Fungibility Fun!

@JimCollinson there’s that “keys” terminology again ^^^, would “not your password and passphrase, not your coins” ring so true??? Not really, imo…
Only keys or combinations unlock a safe.


Aye, that’s why we’re calling them collectively “Access Keys”.


If every data on the SAFE Network can be --exchange for every other data at the core, poof no more cex or dex.

@knosis 124631 maid --exchange 1 btc
@19eddyjohn75 @knosis 124631 maid --exchange 1 btc

@19eddyjohn75 1 maid --exchange 124631 btc
@MichaeldrunkenSailor @19eddyjohn75 1 maid --exchange 643211 btc

@domainsquattergonecrazyhihihi google --exchange 124631 maid
@alphabetsoup @domainsquattergonecrazyhihihi google --exchange 124631 maid


A fun colloquial play on words for n of k multi sig would be “combination” or “combination lock”.

“Use your preferred access key combination to unlock your safe!”





Maidsafe team == Cypherpunks Supreme! :wink:


Good read but get this @danda, as he concludes at the end, Edward says that CBDC’s could be frozen/confiscated if it was linked to crime as if every other crypto doesn’t use a public ledger centralized exchanges aren’t effectively central banks that can do the same thing by blacklisting coins.

Is crypto better than a CBDC? Of course but using public ledgers with pseudo anonymity or centralized exchanges, perhaps even particular wallets is just the same as what he is warning about with a CBDC.


Just for the fun …


Weaponized fungibility. bit of a monero advert, but interesting.


Algorand even got a better option implemented within the protocol

Atomic transfers enable use cases such as:

Circular trades - Alice pays Bob if and only if Bob pays Claire if and only if Claire pays Alice.

Group payments - Everyone pays or no one pays.

Decentralized exchanges - Trade one asset for another without going through a centralized exchange.

Distributed payments - Payments to multiple recipients.

Pooled transaction fees - One transaction pays the fees of others.

@maidsafe please take note for dbc’s :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Dont believe everything you read. Its for the most part a crock of shit.

Bisq (decentralized exchange) users discussing bitcoin’s lack of fungibility:


BlockFi loan customer reports losing six figures because Blockfi liquidated his loan prematurely due to disliking something in the coin’s history that customer had no control over.

Funny thing is, despite claiming these coins are “bad” I’m pretty sure they held on to them…


Not sure if you have ever listened to Kevin O’Leary “Mr. Wonderful” I believe he calls himself, but he’s been mentioning that he thinks getting bitcoins mined with environmental, sustainability, and governance (ESG) aka clean or green bitcoin mining may be essential for your coins to be safe in the future.

Could be a possibility someday but it’s pretty insane that he can point out that lack of fungibility so openly and be okay with it still. Maybe coins created after a certain date or legislation that takes effect that aren’t ESG are either blacklisted or ESG sell at a premium.


From the Chief Communications Officer of BitRefill:


Wondering if transaction fees paid with “bad” bitcoin, may over time corrupt the entire network? Same with gas fees on Ethereum? If a disgruntled bitcoiner who can’t sell his coin for fiat anywhere but bisq (because they are tainted) and over time the value of coins traded on bisq is going to go down a lot as people realize they are high chance of taint on bisq; then such a person might just dump them onto miners by choosing to pay a huge transaction fee … Or are the transaction fee coins somehow considered “cleaned”?

The long term implications here are boggling, but hypothetically all of this info is trackable via the chain right?


Or are the transaction fee coins somehow considered “cleaned”?

I’ve never really thought about this much.

But yeah, it seems the fees are cleaned. Basically it works like this:

  1. users send transactions and pay fees. The fees are simply the sum(inputs) - sum(outputs). There is no “fee” field anywhere in a Tx.

  2. A miner generates a coinbase transaction specifying an output payment address, amount, and a single empty input.

  3. When the miner guesses the winning hash, then other full nodes recognize that the coinbase transaction created by winning miner should be honered. They verify that the output is not greater than coinbase_reward + sum(all block inputs) - sum(all block outputs).

So there is unlinkability here. The fees are unlinked in a few ways:

  1. Fee is derived from every tx in the block. So the entire block represents the anonymity set.
  2. The coinbase is acting like a CoinJoin tx. Where inputs from multiple parties are mixed in a single tx.
  3. The fees are also combined with the block-reward, which is (for now) the largest component of the output.

So yeah, it’s like we’ve take a bunch of tiny gold coins from a thousand different parties and thrown them in a crucible with a big gold bar, and formed a new bar. Pretty hard to know anything about the original coins after that.



I wonder if that is why sometimes we get the huge tx fees happening? Seems it would need either collusion with a winning miner beforehand (pretty hard) or hope the miner “refunds” some of the (cleaned) fee.


Having constructed raw bitcoin transactions (createrawtransaction API), I can report that it is very easy to have a bug that creates a huge unintended fee.

Let’s say we have an input worth $1000 and we want to spent $100. If our code naively creates a raw tx with input = 1000 and output = 100, then the remaining $900 becomes the fee.

Instead, we would need to provide a second change output, worth say $899, and so then 1000-100-899 = $1 fee.

Most wallet APIs just provide a “fee” field to make it easier, but the raw API does not, and I’ve heard various devs have gotten in trouble that way… though one imagines that they learn quickly. :slight_smile:

Seems it would need either collusion with a winning miner beforehand (pretty hard)

Very hard. Even if a large miner (or pool) attempts this trick, the most likely outcome is still that they just lose the funds to another miner.