If Bitcoin wants to be the best that a currency can possibly be, then surely we need:

1. As close as possible to 100% fungibility.
2. Privacy in transactions - the same as cash transactions.

Anything less than both of these is probably some kind of compromise and/or influenced by institutions (banks, gov, etc). Without the best efforts to achieve these two things, Bitcoin will never be as good as it could be. But that's OK, there is another.

Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain.

Why design it to rely on something when it can be built into the core protocol, eliminating "improper use"?

Well, next time I won't waste my time explaining myself if you label it as mere FUD in the end.

Right. As long as I don't use Bitcoin for anything that money is useful for, then fungibility won't be a problem  

So the future of all crypto commerce depends on everyone doing it correctly. Let's stick with localbitcoins and craigslist trades forever. And while we're at it we should all be living in coops. And fuck those businesses who refuse to accept your stolen money because of "liability concerns" ... they're obviously doing it wrong. Satoshi's vision has no room for such B.S. monetary principle's like fungibility.

Ah sorry, I thought you were talking about all the conversation going on here, rather than the OP deciding to create a new thread.
We'll agree to disagree then

Of course.

The thing is... the fungibility of Bitcoin is hardly a thing you can criticize. Privacy issues? Sure, go right ahead but a careful analysis of the fungibility FUD shows that the arguments simply do not hold up. That is because most of them are looking at Bitcoin from behind fiat lenses which is the definition of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Bitcoin exists so that you can work outside of this system. I understand it takes a bit of foresight to imagine a world where KYC/AML are not a thing anymore but understand that it is coming and it will be all because of Bitcoin.

These people violating fungibility by paying a premium for 'clean' coins are doing so on a purely voluntary and totally pointless basis. As soon as they move again they're contaminated. When exchanges and merchants have a two tier price structure is when I'd worry but there won't be anything left to worry about by that time.

Actually, I'm part of this community because I want to see a future where decentralized crypto eventually replaces fiat. Sure, it's fun to be a hippie anarchist living outside "the system" for the time being. But some of us are trying to change the world. And in the real, modern world, consumers transact with businesses.


It sounds so strange because crypto is supposed to be trustless! It shouldn't have to "depend" on anything! It shouldn't have to depend on businesses being cool and it shouldn't have to depend on people not shopping at Walmart and it shouldn't have to depend on us all using side chains.


You should, because it's proof your money isn't equal! And pretending otherwise won't make it so.


I would feel shitty knowing that such discrimination wouldn't even be impossible if only Bitcoin were fungible.

And are you actually suggesting that businesses have never discriminated against their customers despite it being bad for business? Do you live in the United States?


The article seems to be making my point. I'm against the whole regulation and cleanliness direction. Improving Bitcoin's fungibility makes regulation more difficult, which doesn't exactly hurt the black markets.