This Might Sounds Strange: Bitcoin Violates the Principle of Money Fungibility

[Paleus]

Click Here to Watch


In the video, the investment analysis of bitcoin vs. gold is also discussed in depth.

[1715165233]

1715165233

[1715165233]

1715165233

[1715165233]

1715165233

[1715165233]

1715165233

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If I'm willing to pay a premium for stacks of old USD's that don't have trace amounts of narcotics all over them, have I thereby broken the fungibility of cash for everyone?

[Paleus]

If I'm willing to pay a premium for stacks of old USD's that don't have trace amounts of narcotics all over them, have I thereby broken the fungibility of cash for everyone?

No. You haven't broken the principle of fungibility, you've overpaid on the market rate for that particular currency.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If I'm willing to pay a premium for stacks of old USD's that don't have trace amounts of narcotics all over them, have I thereby broken the fungibility of cash for everyone?

No. You haven't broken the principle of fungibility, you've overpaid on the market rate for that particular currency.

Well, whoever's overpaying for coins is overpaying for coins. That's my point.

[7788bitcoin]

I think you have the freedom of overpaying anything, including coins, as long as you are happy!

[AgentofCoin]

Click Here to Watch

Travis 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.
...

When mining has ended, at some point, all active bitcoins will no longer be closely linked to their generation block.
So, in the future, the argument that some coins are better than others will no longer exist.

People paying a premium now for "clean" coins are perpetuating that false premise and helping those who wish to criminalize Bitcoin/bitcoin.

[Kevin77]

If I'm willing to pay a premium for stacks of old USD's that don't have trace amounts of narcotics all over them, have I thereby broken the fungibility of cash for everyone?

No. You haven't broken the principle of fungibility, you've overpaid on the market rate for that particular currency.

Well, whoever's overpaying for coins is overpaying for coins. That's my point.

Overpaying for a commodity is not a breach in financial system. Overpaying for the intention of loving the good or overselling in future are buyers freedom which has no violations or bending rules of any theory. Bitcoin is a exchange medium, just a commodity, it's up to people's wish if they want to use it as money also.

[maokoto]

I do not get it. All Bitcoin are valued the same, only that some people pay more for it.

Same happens with dollars or other currency when you buy it in another country. You can pay more or less depending or the trading shop you use, the bank you use, etc.

[dothebeats]

Say for example, I bought a sibglw US dollar for around 2 euros when the exchange rate is around 0.80 euros, would that be considered as a breach in the principles of money fungibility? If I want to pay more, I'll pay more as long as it satisfies me; that's freedom on spending regardless of some principles of money.

[brg444]

Bitcoin is perfectly fungible, this dude is clueless.

You people really need to dig into your economics book and stop conflating privacy with fungibility.

[VirosaGITS]

Bitcoin is perfectly fungible, this dude is clueless.

You people really need to dig into your economics book and stop conflating privacy with fungibility.

I get his point and i watched until the end, but i think he is wrong. Buying btc/blocks from 0x address is like buying non sequential bills at a premium. Or collection piece coins. They are all perfectly fungible. What a weird word.

Regardless if you do a purchase online and you need to pay 0.69BTC' it doesn't matter if it come from coins with no previous history or if its the most used, whore-y coin ever.

[brg444]

Bitcoin is perfectly fungible, this dude is clueless.

You people really need to dig into your economics book and stop conflating privacy with fungibility.

I get his point and i watched until the end, but i think he is wrong. Buying btc/blocks from 0x address is like buying non sequential bills at a premium. Or collection piece coins. They are all perfectly fungible. What a weird word.

Regardless if you do a purchase online and you need to pay 0.69BTC' it doesn't matter if it come from coins with no previous history or if its the most used, whore-y coin ever.

*ding ding ding*

we have a winner.

[dothebeats]

Bitcoin is perfectly fungible, this dude is clueless.

You people really need to dig into your economics book and stop conflating privacy with fungibility.

I'm no economics pro but fungibility is pretty easy to understand. Also, I think you are that user who posted that infographic about bitcoin's advantage over fiat. That might help shed some light on the matter.

[elrippo]

Bitcoin is perfectly fungible, this dude is clueless.

You people really need to dig into your economics book and stop conflating privacy with fungibility.

I get his point and i watched until the end, but i think he is wrong. Buying btc/blocks from 0x address is like buying non sequential bills at a premium. Or collection piece coins. They are all perfectly fungible. What a weird word.

Regardless if you do a purchase online and you need to pay 0.69BTC' it doesn't matter if it come from coins with no previous history or if its the most used, whore-y coin ever.

*ding ding ding*

we have a winner.

Nope, this is not true.
In a common sense of money the argument from VirosaGITS is true, in a sense that BTC can be used to transport information the argument is untrue.
Why? Well if you hide a formula for a process to create endless energy in a satoshi, this satoshi will be far more "worth" than the satoshi created and traded next to it.
That´s where the argument for the violation of the fungibility chips in guys 

[brg444]

Bitcoin is perfectly fungible, this dude is clueless.

You people really need to dig into your economics book and stop conflating privacy with fungibility.

I get his point and i watched until the end, but i think he is wrong. Buying btc/blocks from 0x address is like buying non sequential bills at a premium. Or collection piece coins. They are all perfectly fungible. What a weird word.

Regardless if you do a purchase online and you need to pay 0.69BTC' it doesn't matter if it come from coins with no previous history or if its the most used, whore-y coin ever.

*ding ding ding*

we have a winner.

Nope, this is not true.
In a common sense of money the argument from VirosaGITS is true, in a sense that BTC can be used to transport information the argument is untrue.
Why? Well if you hide a formula for a process to create endless energy in a satoshi, this satoshi will be far more "worth" than the satoshi created and traded next to it.
That´s where the argument for the violation of the fungibility chips in guys 

Try sending this satoshi to an exchange and see what they think of your "endless energy" formula.

[binaryFate]

Click Here to Watch

Travis 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).

[brg444]

Click Here to Watch

Travis 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.

[binaryFate]

Click Here to Watch

Travis 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.

The market will be happy not to give a shit about those clean coins. But try to send stolen coins to see what happens.
Hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2zrkg6/withdrawals_halted_as_stolen_evolution_coins_make/

About the bolded part: it is a recurrent flawed argument. You're applying a view from the legacy decentralized world to a decentralized system. In a decentralized system such as Bitcoin, everything is about arbitrary preference. This results in social pressure that impedes your ability to use your coins freely (and for a constant price), since this will be all based on the other party arbitrary preference.

Fungibility is not an attribute you can achieve voluntarily. As soon as individuals can based their preference on enough factual hindsights (such as history of outputs), fungibility is broken. The only way to achieve it is by technically not giving anyone any hindsight; that is, through privacy. See this presentation (the first part is about Bitcoin).

[elrippo]

Bitcoin is perfectly fungible, this dude is clueless.

You people really need to dig into your economics book and stop conflating privacy with fungibility.

I get his point and i watched until the end, but i think he is wrong. Buying btc/blocks from 0x address is like buying non sequential bills at a premium. Or collection piece coins. They are all perfectly fungible. What a weird word.

Regardless if you do a purchase online and you need to pay 0.69BTC' it doesn't matter if it come from coins with no previous history or if its the most used, whore-y coin ever.

*ding ding ding*

we have a winner.

Nope, this is not true.
In a common sense of money the argument from VirosaGITS is true, in a sense that BTC can be used to transport information the argument is untrue.
Why? Well if you hide a formula for a process to create endless energy in a satoshi, this satoshi will be far more "worth" than the satoshi created and traded next to it.
That´s where the argument for the violation of the fungibility chips in guys 

Try sending this satoshi to an exchange and see what they think of your "endless energy" formula.

You didn´t get the point. It is not important what an exchange thinks your satoshis are in value, it´s important what this specific satoshi is in your value, since we are talking about the fungibility of your personal value to that satoshi. Keep in mind that this satoshi is yours in a common sense!

[brg444]

Click Here to Watch

Travis 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.

The market will be happy not to give a shit about those clean coins. But try to send stolen coins to see what happens.
Hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2zrkg6/withdrawals_halted_as_stolen_evolution_coins_make/

About the bolded part: it is a recurrent flawed argument. You're applying a view from the legacy decentralized world to a decentralized system. In a decentralized system such as Bitcoin, everything is about arbitrary preference. This results in social pressure that impedes your ability to use your coins freely (and for a constant price), since this will be all based on the other party arbitrary preference.

Fungibility is not an attribute you can achieve voluntarily. As soon as individuals can based their preference on enough factual hindsights (such as history of outputs), fungibility is broken. The only way to achieve it is by technically not giving anyone any hindsight; that is, through privacy. See this presentation (the first part is about Bitcoin).

It also seems to me you are applying concepts of the legacy system to Bitcoin. One being that there is a third party involved in transactions.

In the presentation you've linked you refer to coin "taints". If Bitcoin, as it was designed, is used in a purely peer-to-peer manner how do you propose this "taint" is advertised to the participants? If we assume that in the future every one will use Bitcoin in such a peer-to-peer way than I find it unlikely that people would be bothered by this "social pressure" you speak of. Are we expecting users to transact using wallets that support black/redlists?

Do you propose that every user will dutifully proceed with an output analysis of every coin they interact with and transaction they are involved in? At what cost?