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

[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.

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.

[smoothie]

[...]
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.

Yes we know you could care less and in your perfect world everyone is using bit coin so who needs these 3rd party businesses.

Well we aren't there yet nor will we be any time soon.

[brg444]

[...]
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?

[smoothie]

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.

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?

 

[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.

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?

[smoothie]

[...]
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.

[brg444]

[...]
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.

[smoothie]

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.

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?

Do you? Has it been implemented yet?

I don't see it anywhere. Nor anyone using it on the public domain in the bitcoin community.

Do you even know how it would work with bitcoin down to the core level of interoperating within the source?

Do you know for sure that there would not need to be a protocol change that perhaps might be unforeseen at first glance of the proposed system?

It's easy to say "aha we have a solution - SIDE CHAINS!" before actually implementing it, and see if there are any problems in the implementation as you roll it out and fully test it.

I don't, nor do I care. The side chain approach has its own flaws. You will still be able to see what bitcoins go into and come out of side chains, hence why coins can be "flagged" that use SC.

[smoothie]

[...]
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 AND SELL 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.

FTFY as people still use coinbase to cash out to fiat.

Don't forget that caveat.

A user not being able to have their bitcoin accepted by a business like coinbase is not the users fault...it is because the block chain allows analysis to be done to determine if a certain address has stolen bitcoins or used for illegal means flagged by a past crime.

That isn't the users flaw. It is the flaw of having a 100% transparent ledger.

[smoothie]

Adam Back talking about weak fungibility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

[smoothie]

http://www.alphr.com/news/385735/stallman-calls-for-truly-anonymous-alternative-to-bitcoin

[johnyj]

Stopped watching after he laid out the so called 4 properties of money. Those people who learn knowledge of money from books will never understand how money works

[elrippo]

http://www.alphr.com/news/385735/stallman-calls-for-truly-anonymous-alternative-to-bitcoin

That would be Monero.

One option yes, almost every protocol other then SHA-256 is better for your anonymity 

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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.

[brg444]

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.

[Gleb Gamow]

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.

When I visited India back in '91, the official exchange rate was 25 rupees to $1, but I was able to purchase them for 35:1 on the Black [market] (their lingo). Ironically, the exchange transpired in the very hotels I stayed and always with one caveat: They wanted one dollar bills. Nothing larger. Fortunately, I was made aware of that fact prior to leaving the States. A cup of tea costed 1 rupee, and a steak dinner at a fine establishment was just over two bucks worth of rupees. While in Bombay (prior to the name change), I didn't even crack spending over a hundred bucks for my three-day stay there at two upscale hotels that years later were hit by terrorists.

[binaryFate]

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.

You can't tell which of the two inputs they come from, but they're distinguishable from all other satoshis of other transactions.
The history of an output isn't a one single trail but a tree. Doesn't mean this history doesn't exist (and isn't potentially meaningful).

[VirosaGITS]

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.

You can't tell which of the two inputs they come from, but they're distinguishable from all other satoshis of other transactions.
The history of an output isn't a one single trail but a tree. Doesn't mean this history doesn't exist (and isn't potentially meaningful).

And you can distinguish bills from their serial number. Having a ledger of all transaction prior does not change the weight value of the Bitcoins. Electronic transaction are just the same.

[binaryFate]

And you can distinguish bills from their serial number.

Fiat money is fungible by law.
That is the only way to make items that can definitely be distinguished by the population (physically speaking for cash notes) fungible: enforce it by law!
This has always been the case in all fiat systems since this historical affair with the bank of Scotland in 1748: http://www.paybits.net/blog/why-fungibility-matters/

Now if you have a decentralized system such as a cryptocurrency, law is of no use. The only remaining way to obtain fungibility is therefore that items are indistiguishable. So we have: privacy <=> fungibility. QED.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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.

You can't tell which of the two inputs they come from, but they're distinguishable from all other satoshis of other transactions.
The history of an output isn't a one single trail but a tree. Doesn't mean this history doesn't exist (and isn't potentially meaningful).

And you can distinguish bills from their serial number. Having a ledger of all transaction prior does not change the weight value of the Bitcoins. Electronic transaction are just the same.

I think you need to reread my comment again, particularly the part where I assert that "centralized fiat is fungible by decree." Bills don't have to be distinguishable because a central authority guarantees (and enforces) their value.

(un)Fortunately, Bitcoin doesn't have a central bank or regulating authority, so the only way to guarantee fungibility is to have totally indistinguishable units.

The mere presence of a business that doesn't accept certain coins is proof that the coin isn't fungible, as such discrimination would otherwise be impossible.