

Not impossible but very expensive and tedious.

Consider the black/white marbles in a bag "game".

https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0001.pdf

[smoothie]

This tweet by Davout sums up the situation perfectly

Yes, that tweet may have induced my 'there are no tainted Bitcoins, only tainted institutions' epiphany.

I don't like those tainted institutions any more than davout and you do.

But they could not exist if Bitcoin was perfectly fungible.

You'll never get a notice from Poloniex saying "Hey buddy, we don't like the guys you sent your Monero to, so we're closing your account."

Polo doesn't know that; Polo can't know that (because stealth addresses and ring signatures).

A few months ago, I opined that Monero enables defections which Bitcoin cannot.

This conversation has helped begin putting meat on the bones of that claim, as I'm finding the concept of 'perfect' (ie, exhaustive of all use cases) fungibility an interesting distinction from Bitcoin's circular 'good enough, assuming you are already rich, lol' version.

Monero could also be subject to arbitrary USG regulations.

Since people are willing to go to such a stretch to come up with scenarios that supposedly undermine's Bitcoin fungibility then how about this:

Merchants are forbidden to accept Monero: since we cannot tell where you money comes from it is not legal and you should use the transparent alternative. "You don't have anything to hide anyway, do you?"

So rather than blacklists certain "tainted" coins they would effectively blacklist the use of an anonymous currency. Now that wouldn't make Monero non fungible would it?

OR

they could use the following 6 words:

"Please send us your view key."

[smoothie]

...

Bitcoin: Absolutely fungible, even when it isn't.  Because No True Bitcoiner.
Monero: Private and unlinkable.  Can't be not-fungible.

BTW, if it was illegal for merchants to accept XMR, we'd just use shapeshift or https://xmr.to/ and be on our fungibility-not-affected way!   

lol gave me a good chuckle 

[smoothie]

---

What happens if your friend Alice gives you counterfeit cash, you go to spend it in a store, and they confiscate it?

Counterfeit cash is more easily detectable, and if it's a good counterfeit it will probably fool other people too.

Maybe. I've seen stores uses counterfeit detector pens quite a bit, and in a few cases run the bills through a machine (usually only larger bills). Banks routinely run cash you deposit through fancier machines and probably catch more. I don't do any of these when I get cash from a friend, and I wouldn't necessarily detect whatever it is those tests are doing.

The point is, you can lose money this way, so losing money due to receiving bad Bitcoin is nothing qualitatively new. I'm not saying it is a good thing though.

..... how did we even get into counterfeiting?

Because the question was what happens when you receive Bitcoins from someone and when you try to spend them you find they are blacklisted and lose money. That's very much analogous to counterfeiting.

Right, this just might be the most stupid thing I've read all week.

If you enter a transaction that involves any type of blacklisting it is your own undoing and you deserve it.

Bitcoin exists precisely to enable monetary sovereignty & bypass any of these stupid fiat rules. Government doesn't have any right to know or be aware of the existence of any wallet in my possession therefore any coin I receive I'm free to spend at its current market value, no matter what its history is.

I mean who the hell are we kiding here!? We have the USG currently trying to get their hand on every chip of all DNM and either keep it for themselves or "sell it" to their friends possibly over market price.

You think they really give a damn where the coins are coming from?

If you wanna use Bitpay, Coinbase, Circle and all them USG exchanges then by all means no one is stopping you or your rapist's interests but Bitcoin don't play these batty-boys games.

But then don't you dare fancy you using Bitcoin.

Cause Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer market and what you're doing doesn't sound like bitcoinating to me.

Try telling THAT to every new bitcoin newbie and see how many of them run away.

There will always be people who don't know any better and it happens to them. Bad things happen to good people all the time.

You can't stop all of it. But to say "you deserve it" is a bit hard especially if they are just trying to buy something with bitcoin or convert out to buy something with fiat.

If someone is not able to make proper use of Bitcoin then he shouldn't bother. I really don't care if this scares away a few newbies. Bitcoin is really not something you should sell to newbies anyway. It's really not a consumer-ready tool, at least not as it currently exists.

If you are trying to buy something with bitcoin from a fiat accepting merchant: your problem, not Bitcoin's.

If you depend entirely on exchanges to cash out to fiat: your problem, not Bitcoin's.

You do have some very strong views. Border line religious in my opinion.

How do you expect bitcoin to be adopted if NO new people come to use bit coin? it's not a perfect system and thus shouldn't be dismissed as a perfect system that newbs shouldn't use. I'm pretty sure Satoshi wanted new people to start using bitcoin. If that never happens and they keep getting turned away...what's the point of Bitcoin anymore?

[smoothie]

Government restrictions on amount of Bitcoin to be transactions with.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/3205-mexican-government-places-bitcoin-and-cash-on-the-same-footing

Interesting

[yayayo]

Government restrictions on amount of Bitcoin to be transactions with.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/3205-mexican-government-places-bitcoin-and-cash-on-the-same-footing

Interesting

Interesting? Bad. Although not (yet) as restrictive as to be expected in the US/EU.

In my opinion it is imperative for the survival of Bitcoin that significant privacy improvements (default confidential transactions) are implemented as soon as possible. Because such improvements are not trivial they should be a #1 priority right now. I really hope that developers find the time and resources to address this serious fungibility issue. Now that two most government friendly figures Gavin and Mike have their own altcoin to work on, I really hope they won't interfere with more FUD-talk.

ya.ya.yo!

[jonald_fyookball]

Government restrictions on amount of Bitcoin to be transactions with.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/3205-mexican-government-places-bitcoin-and-cash-on-the-same-footing

Interesting

Interesting? Bad. Although not (yet) as restrictive as to be expected in the US/EU.

In my opinion it is imperative for the survival of Bitcoin that significant privacy improvements (default confidential transactions) are implemented as soon as possible. Because such improvements are not trivial they should be a #1 priority right now. I really hope that developers find the time and resources to address this serious fungibility issue. Now that two most government friendly figures Gavin and Mike have their own altcoin to work on, I really hope they won't interfere with more FUD-talk.

ya.ya.yo!

why are you repeating the misinformation that xt is an altcoin?  at best, it has the potential to be a future altcoin with an economic mining MAJORITY. right now it is simply a bitcoin client. do you understand that?

[mallard]

If people start trying to blacklist coins I will do everything in my power to stop them

So nothing?
We are mostly powerless.

[smoothie]

Government restrictions on amount of Bitcoin to be transactions with.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/3205-mexican-government-places-bitcoin-and-cash-on-the-same-footing

Interesting

Interesting? Bad. Although not (yet) as restrictive as to be expected in the US/EU.

In my opinion it is imperative for the survival of Bitcoin that significant privacy improvements (default confidential transactions) are implemented as soon as possible. Because such improvements are not trivial they should be a #1 priority right now. I really hope that developers find the time and resources to address this serious fungibility issue. Now that two most government friendly figures Gavin and Mike have their own altcoin to work on, I really hope they won't interfere with more FUD-talk.

ya.ya.yo!

Yes it is bad for Bitcoin trades done in Mexico.

But it is interesting as a government intervention standpoint.

I don't support the move but the decision has interesting implications given Bitcoin has a public ledger to analyze.

[figmentofmyass]

If people start trying to blacklist coins I will do everything in my power to stop them

So nothing?
We are mostly powerless.

this issue is likely far bigger than the block size debate. this will bring a real civil war. if certain players want to flex their muscle by wholesale blacklisting of certain addresses/inputs, then it is incumbent upon us to cut off the cancerous limb -- excise them from the economy.

this will, of course, devalue tainted coins. the premium market that would develop is purely a market process. and if this devaluation becomes so severe, unfortunately, we can only move our money---out of bitcoin---if we cannot safely store our wealth there.

and so, the war begins. and that is what bitcoin is all about---security from external control. will you cede to that external control---blacklisters (governments, large corporations), or will you resist?

because if we cannot freely transact, nor store our wealth, then what is all for? you might not care now, but you will certainly care when you pay for inputs that will later be blacklisted. and under a culture that passively accepts blacklisting and continues to support companies that do it, you inevitably will be affected.

so if you are one of those silly, silly pro-bankster cancers, you might want to rethink your position before it's too late.

[maokoto]

Government restrictions on amount of Bitcoin to be transactions with.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/3205-mexican-government-places-bitcoin-and-cash-on-the-same-footing

Interesting

It is good that they consider it in the same league as regular money

[smoothie]

Andreas A. is asked about bitcoin's fungibility : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m9s

He thinks it is an issue worth addressing. Perhaps it is more important than "The Block Size" debate.

[johnyj]

Government restrictions on amount of Bitcoin to be transactions with.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/3205-mexican-government-places-bitcoin-and-cash-on-the-same-footing

Interesting

That's the right way to regulate bitcoin, IMO

Due to the coin can move instantly to abroad, and it is impossible to enforce an international regulation around the globe, the most possible way is to treat it as cash, so that all the cash regulations today applies to bitcoin. This will save the regulators a hell lot of resource and effort while still have the risk under control in the current regulation framework

Large transactions will have to follow AML and KYC regulations, and resulting in further conflict between users and regulators

[smoothie]

Government restrictions on amount of Bitcoin to be transactions with.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/3205-mexican-government-places-bitcoin-and-cash-on-the-same-footing

Interesting

That's the right way to regulate bitcoin, IMO

Due to the coin can move instantly to abroad, and it is impossible to enforce an international regulation around the globe, the most possible way is to treat it as cash, so that all the cash regulations today applies to bitcoin. This will save the regulators a hell lot of resource and effort while still have the risk under control in the current regulation framework

Large transactions will have to follow AML and KYC regulations, and resulting in further conflict between users and regulators

There are too many unknowns to see how this will play out fully once ALL major governments really start to take a firm stance on BTC and crypto overall.

Those decisions have yet to be made. Bitcoin is but a tiny speck in the financial world right now so it is probably not that big of a threat to the big bankers and governments....YET.

That probably will change and thats when clawback will happen.

[dnaleor]

crosspost from me about zerocash, on topic here as well...

about zerocash. This is what can be found on the website

How does Zerocash work?

Zerocash extends the protocol and software underlying Bitcoin by adding new, privacy-preserving payments. In doing so it forms a new protocol that, while using some of the same technology and software as Bitcoin, is distinct from it. This new protocol has both anonymous coins, dubbed zerocoins, and non-anonymous ones, which, for purposes of disambiguation, we call basecoins. In contrast to Bitcoin's transactions, payment transactions using the Zerocash protocol do not contain any public information about the payment's origin, destination, or amount; instead, the correctness of the transaction is demonstrated via the use of a zero-knowledge proof. Users can convert from basecoins to zerocoins, send zerocoins to other users, and split or merge zerocoins they own in any way that preserves the total value. Users may also convert zerocoins back into basecoins, though in principle this is not necessary: all transactions can be made in terms of zerocoins.

There are some issues with this protocol

1) fungibility: by introducing basecoins, payment processors, exchnages, governments etc can force you to use these basecoins. When you use the zerocoins, you are flagged by default. Basically there is no difference when you use the ConfidentialTransactions-Sidechain or coinjoin.
2) zerocoin transactions will probably be larger, so people will try to avoid paying the fees by making as little zerocoin transactions as possible
3) due to the fact that eventually only people who want to hide a crime will use the zerocoins, it will be possible that when you get coins out, there is a possibility to link those coins to coins that were put into the zerocoin-pool. So it's tricky... Be aware of this or you'll use your anonimity.

compare this to XMR:
1) when mixin 0 isn't possible anymore (soon^TM) all transaction outputs (except the minted coins) are mixed by default. So you can't be forced not to use mixing.
2) because all tractions will have a minimum mixin, you can't avoid paying the fees. Paranoid people pay more for higher mixin.
3) everybody uses mixin, so it's impossible to detect money flows on the network

[iCEBREAKER]

Your friend Alice gives you two $10 bills. One is good, one is bad. You take both to buy a $20 T-shirt. Now what?

You set up a JoinMarket to automate the process, then profit.   

[ATguy]

Your friend Alice gives you two $10 bills. One is good, one is bad. You take both to buy a $20 T-shirt. Now what?

You set up a JoinMarket to automate the process, then profit.   

Use the two $10 bills where both shows up as good ones. I mean not all jurisdictions will use the same regulation.

[brg444]

Your friend Alice gives you two $10 bills. One is good, one is bad. You take both to buy a $20 T-shirt. Now what?

You set up a JoinMarket to automate the process, then profit.   

Use the two $10 bills where both shows up as good ones. I mean not all jurisdictions will use the same regulation.

Pretty much.

It only takes a couple of business opportunities lost to a competitor for a "merchant" to think twice about this whole blacklisting shenanigan.

[iCEBREAKER]

Do you understand then how subjective your definition of fungibility is?

Hey I'm just using the dictionary man

From your POV any medium of exchange that is suspect to traceability by any means is non fungible.

That is not what I said.

What I said is the intrinsic properties make something inherently fungible only when there is no useful traceability (or other physical distinguishability). Otherwise if individual units can be distinguished and then it is up to people, not technology or science, to decide whether it is fungible in practice or not. The obvious example here is paper money. Not only is it fungible by law (we'll ignore that here) but it is fungible only because people don't for the most part ever pay any attention to the serial numbers. If people started doing so, fungibility could only be restored by creating money (such as metal coins) without serial numbers.

Obviously intrinsic indistinguishability properties provide stronger fungibility than people do, and because the Bitcoin ledger doesn't have those properties, this thread exists.

For the all-important at-hand task of enabling defections, I believe smooth's practical definition (with its messy privacy overlap/conflation) is of more use than brg444's academic, Platonic construal of the term.

Simply substituting a non-controversial equivalent for the disputed jargon serves to clarify the point:

Obviously intrinsic indistinguishability properties provide stronger fungibility interchangeability than people do, and because the Bitcoin ledger doesn't have those properties, this thread exists.