A dollar is interchangeable for a dollar. That makes it fungible. I assume we can agree up to this point.
If the US government blacklisted serial numbers A00001-A99999, no one would (knowingly) exchange one of their dollars that fell outside that serial number list for one inside that serial number list. The interchangeability has been affected. Thus, the are no longer fungible.
A dollar is interchangeable for a dollar. That makes it fungible. I assume we can agree up to this point.
Yep. Acceptability is not in question.
If the US government blacklisted serial numbers A00001-A99999, no one would (knowingly) exchange one of their dollars that fell outside that serial number list for one inside that serial number list.
You don’t know that and have no right to make that assumption.
The interchangeability has been affected. Thus, the are no longer fungible.
This is wrong, nothing about the fundamental characteristics that make them interchangeable has changed. No one claims USD isn’t fungible because of current sanctions limiting Russian use of funds.
The final argument in my last post sealed the deal; you have no response to this point because you are incorrect:
As proof, national currencies besides reserve currencies are NOT ACCEPTED in any other nations. Yet they are clearly fungible by definition. This PROVES that your blacklisting idea is COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL!
Your argument is that blacklisting potentially could alter the fungibility of currencies. But this isn’t true, since national currencies are NOT accepted in any other nation which is a form of blacklisting. Currencies are still fungible by definition meaning that you are wrong.
Q.E.D.
Your argument holds no water. If you are in another country, a dollar is still worth any other dollar. Just because you can’t use it to pay for a good or service does not mean it is no longer worth the same. That is not in any way equivalent to the blacklisting example.
Again, the Russian issue is not about fungibility in any way, and also not equivalent to this situation. The money is still (theoretically) there, and still worth the same amount of money, the owners just cannot access it. If you go to the bank on a Sunday to get your money from your account, but they are closed and you can’t access it, is your money worth less? Has it been blacklisted? No. You just can’t get it out of the bank.
Your argument holds no water.
Says the person who consistently denies the definition of the word we’ve all agreed to use. You do realize that just repeating yourself and refusing to admit you’re wrong is not a valid form of debating right? If you can’t respond to my arguments then YOU LOSE.
You’ve already lost, but I humor you because you are deceptively trying to cheat and take the last word despite admitting before that I was right. This is dishonesty and again exposes you as a bad actor and the XMR community as a deceptive community of sore losers.
If you are in another country, a dollar is still worth any other dollar
The dollar is a reserve currency which I explicitly excluded from my argument. Deliberately misrepresenting my argument and replying to a strawman is DISHONEST! Stop it already!
Venezuelan Bolivars are USELESS and NOT ACCEPTED ANYWHERE outside of Venezuela. German Deutsche Marks the same during the period it served as Germany’s currency. Japanese Yen and Chinese Yuan the same. You CANNOT spend any non-reserve currency outside of the country of origin which amounts to blacklisting by the rest of the world and completely destroys your argument!
That is not in any way equivalent to the blacklisting example.
You are relying on the USD which is a global reserve currency which my argument explicitly excludes, you are being dishonest!
Again, the Russian issue is not about fungibility in any way, and also not equivalent to this situation.
Of course its not, fungibility has nothing to do with blacklists or sanctions! So thank you for admitting that I am correct here.
and still worth the same amount of money, the owners just cannot access it.
Which is the same as having a subset of the units of a currency blacklisted. Which is the condition YOU SPECIFIED meant a currency should lose fungibility. Yet THAT DOES NOT OCCUR which LOGICALLY MEANS YOU’RE WRONG.
Ironically, you’re trying to shift the discussion away from my last argument which clearly proves you wrong so that you don’t have to admit it. This is also dishonest!
If you go to the bank on a Sunday to get your money from your account, but they are closed and you can’t access it, is your money worth less? Has it been blacklisted?
If you can’t access your money it is in effect blacklisted. But this isn’t a fungibility issue. Stop changing the subject. The fact that national currencies are not accepted anywhere outside of their nation is the same as a global blacklist. Yet they are still clearly fungible which means YOU ARE WRONG!
Where did you exclude dollars from anything? I see that nowhere. In any case, that has no bearing on my point. A Japanese Yen is still worth a Japanese Yen outside Japan. You aren’t changing the interchangeability by removing it from the country it is in.
Freezing assets is still not the same as blacklisting. The fact that you keep equating the two is ridiculous. Freezing it means you can’t access it. Blacklisting means you can be in possession of it, it’s just no longer interchangeable with other pieces of that asset. If the US blacklisted A00000-A99999, it is no longer legal tender, you cannot give it to a bank, or use it to (legally) pay for anything. It is no longer interchangeable with other dollars, therefore it is not fungible.
My original post clearly excluded them:
In any case, that has no bearing on my point.
Completely wrong, that is THE WHOLE POINT. Your claim is that “taint” is possible with UTXOs and that this taint could lead to blacklisting which would lead to potentially lower acceptance among Exchanges (forgetting that cryptocurrencies are decentralized and don’t need exchanges to operate) which according to you would lower their fungibility.
But if that were true, when the same thing happens to national currencies, as proven by the fact that non-reserve national currencies are not accepted outside of their country of issuance, that should ALSO result in those currencies being non-fungible. THIS IS NOT THE CASE which means that your argument doesn’t logically follow, which means that YOU ARE WRONG!
You aren’t changing the interchangeability by removing it from the country it is in.
Your argument is that blacklisting leads to a loss of fungibility. Every country but the issuing country blacklists the currency that is issued in other nations, which according to you should make national currencies non-fungible. This is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE. Which proves that YOU ARE WRONG!
I will not respond to your attempts to distract from this argument by using freezing assets until you respond to the above or admit you are incorrect.
I guess this could be another good example which sounds to be useful for this debate.
In Argentina, there are certain dollar bills (old 100 USD bills with Benjamin Franklin face smaller than in newer 100 USD bills) which are traded at a lower value, between 2% and 10% reported by the article.
The reasons, excuses, and explanations are a few and vary, and as far as I know they are not necessarily valid, but the reality is that they are indeed traded at lower value by many, and it has become a problem for many savers who were trying to spend/trade them after holding them for long time.
I’m sharing it just as I seem to get from this discussion that such a fact shouldn’t mean that the USD is non-fungible…?..:
Dólar cara chica, ¿por qué vale menos? | BAE Negocios (I couldn’t find an article in English, I’m sorry about it, I guess you can translate it)
Yeah, you never respond to any argument that defeats your argument. You just setup repeated strawmen and dodge points. So, I will no longer respond to yours. I have played your game long enough. Play on my turf.
You have never addressed my repeated question a single time whether you would exchange a “clean” BTC that you are in possession of for a “blacklisted” BTC, or whether you would exchange your known certified diamond for a known blood diamond. In the end, you know wouldn’t which destroys your argument because that would mean they aren’t interchangeable, which means they aren’t fungible.
Yeah, you never respond to any argument that defeats your argument.
That’s not true and you can’t cite any instance where I’m doing that. In fact, that’s what you’re doing, you’re trying to bury my argument which checkmates you by focusing on something else. I didn’t say I wouldn’t respond at all, I said I wouldn’t respond until you responded to that argument honestly. It is dishonest to pretend like that means I’m ignoring it when you’re the one who’s ignoring my argument that defeats.
You are now openly engaging in dirty fighting tactics to “win” this discussion which in itself disqualifies you from the debate.
So, I will no longer respond to yours. I have played your game long enough. Play on my turf.
This is not a valid argument and doing so means you forfeit the debate in my favor. It is not fair for you to deliberately ignore my argument and change the subject just because it defeats you. If this is your final position, then I accept this as your admission of defeat in this debate.
You have never addressed my repeated question a single time whether you would exchange a “clean” BTC that you are in possession of for a “blacklisted” BTC
Please cite where you have made this argument before and I have not responded to it.
whether you would exchange your known certified diamond for a known blood diamond.
This is illegitimate. I accepted the user @SmoothOperatorGR’s explanation for that argument. What’s more that was from a different debate that you admitted to losing the other day. It is inappropriate to look to another debate that you already forfeited because you want to dodge my argument which defeats you currently.
In the end, you know wouldn’t which destroys your argument because that would mean they aren’t interchangeable, which means they aren’t fungible.
You have no response to and repeatedly ignored the argument that national currencies are blacklisted by other nations and do not lose their fungibility. Like I said, I already defeated you but extended to you an “olive branch” by allowing you to continue to reply to show that you had no arguments. It is dishonest for you to attempt to claim victory after already losing.
I thank you for this your admission of defeat for the second time and thank you for your participation!
Exactly as I thought. You cannot even answer a simple question because you know it completely demolishes your argument. Continue to dodge and claim victory.
I get caught up feeding trolls, which is a personal flaw of mine, but I can do this no longer.
You cannot even answer a simple question because you know it completely demolishes your argument. Continue to dodge and claim victory.
What question? We’re talking about something else right now, and Its not fair for you to change the subject and pretend like that means you win when I hold your feet to the fire. You’re the one who tried to use the fact that I won’t respond to your attempt to change the subject to end the debate.
There is no time limit here, but you tried to take advantage of that to run out of here and pretend like you ignoring my argument means you win, in a most dishonest move. Now you’re complaining that I “won’t answer your question”. You ignored and didn’t respond to my argument first, which means that YOU LOST AT THAT MOMENT! You’re not responding to my argument because you know it defeats you. Everyone reading can see that (even if they won’t admit it).
It is abusive behavior and against the forum rules to call me a troll without justification. I responded to all your arguments and the one time I hold your feet to the fire you kick the pram and run home, while still claiming to win. This is why I don’t like the XMR community. You’re like whiny children who pout and cry when you lose and don’t get your way.
Thank you for conceding the discussion to me. May your efforts to shill XMR fail everywhere as badly as they did here. Cheers!
I will answer this one final question in the vain hope you will actually answer mine. I will respond to no more questions, no more arguments, nothing after this, until you answer my question.
Countries do not “blacklist” other countries’ currencies. If you have a Japanese Yen in the US, it is still worth the same as a Japanese Yen in Japan. You can even go to a bank and exchange it for an accepted currency if you so desire. That accepted currency is based on a worldwide exchange rate of currency comparisons. 1000 Japanese Yen will get you $7.83 in USD if you exchange it in the US, and $7.83 USD will get you 1000 Yen if you exchange for Yen in Japan. That is not blacklisting, and is not at all equivalent.
I will answer this one final question in the vain hope you will actually answer mine. I will respond to no more questions, no more arguments, nothing after this, until you answer my question.
This is completely superfluous because I never stated I wouldn’t respond to your question. I stated I wouldn’t respond until you responded to my argument. In other words, I was PREVENTING YOU from hiding an argument that defeated you by changing the subject. I clearly stated that I will respond after we finish the discussion at hand. Changing the subject to hide a winning argument from your opponent is DISHONEST DEBATING!
Countries do not “blacklist” other countries’ currencies. If you have a Japanese Yen in the US, it is still worth the same as a Japanese Yen in Japan.
Not in the U.S. its not. You cannot spend a Japanese Yen in the U.S., this is the equivalent of being blacklisted. You yourself said that if a cryptocurrency has “taint” then it can be blacklisted by exchanges, i.e. refused to be accepted. Consider countries to be “exchanges” in this sense.
Countries do NOT accept the legal tender of other countries. Nowhere in the U.S. can you pay for ANYTHING with Japanese Yen. This means that the U.S. blacklists the Japanese Yen. Indeed, the U.S. blacklists any currency that is not U.S. dollars. I know what you’re doing, you think you can wear me down by drilling deep and hiding in technicalities and minutiae. Let me tell you that that won’t work.
You can even go to a bank and exchange it for an accepted currency if you so desire.
This is besides the point, being accepted for exchange at a bank is one thing, but being accepted nowhere else is the same thing as being blacklisted. You can exchange “tainted BTC” for other bitcoin on DEXes or exchanges that don’t follow the blacklisting as well, but according to you this doesn’t matter and just exchanges alone not accepting it means its not fungible. You can’t have it both ways. The fact remains that YOU CANNOT spend foreign currency anywhere in the U.S. Which means it is blacklisted.
That accepted currency is based on a worldwide exchange rate of currency comparisons
Exchanging currency is not the same thing as accepting it.
That is not blacklisting, and is not at all equivalent.
You’re lying. You think that you can keep hiding like this forever, but I have all the time in the world. You said that if you can ascribe taint to a UTXO cryptocurrency then its possible that exchanges won’t accept it which is what you referred to as blacklisting.
The same situation prevails with foreign currency. You might be able to exchange Japanese Yen in a U.S. Bank, but you won’t be able to do that in any stores, you can’t pay for bus fair, and you won’t be able to exchange it in every country either, especially third world ones. This example defeats you and proves that fungibility is not based on acceptability, but is an intrinsic property of the currency units themselves.
This topic and a bin are now fungible 
Whatever you think of my argument, I answered your question in good faith. Answer mine.
Poll: Do you consider that Kagetoshi has won or lost this debate?
0 voters
Don’t say whatever, that means you’re conceding the point and you lose the whole discussion, pay attention. And I said I would answer when we finish the discussion at hand, and we’re not done yet. If you get checkmated on ANY point then you lose the debate, it doesn’t matter what other arguments we have remaining.
Anyway, you admitted your position was wrong here:
You can even go to a bank and exchange it for an accepted currency if you so desire.
Do you see? You just admitted that I’m correct. My argument is that nations not accepting foreign currencies is blacklisting and should remove fungibility by your argument’s logic. But you said no, because you can even go to a bank and exchange it. Well, that’s the whole argument, guy.
You’re admitting that selective blacklisting does not remove fungibility from foreign national currencies because “you can even exchange it at a bank for an accepted currency”. Well that’s all the marbles isn’t it?! Because you’re ADMITTING that selective blacklisting DOES NOT make national currencies non-fungible. Which means selective blacklisting doesn’t make cryptocurrencies nonfungible etiher.
That’s checkmate, my opponent. 
Then answer my question. The same question I have asked several times across my last 30 posts. If you won the debate, then answering my simple question should be no problem for you. Would you exchange your “clean” BTC for a “blacklisted” BTC? Yes or no?
I’m not going to come off this point. Answer this question or concede defeat. You have avoided this question over and over and over and over again making every excuse in the book because the answer is no, you wouldn’t. You know your BTC is not interchangeable with the blacklisted BTC, because they are no longer equivalent.
Then answer my question
I will only answer your question when you concede you lost the point above or challenge it further, remember I said I will respond when that subdebate is over not before. The whole point in waiting until the end of that discussion was so you could not change the subject and bury your loss, so it is dishonest for you to say “answer me now or concede loss”. That’s not how debates work.
Answer this question or concede defeat.
That’s not how a debate works. We are having a discussion. If I checkmate you during any point then you lose, regardless of any other battles going on. If I check mate your king while your rook threatens my queen, you still lose…I never avoided that question and don’t remember seeing it before now, can you please quote/cite the first time you asked it?
I have absolutely no problem answering your question btw, but categorically reject the implication that not doing so until we finish this debate results in a loss. That would be the equivalent of losing a pawn, not a checkmate.