I apologize to those reading for the rather large wall of text. I’m well-aware that debates at this level can become a little hard to follow, as such I will provide a simple summary of my position right here. If you read this, you will understand my POV without needing to read all of the below back and forth.
Summary
It is my position that the XMR community has attempted to infiltrate this community and subtly push self-serving propaganda in order to slide this forum towards their own benefit.
This has not only no benefit for MaidSafe but only detriment, and it will indeed damage the community by making us irrational relative to actual definitions and terms. No economist or economically learned person would ever consider fungibility in the way jpell, danda and other XMR acolytes do below. My argument is simply this:
-
The definition of fungibility agreed on by both sides makes no mention of history or tracking removing fungibility
-
Fungibility is an intrinsic property of currency units and cannot be changed by external means such as tracking, so-called “taint”, nor history (all XMR community terms parroted here while paradoxically denying affiliation, a most unlikely premise)
-
None of the below discussion has ANYTHING to do with anything because it doesn’t apply to cryptocurrencies; cryptocurrencies live on the blockchain and don’t go anywhere to be “tracked” unlike fiat currencies which literally change hands over time and place
-
Therefore the contention that “history” removes fungibility from UTXO cryptocurrencies, and by extension XMR is the “only fungible cryptocurrency” must be false
-
Also note that if you do decide to read the debate below, I cited user jlpell with 12 counts of dishonest debating tactics. Which, said another way, means that I won the debate 12 times by default
End Summary
The granularity may be “about the same” if we concoct theoretical scenarios
I don’t think this is true. The websites I showed offered a layer of granularity that is above that for UTXO cryptocurrencies. Also the governmental ability to track bills is much greater than those sites and they have a lot more resources devoted to tracking than blockchains do. So I think your distinction is in error here.
The bills could theoretically be tracked to a high level of granularity similar to blockchain, but they are not
Its not theoretical, it is definitely real and practically useful today. To call it theoretical is to be dishonest imo. You say that its not but the websites and their offerings contradict you. You do not have the ability to speak your opinions into reality (that I know of) and thus I reject this as an unsourced allegation.
Actually, you’re wrong about that too. Check out this video: 1988 Coins Have Tracking Devices (Coin Shortage Decoding). Also pennies and other coins have their issuance dates that can help narrow down information. Not as identifying as the tracking chips above but, yeah this statement above is likely false. Its not just about “convenience stores” but being tracked and the govt can do this.
. These notes and coins can pass through many transactions prior to entering the banking system once again, where their location history and depositor is logged. These are large aggregate flows, not micro-transactions. Given that we are talking about fiat, a law could theoretically arise in the future that requires all physical currency for all transactions in the entire economic system to be tracked for all denominations and reported with serial numbers in real time, but that is a different reality then the current one.
This is rather besides the point. The point is that the tracking granularity is about the same and nothing you have said here disproves that notion. There are NO tracking chips in a BTC like there can be shown to be in a 88 quarter, for example. As I’ve shown, bills are easily tracked via serial number and series number, and even coins can be physically tracked via chips, so in essence and in practice you are incorrect.
What happens after identifying information is associated?
An irrelevant question. Satoshi’s advice was that we are to use new receiving addresses for EACH transaction and modern wallets behave this way. If there really is a worry then coinjoining removes any history while preserving the function of the currency. You take liberties in assumption for your argument while being as strict as possible for mine, this is not a fair way to argue. The fact remains that it is YOUR contentions that are “mostly theoretical” while my POV is the most practical and daily used.
Can a global transaction history be reconstructed via chain analysis to distinguish and associate currency units to specific actors/sources/destinations?
Most likely not, no, due to the above best practices and neither seller nor buyer having links to addresses and transactions. You need both sides to self report this data and nobody is going to do that because it is too cumbersome (again thanks to above mentioned best practices).
Could a specific transaction history cause central authorities and/or free market participants to no longer want to accept specific currency units as payment for goods/services?
This question is completely irrelevant to the issue of fungibility. Fungibility is NOT related to this concept by definition and thus your question is misleading and illegitimate.
I think you are getting lost in my choice of phrasing here.
I don’t think I am. Fiat currencies unique identifiers “could be a name” but in practice are going to be serial numbers and series numbers. These are the unique identifiers. The unique identifiers are not “names given by temporary owners” as your example portends, they are the serial numbers and series numbers that are stamped onto the bill and follow it everywhere.
I have no idea what the XMR community is working on.
This statement is irrelevant as knowledge of “what they’re working on” is not necessary to support their biased arguments or be exposed to their corruptive influences so I reject this statement as irrelevant.
I don’t have anything to do with XMR and never have. I have never made a single XMR transaction.
The same as above for both of these statements. Being biased towards their community (because you’re friends with one of their proselytes) has nothing to do with any of that. You could’ve never even heard the name XMR and still be guilty of my accusation. Please respond directly to the arguments that I’m making and not to strawmen, thank you.
I was not aware that they claim the title of “the only fungible cryptocurrency”.
Really, I do believe that it was heavily implied by Danda, not refuted by he nor those on his side in this days-long debate, and anyway certainly alluded to in Danda’s “fungibility list” above. Danda certainly sung the praises of XMR in regards to fungibility and so while this may not be something explicitly declared, I feel that here “thou dost protest too much”.
Prevention of “double spending” and counterfeiting is fundamental to having a sound monetary system. It’s important to discriminate against fakes. Fake money should not be fungible with real money, right?
I don’t have any problem with this statement, nor do I believe that I implied the opposite.
Yes they are.
No they’re not. Look at the definition of fungibility. Despite all USD having serial numbers, CURRENCIES are said to be fungible. Why? Because serial numbers are not related to fungibility. If you are going to contradict an argument, please provide more than your biased statements as a counter.
Fungibility of a currency or commodity is intimately entwined with its history.
No its not. Fungibility, by definition, has NOTHING to do with a currency’s history. Fungibility is not a property of currencies, but of units of currencies. And as stated, by the definition of fungibility that your side proffered and we all agreed upon to use, there is no mention of history. You are making a derivative argument that ONLY the XMR community makes, which makes your statements above about not knowing much about their community quite suspect. No one else but the XMR community believes that fungibility has anything to do with “history”.
A history can involve many things, such as production method, quality or originating location, and/or including who owned a particular currency unit prior to the current owner.
NONE OF THIS is related to fungibility. The only way it could be related is if the unit produced were defective and thus removing its interchangeability with other units (the actual definition of fungibility which is not related to “history”). If you’re going to claim this inaccurate statement is the case, you MUST provide sources to this effect. Otherwise you are guilty of passing speculation as fact. Remember that it is disqualifying to engage in illogical behavior like that in a debate.
False.
True. Fungibility is an INTRINSIC property of the units of the currency and thus, like all intrinsic properties it cannot be changed from the outside. This is the meaning of the word intrinsic.
intrinsic
ĭn-trĭn′zĭk, -sĭk
adjective
1. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
2. Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts. Used of certain nerves and muscles.
Once again it is dishonest and disqualifying behavior to make claims without source or backing in a debate. This is the third time I’m having to warn you about this. Please rectify this in the future.
True.
Admitting this contradicts your claim of “false” above, contradicting yourself is disqualifying behavior in a debate. I keep pointing these things out, because in a formal debate you would lose at these points. Please refrain from engaging in dishonest debating tactics as you will force me to claim a victory by default. I do not wish to do this.
In abstract terms this includes having an unequal, atypical, or in other words “illegal” transaction or production history from the perspective of the economic system facilitated by the currency.
No, it does not. The only way a production history could affect a currency unit would be if it resulted in a defective bill or unit. Otherwise this is irrelevant to its fungibility. Transaction history, whether “illegal” or otherwise HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNGIBILITY.
You are again making an unsourced claim that is directly in contravention to the definition of the word that WE ALL AGREED UPON. This is not an honest debating tactic and will be the 5th time that I have warned you for it. You should know that my patience for this behavior is wearing thin.
This example probably won’t satisfy you, but it’s enough for nearly everyone else here.
If it is, it is only because they have been tricked by the XMR community as I allege. That “frozen” bitcoin was only “frozen” on centralized exchanges (which has nothing to do with its fungibility), only a select few of them, and even the article itself calls into question the idea that you’re trying to forward.
Unlike bank wires, transactions on decentralized blockchains typically cannot be stopped or frozen.
If you read your own source, that line should’ve been enough to crater your entire argument. For some reason, I allege corruptive influence by the XMR community, you now ignore YOUR OWN SOURCES in order to proffer and support an incorrect idea of transactionality.
Of course, this is neither here nor there in terms of fungibility, again because fungibility is an INTRINSIC property of currencies and cannot be changed by external sources. However, if you were being intellectually honest, you would admit that your argument itself is defeated here, because you allege that cryptocurrency “freezing” removes fungibility. Your source admits that this is not generally possible with cryptocurrencies and thus your argument must be false.
You are NOT being intellectually honest as I’ve shown with your 5 citations for dishonest debating tactics, however, and therefore you do not behave as you should in this debate. Suffice it to say your cited article makes MY POINT and I thank you for doing so.
I can’t do this in terms you would likely be happy with, but consider this example.
Then you must concede the point! Do you not realize how embarrassing it is to watch you struggle so hard to gain so very little? To struggle so hard to refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong? Doing so makes your argument look worse because you show that you cannot admit to error, so how do we know your entire argument hasn’t been overlooked in this way? We can’t know for certain, and as I’ve already cited you with 5 dishonest debating attempts, the evidence is not in your favor either.
Fiat currency is typically tracked, and when a particular currency unit is considered unfit for service (ie. no longer fungible), it is no longer interchangeable and therefore destroyed.
Yes, I have mentioned this myself. Defective units undermines the utility of a currency and thus they are treated as nonfungible with nondefective units. This is due to the fact that you could cheat the system utilizing certain defects (a dollar bill cut in half would basically double your fiat, for example, coins with metal shaved off being of lesser value being another), and this has nothing to do with “history” due to being tracked but due to defective units subverting the social contract that currencies require to function.
If people know you’re cutting your coins with cheap metal, for example, they will not value them at their face value. This undermines the entire system. However, this again has NOTHING TO DO with history or “tracking” and everything to do with the intrinsic qualities the unit does or does not possess.
So you’re correct that your argument does not satisfy me, because it is inaccurate (claiming this is due to “tracking” when that is only the means to ensure that defective units are removed - it has no effect on nondefective units making your argument false and misleading).
Likewise, when contaminated or tainted currency is discovered it is destroyed by government.
Also in this instance the tracking is a mere side-player to the contamination or defective nature of the unit, which changes its intrinsic qualities and is the true source of non-fungibility. So this argument is still misleading. That’s the 6th time.
The contaminated currency likely remained fungible as long as its history was unknown. This demonstrates the intimate link between fungibility and history.
No it does not. You are drawing a conclusion for which you have not supported. Fungibility and history are NOT linked. History is NOT used to determine whether or not a unit is fungbile, but only to track whether or not its DAMAGED and becomes defective. There are NO CASES where a dollar bill is destroyed because it passed through a criminals hands. Indeed, traces of cocaine and other drugs does NOTHING to remove the fungibility of a unit of currency.
Furthermore and most importantly, none of what you said is possible with cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are IMMUTABLE from the perspective of damage and defectivity, i.e. it is NOT possible to “damage” or “tear” a BTC such that its use would be affected and thus required to be destroyed. So ALL OF WHAT YOU’RE SAYING ABOVE IS COMPLETELY MOOT TO THIS DISCUSSION and I cite you for a 7th infraction of dishonest debating.
It is not honest to make arguments that have nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Fiat currencies are not made non-fungible by their history, only when defective, and such defectivity IS MEANINGLESS for cryptocurrencies, so basically everything you wrote above is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
It was perfectly sensible, you just ignore basic set theory.
No, it wasn’t and no I don’t.
This is correct.
If all currency units possess the property of fungibility, then it is reasonable to state that the currency itself is also fungible
This is incorrect; currencies cannot be fungible strictly speaking, only units of currencies. The correct statement from a set-theoretical point of view is to state that if all currency units possess the property of fungibility, then that currency is the set of all fungible currency units. Sets are not usually ascribed the properties of their elements. The Set of all positive numbers isn’t itself positive, because its not a number but a collection of numbers. Also note that according to Set theory a set is a collection of distinct elements. Which contradicts your idea that currencies lose fungibility when they can be distinguished.
If all units are non-fungible, then the set is labeled non-fungible.
Again, incorrect, the set itself wouldn’t be fungible or non-fungible, only the elements would be. It would be labeled “the set of non-fungible elements” not “the non-fungible set”. The latter would include ALL non-fungible things in existence and would be likely infinite in elements (not what you were going for).
If only a subset of the currency units in a set are not fungible, then the currency is only partially fungible.
Incorrect. Fungibility is NOT a property of currencies, nor of sets of currencies (two currencies are never fungible with each other), but of currency units only. If only a subset of the units are non-fungible, then the set is a set of fungible and non-fungible USD (for example) where the fungible USD would be a subset of that set and the non-fungible USD would be another subset, and the original set in your example (combining both fungible and non-fungible units) would be the union of these two subsets.
If the subset of non-fungible units are destroyed and replaced with fungible units, then “the currency” is again fully fungible. This is self-evident.
You are incorrect, and it is now quite clear that it is YOU that does not understand basic set theory. Fungibility is not a property of sets of currencies, it is a property of currency units only. You think its self-evident because your understanding of set theory is incomplete/incorrect.
I normally call refer to this situation as “convertible” or “exchangable”
This is a personal convention of yours and is misleading.
For the most part yes, but this is too simplistic of a description. Not all “corn” is equal, not all “wheat” is equal. The production history matters, the quality matters.
Wrong, this is the definition of fungbility. The production history doesn’t matter so long as the unit is not defective, quality only matters so long as the unit is not defective. This is what it means to be fungible. You are inserting “history” because you are making a derived argument, i.e. because production history can be used to identify defective batches you INCORRECTLY attribute this history as a property of the fungibility of the batch, when it is only used to possibly identify which batch was defective. It is not used to discriminate otherwise. It is the state of being DEFECTIVE, not BEING TRACKED that obviates the fungibility of a good or service.
You just proved my entire point here.
Not at all, your desperation to claim victory is not becoming.
The relative value of gold varies depending on its production history and quality.
No it doesn’t! What on earth are you talking about? My quote was about a famous artist changing the gold by imparting to it time-labor value that other gold doesn’t recieve. The same thing applies to ANY commodity. When you take a piece of wood and make it into a chair, it is no longer just a piece of wood, and therefore no longer fungible with OTHER WOOD. But that doesn’t mean its “production history has anything to do with its fungibility!”
Its the CHANGE into another commodity that changes the fungibility, because you’re changing the intrinsic properties of the wood (shape, purpose etc.). As a counterexample, production history of ANOTHER PIECE OF WOOD that is NOT CHANGED has NO EFFECT on the fungibility of that wood with other wood. Which means your claim of victory is completely misleading!
No it doesn’t and you’re making a specious argument (8th citation). The production history is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and NOBODY is tracking that for the purpose of fungibility. As I’ve maintained, what matters is THE INTRINSIC fundamental characteristics of the commodity, NOT THE HISTORY.
You are MISAPPROPRIATING a property of the intrinsic nature of the commodity to the “production history” when that is NOT what makes the distinction! Its not the fact that “this piece of wood A was sawed in Oregon” that makes it more valuable than “this piece of wood B”, its the fact that piece of wood A was turned into a chair through labor. THE PRODUCTION HISTORY OF THE WOOD ITSELF IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
Only certain types of gold bullion products are considered fungible with each other.
Because they are different from others by their INTRINSIC properties, NOT because of their “history”.
Ultra-pure gold nano particles are incredibly valuable.
Because of what is required to make it. You are being nonsensical now. You are claiming that, instead of the labor-time required that changes the fungibility of a commodity it is “the production history”. This is not the case! It is the labor-time which fundamentally changes the commodity into ANOTHER COMMODITY. YOU CANNOT DO THIS WITH BITCOIN AND I CITE YOU FOR A 9TH TIME WITH BEING DISINGENUOUS AND DISHONEST IN YOUR ARGUMENT!
Again, it’s the history that matters.
The history has NEVER mattered. All of your examples are misattributions which you are making in a desperate attempt to redefine fungibility from an intrinsic characteristic of a commodity into a external one based on “the history”.
This is completely in error and represents an EGREGIOUS torturing of terms that indicates that you are completely beholden to the XMR community and their incorrect, malicious and deceptive attempt to corner the market on fungibility so that they can claim to be “the only fungible cryptocurrency because of no transaction history”. This argument is completely illogical and exposes you as being deceptive.
See above where you just proved my point and described how the unique history of a good or commodity unit is key to identification, grouping, and maintaining fungiblility within a group.
You did not prove anything. Your argument is fallacious as I’ve shown. The unique history is NOT what causes a commodity to be non-fungible with other commodities, it is a fundamental transformation of its intrinsic characteristics that does this. Other commodities that DO NOT undergo this transformation ARE STILL FUNGIBLE DESPITE VARYING PRODUCTION HISTORIES so your argument MUST BE FALSE.
Wrong.
No, YOU are wrong. Fungibility is an intrinsic property of a commodity, currency or other such good. This is the definition of fungibility and you are incorrect for denying. Denying it without reason or argumentation is DISHONEST DEBATING and this is your 10th citation for such.
Misinterpretation
Wrong, this is the correct interpretation. Your idea of “history” is irrelevant and NOBODY DOES THAT ANYWHERE. I stand by my statement that the definition of fungibility rejects your argument on its face!
I don’t even know what the XMR community is saying so how can I parrot them?
I doubt this. The XMR community is the only community that makes this argument, and none have tried and spun so much narrative to defend it as you have. So I count this as you most likely being deceptive.
There may be some “trick” that allows you to claim this while still taking directives, but NOBODY would defend the same inaccurate idea as much as you are without having some link or connection to its source. By that logic, I reject your statement above and continue to allege that you are merely parroting the XMR community.
Your statement must be false because Danda is a member of the XMR community and has been making these arguments for nearly a year now, and you’ve certainly read them.
No, the claim is self-evident through rational observation.
No it is not.
If blacklisted currency units are no longer indistinguishable from other currency units, then the currency has bifurcated or “forked”.
This must not be true because REGULAR, nonblacklisted currency units are distinguishable from others via serial number yet remain in the set of fungible units so logically this statement MUST BE FALSE.
If the taint spreads far and wide enough
There is no such thing as tainted bitcoin. “Taint” would have to be an intrinsic property of the currency unit (like NEM’s tainted coins), there is no way to impart such to Bitcoin which means there can be no such thing.
then all currency units will have been affected and are essentially indistinguishable once again.
Since there can be no “tainted bitcoin” there can be no spread of taint to “all currency units”. You are again parroting the XMR community (literally word for word here) which also calls into question your denials of affiliation with them.
Likewise, a tainted or distinguishable history is an analogous non-physical change in abstract terms that can make a currency unit unfit for commerce and non-fungible.
No, its not.
-
You have provided NO evidence of this claim while I have provided counter claims, bills used in drug deals are not “tainted” or non-fungible with others. Drug money is probably THE MOST POPULAR money that goes around. Only defective units are considerd “non-fungible” not “tainted ones”. Claiming such without support is dishonest and I cite you for the 11th time.
-
Such “taint” is not possible on UTXO blockchains, which means this idea is moot to begin with.
This is a philosophical discussion is it not?
No, not really. Its a practical one with firm definitions rooted in reality. There’s nothing really philosophical about the definition of fungibility. It is a firm, well-defined quality of commodities and especially of currencies.
I am free to propose different perspectives and understandings as I see fit.
No one said you weren’t. But you are NOT allowed in a debate to make claims without sources and pass them off as fact.
The point I have been trying to make, and that you proved on your own,
This is false and I reject and censure you for putting words in my mouth. I have disproven everything you’ve said here and not once agreed with your overarching “philosophy”. You are completely incorrect in form and function and your understanding of fungibility is “tainted” (pun intended) by the XMR community’s toxic propaganda that only seeks to carve out a niche (only fungible crypto) that they do NOT deserve. All of your arguments lean towards this end and are thus illegitimate.
fungibility must be considered from various angles.
Fungibility is not such a difficult concept. ALL CURRENCIES BY THEIR NATURE ARE FUNGIBLE BY DEFINITION. You have to really go out of your way to make a currency that doesn’t have fungibility and SUCH A CURRENCY IS USELESS.
Your philosophizing is not to create “a fungible currency”, rather you appear to be doing so in order to give clout to the XMR community in order to support their selfish and self-serving attempts to corner the market on this term, so that they can claim to be “the only fungible cryptocurrency” as they have done for the last couple years. This is dishonest and you mark yourself as dishonest for engaging in this behavior.
No, it is partially fungible. The monetary system has bifurcated/fractured based on geographical origin/destination history.
You’re wrong. USD is fully fungible. Currencies are by definition fungible. Blacklists have nothing to do with it. You forfeit the argument by making an argument that is in contravention to well-established fact with no source or backing rationale. No one considers USD to be non-fungible because of this, except you.
Wrong.
No, it is correct.
It changes the “real value” in terms of real goods sold. Black/Grey markets demand higher prices partially due supply/demand and partially due to the loss of purchasing power of distinguished/blacklisted currency units.
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNGIBILITY. Different cryptocurrencies trade at different prices on different exchanges EVERY DAY. That has NO EFFECT on their fungibility. This is because fungibility has NOTHING to do with external metrics. You are deliberately placing your head in the sand and defiantly repeating FALSEHOODS in order to make an illegitimate argument which is dishonest debating and I cite you for a 12th time for this disqualifying behavior.
