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

[brg444]

The idea is not that one should have an incentive to do it but that it is possible.

I realize this is out of context but it's exactly how I feel about our fungibility argument. You think we shouldn't transact with businesses who discriminate, and I think it should be possible to discriminate in the first place.

If I can willingly contaminate every known addresses containing "clean" coins this just goes to show you how worthless and patently unworkable the concept of blacklisting is.

Either that, or it shows you how worthless and patently unworkable Bitcoin is.

Have you considered that every government, anywhere in the world, could tomorrow pass legislation that would make Bitcoin transactions in the country illegal.

Does that also make Bitcoin patently unworkable?

[brg444]

Now you're making fiat comparisons. Even if you're not talking about fiat, you're talking about collectibles. I'm talking about decentralized cryptocurrency.

Users paying a premium on freshly mined coins is also an example of collectibles.

[brg444]

If the time comes that certain coins are considered permanently clean and others permanently dirty in a future regulated world system,
the community as a whole should purposefully contaminate all clean coins found on the blockchain.

And what incentive does anyone have in doing that? Should we use the Bitcoin Honor System(TM) and hope people are willing to devalue their clean money?

I have a better idea. Fungibility.

I meant that other bitcoin users, who have "dirty coins" should send some to "clean addresses".

There is no way for exchanges and banks to know whether the coins that are moved forward from that (clean) address contain the "dirty coins".
And so, all coins within that addresses would be outright considered "dirty".

If all addresses are "dirtied" then there is no fungibility problem. All coins become dirty.

If all coins are dirtied, there can be no "dirty coin" blacklisting on the Bitcoin blockchain.

This guy here, he gets it.

[AgentofCoin]

If the time comes that certain coins are considered permanently clean and others permanently dirty in a future regulated world system,
the community as a whole should purposefully contaminate all clean coins found on the blockchain.

And what incentive does anyone have in doing that? Should we use the Bitcoin Honor System(TM) and hope people are willing to devalue their clean money?

I have a better idea. Fungibility.

I meant that other bitcoin users, who have "dirty coins" should send some to "clean addresses".
There is no way of exchanges and banks to know whether the coins that are moved forward from that address contain the "dirty coins".
And so, all coins within that addresses would be outright considered "dirty".
If all addresses are "dirtied" than there is no fungibility problem. All coins become dirty.

Well machines can sift through a lot more data than "is at any point...?" so this argument would still stand against coins that was dirty before "the great Bitcoin mudfight" to make all coins dirty.

There's also the added problems that more new clean coins are made every 9.9~ minutes on average. And if you add a few satoshis to new or old clean coins, it doesn't really make them dirtied.

Its not hard to have the clean/unclean system ignore "dirtying" of less than x.

You would need to actually mix all the coins with all the coins. Doesn't sound doable.

...

I do not understand.

Lets say you have an address with one "clean bitcoin", call it "1cBTC".
Now I send 5000 "dirty" satoshis into that address. That address has now been contaminated.
So, in turn, with coin control, you move your "1cBTC" to a new address and leave the 5000 satoshis behind.

Now, you decide to move your "1cBTC" to Coinbase. Does Coinbase know that the 5000 satoshis left behind are the true dirty through the protocol?
I do not believe so. They would have to take your word on it that you left the true dirty behind.
They do not know if you moved proper inputs and could not actually trust you. So, they would deem you too risky and now dirty.

If you contaminate a single address once, other companies, banks, or other, do not know if you are truly dirty or clean anymore.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

The idea is not that one should have an incentive to do it but that it is possible.

I realize this is out of context but it's exactly how I feel about our fungibility argument. You think we shouldn't transact with businesses who discriminate, and I think it should be possible to discriminate in the first place.

If I can willingly contaminate every known addresses containing "clean" coins this just goes to show you how worthless and patently unworkable the concept of blacklisting is.

Either that, or it shows you how worthless and patently unworkable Bitcoin is.

Have you considered that every government, anywhere in the world, could tomorrow pass legislation that would make Bitcoin transactions in the country illegal.

Does that also make Bitcoin patently unworkable?

Not at all! That's the spirit of crypto! It can't (easily) be stopped, or regulated. I want that same attitude about fungibility. Instead of refusing to transact with shady businesses, simply make it impossible!

Why is that such a bad thing?

[brg444]

If the time comes that certain coins are considered permanently clean and others permanently dirty in a future regulated world system,
the community as a whole should purposefully contaminate all clean coins found on the blockchain.

And what incentive does anyone have in doing that? Should we use the Bitcoin Honor System(TM) and hope people are willing to devalue their clean money?

I have a better idea. Fungibility.

I meant that other bitcoin users, who have "dirty coins" should send some to "clean addresses".
There is no way of exchanges and banks to know whether the coins that are moved forward from that address contain the "dirty coins".
And so, all coins within that addresses would be outright considered "dirty".
If all addresses are "dirtied" than there is no fungibility problem. All coins become dirty.

Well machines can sift through a lot more data than "is at any point...?" so this argument would still stand against coins that was dirty before "the great Bitcoin mudfight" to make all coins dirty.

There's also the added problems that more new clean coins are made every 9.9~ minutes on average. And if you add a few satoshis to new or old clean coins, it doesn't really make them dirtied.

Its not hard to have the clean/unclean system ignore "dirtying" of less than x.

You would need to actually mix all the coins with all the coins. Doesn't sound doable.

...

I do not understand.

Lets say you have an address with one "clean bitcoin", call it "1cBTC".
Now I send 5000 "dirty" satoshis into that address. That address has now been contaminated.
So, in turn, with coin control, you move your "1cBTC" to a new address and leave the 5000 satoshis behind.

Now, you decide to move your "1cBTC" to Coinbase. Does Coinbase know that the 5000 satoshis left behind are the true dirty through the protocol?
I do not believe so. They would have to take your word on it that you left the true dirty behind.
They do not know if you moved proper inputs and could not actually trust you. So, they would deem you too risky and now dirty.

If you contaminate a single address once, other companies, banks, or other, do not know if you are dirty or clean anymore.

Precisely.

I've repeated this ad nauseam but it needs to be emphasized: all units within the system are perfectly indistinguishable and can be trivially substituted with one another. This, is fungibility.  

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Now you're making fiat comparisons. Even if you're not talking about fiat, you're talking about collectibles. I'm talking about decentralized cryptocurrency.

Users paying a premium on freshly mined coins is also an example of collectibles.

Do you think that's a good thing for Bitcoin? Is that what you want it to become? A collectible?

[brg444]

The idea is not that one should have an incentive to do it but that it is possible.

I realize this is out of context but it's exactly how I feel about our fungibility argument. You think we shouldn't transact with businesses who discriminate, and I think it should be possible to discriminate in the first place.

If I can willingly contaminate every known addresses containing "clean" coins this just goes to show you how worthless and patently unworkable the concept of blacklisting is.

Either that, or it shows you how worthless and patently unworkable Bitcoin is.

Have you considered that every government, anywhere in the world, could tomorrow pass legislation that would make Bitcoin transactions in the country illegal.

Does that also make Bitcoin patently unworkable?

Not at all! That's the spirit of crypto! It can't (easily) be stopped, or regulated. I want that same attitude about fungibility. Instead of refusing to transact with shady businesses, simply make it impossible!

Why is that such a bad thing?

You don't seem to understand what I'm alluding to.

If your solution to the governments' intention on cracking down on "illicit" money is to make all money potentially illicit then don't be surprised when they decide to outright ban you form of money seeing as their blacklisting scheme doesn't work

[brg444]

Now you're making fiat comparisons. Even if you're not talking about fiat, you're talking about collectibles. I'm talking about decentralized cryptocurrency.

Users paying a premium on freshly mined coins is also an example of collectibles.

Do you think that's a good thing for Bitcoin? Is that what you want it to become? A collectible?

I think it has absolutely no incidence on Bitcoin. This is purely a subjective valuation on the part of the buyer.

[brg444]

Transacting with businesses that are only interested in Bitcoin because of the free press it provides them and proceed to dump your payments to fiat are in no way helpful in "changing the world".

I disagree. It might not be the end goal, but acceptance is an important step that increases awareness and support.

These businesses don't accept Bitcoin, they don't even have a wallet address.

I'm sorry but it should be clear by now that this type of "merchant acceptance" and "mainstream awareness" has proven to be an utter failure in term of growing adoption and support.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I've repeated this ad nauseam but it needs to be emphasized: all units within the system are perfectly indistinguishable and can be trivially substituted with one another. This, is fungibility.  

I understand the technical difference between inputs and addresses but from a transactional standpoint it doesn't matter, because blockchain analysis services still ultimately determine your money's worth.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

If your solution to the governments' intention on cracking down on "illicit" money is to make all money potentially illicit then don't be surprised when they decide to outright ban you form of money seeing as their blacklisting scheme doesn't work

And how would this ban of decentralized illicit money be enforced?

[brg444]

If your solution to the governments' intention on cracking down on "illicit" money is to make all money potentially illicit then don't be surprised when they decide to outright ban you form of money seeing as their blacklisting scheme doesn't work

And how would this ban of decentralized illicit money be enforced?

Of course it couldn't since Bitcoin being what it is, it allows its users to make complete abstraction of obsolete fiat regulations.

If you agree to this then you also need to admit that this is also true of aforementioned blacklisting and other "taint" practices. The entirety of the efforts being put into "mapping" the blockchain and listing addresses today are made by fiat parasites. I would dare say ONLY third-parties enforce such regulations and invest any money into them.

As such, when involved in purely peer-to-peer transactions Bitcoin users will scarcely, if ever, encounter this type of discrimination. The reason, again, is that it isn't economically sustainable, or yet even affordable. Be sure that what I'm suggesting is that the informal economy will crowd out and ruin any such conventions.

Participants in a p2p transaction either decide to oblige with the market's price or make a subjective offer according to arbitrary valuations. Consider that these participants are in competition with the market and as such the other side can themselves prefer to accomodate the other party or find the next best offer. With regards to Bitcoin the market is global.

[VirosaGITS]

I've repeated this ad nauseam but it needs to be emphasized: all units within the system are perfectly indistinguishable and can be trivially substituted with one another. This, is fungibility.  

I understand the technical difference between inputs and addresses but from a transactional standpoint it doesn't matter, because blockchain analysis services still ultimately determine your money's worth.

And FIAT's value isint based on its numerical value, its based on the purchasing power of the currency, the value goes up and down, depending on supply and demand. The second you compare how different currency work, you're just going away from the fungibility fundamentals, that need not even apply to BTC.

[franky1]

some shops refuse to accept bank notes over $20
some shops refuse to accept payment in penny coins

some shops refuse to accept any cash at all and only accept cards
some shops refuse to accept cards and only accept cash

some shops refuse to take cheques.. some shops prefer cheques..

there is always extra fee's or costs depending on irrational reasons. there are even people paying hundreds of dollars just for a specific dollar coin..

theres people that have weird reason to pay more for a bank note that has a mystical serial number, that can bring luck.

the short story is.. soo what..
the funny part about buying freshly mined coins for a premium is the same as buying a new car..
.. as soon as it transfers ownership to you, its no longer new and fresh and automatically loses value straight away. meaning that there is no financial
incentive to do it. and is just a preference thing.. it does not mean other coins are not fungible.. its just a trend.. and not something that will affect the whole economy

.. afterall more second hand cars are bought compared to new cars per year

[AgentofCoin]

...
the funny part about buying freshly mined coins for a premium is the same as buying a new car..
.. as soon as it transfers ownership to you, its no longer new and fresh and automatically loses value straight away.
...

That is a great comparison and may be the proper perspective.
Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how this market turns out in the far future.

[BillyBobJoe]

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.

And to expand on your point, I think. In some parts of the world older generation of US $100 bills are considered less valuable than the latest, newest US $100 bills.

[smoothie]

If the time comes that certain coins are considered permanently clean and others permanently dirty in a future regulated world system,
the community as a whole should purposefully contaminate all clean coins found on the blockchain.

And what incentive does anyone have in doing that? Should we use the Bitcoin Honor System(TM) and hope people are willing to devalue their clean money?

I have a better idea. Fungibility.

I see a pattern happening here:

1. Issues raised with Bitcoin's fungibility get brought to light

2. Supporters of bitcoin's "fungibility" propose solution X

3. Those who want to see reality for what it is go on to debunk solution X given it is a patch to the system and not an actualy addition to bitcoin's protocol which attempts to fix bitcoin's fungibility issues in a ROUND-ABOUT-WAY.

4. repeat step 2 & 3 for solution X+1 until X+n is reached

5. agree to disagree


There are so many supposed solutions to fixing bitcoin's fungibility problem but they don't hit the issue head on. It is always some sort of off chain (outside of bitocin protocol) PATCH/mechanism which does not fix anything deterministically 100%.

[VirosaGITS]

If the time comes that certain coins are considered permanently clean and others permanently dirty in a future regulated world system,
the community as a whole should purposefully contaminate all clean coins found on the blockchain.

And what incentive does anyone have in doing that? Should we use the Bitcoin Honor System(TM) and hope people are willing to devalue their clean money?

I have a better idea. Fungibility.

I see a pattern happening here:

1. Issues raised with Bitcoin's fungibility get brought to light

2. Supporters of bitcoin's "fungibility" propose solution X

3. Those who want to see reality for what it is go on to debunk solution X given it is a patch to the system and not an actualy addition to bitcoin's protocol which attempts to fix bitcoin's fungibility issues in a ROUND-ABOUT-WAY.

4. repeat step 2 for solution X+1 until X+n is reached

5. agree to disagree


There are so many supposed solutions to fixing bitcoin's fungibility problem but they don't hit the issue head on. It is always some sort of of chain (outside of bitocin protocol) PATCH which does not fix anything deterministically 100%.

Fungibility isint a problem in the first place. Its not because a dead man said it need to be fungible than the principle still hold true. I very much doubt he could foresee hundreds of years in the future that money would become digital and ethereal.

Now we're in the era of Security.

[smoothie]

I don't see it? If the price is 2.1BTC then it does not matter what bitcoin you send, the price is the same. The price you PAY for a bitcoin varies, but not the value. I might be able to sell you a dollar for $1.05, however that does not mean dollars have lost their fungibility.

dollars are given fungibility by the U.S. government

Hardly a comparable analogy to use as bitcoin is not government decreed as fungible.