As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.
now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility.
Just because a coin is being used in a specific way that does not make such coin more or less fungible than if such coin is used in another way.
Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'.
Geez jbreher... I see no reason for me to look up anything related to fungibility. You are trying to make some kind of assertion that lack of fungibility is an issue, and seems that you are just making shit up.
Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it.
Evidence supporting "fungibility" issues in bitcoin is that some peeople are cautiously accepting segwit transactions.... Never heard of such thing, and I doubt it is a problem.. yet. Again you seem to be making shit up.
Even if I were to have bitcoins in a segwit address, and someone asserted they preferred to receive them from a non segwit address, then I could send.. or maybe there would be two transaction.. but again.. where is the fucking beef about this issue, besides some folks supposedly expressing reservations? Is anyone actually refusing to accept transactions from segwit addresses? show some proof.
That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
O.k. Fungibility issues would exist if some coins were easier to spend then others or if I could not get my coins sent because of some issue with them being tainted in some kind of way. Again, where is the evidence of this seemingly fabricated issue (and if it is not completely fabricated it is surely greatly exaggerated)?
Sure some BIG BLOCKER nutjobs are going to continue to exaggerate negative speculation, like you seem to be doing, and to spread disinformation about supposed catastrophes of lightning network in order to pump their stupid-ass and largely non-substantiated negative talking points.
If you want to argue the
facts of the matter, step up. I made some assertions of fact.
Assertions of facts do not make facts, if you don't show evidence.
Pony up some counter-arguments. If what I said is 'disinformation', then it should be a simple matter for you to put forth proof that they are false.
I have no burden to put forth facts to rebut your bare assertions, because I have not seen anything rising to the level of meaningful facts (beyond assertions about what could happen ... not something that is actually happening)
And I am in no way exaggerating nor claiming catastrophe. I made no value judgement on the matter, and even pointed out that the current debate is how significant these flaws are. All you are doing is bloviating. Buck up or shut up.
There may be discussion going on in BIG blocker disinformation circles? Where are your links of discussions beyond your speculation?
Poll
