I see that the post I’m responding to is quite popular, but I can’t for the life of me understand why. Would any of the ‘likers’ like to (pun intended) explain their support of this position and post?
As far as I can see, nothing that I’ve written is incorrect, contrary to @danda’s preliminary contention of statemental inaccuracy. Everything I wrote is also in line with the current definition of fungibility and in fact it is @danda who’s position changes and maligns the definition of fungible.
As a recap, fungibility means that two units of (in this context) cryptocurrency are essentially indistinguishable, i.e. their form and function is exactly the same. As noted in the article above, “There is no such thing as tainted Bitcoins”. Therefore, the contention that exchanges and other services rejecting a UTXO cryptocurrency due to “taint” is also illusory and not correct.
Even danda is apparently unable to reply to this contention (being 8 hr since initial reply with no further discussion). So my question is, what am I missing?