Cool. You have no problem answering it, so answer it.
1 Like
Cool. You have no problem answering it, so answer it.
A couple things.
-
We’re not done. Remember, the conditions that BOTH YOU AND I agreed to in order to continue this debate were that we would finish this current subdebate, that won’t happen until either of us concedes the point.
You agreed to that condition by further participation, which means you cannot rush it because you think you have a point. So, you either must challenge my most recent post on the matter, or you must concede the point -
Those questions were posted in a previous debate that you already conceded, it is dishonest to refer to them now. This is a separate match and you can’t rely on that
-
I actually look forward to answering your question again, after we finish this subdebate as we both agreed to do when we continued from above. But also, as you can clearly see, I already answered your question in my reply above, I even used your same terminology in my answer. Claiming that I ignored your question therefore is inaccurate and dishonest.
We are done. You are unwilling to answer a question that you know destroys your argument. You didn’t answer the question a single time across repeated asks despite saying you would. You have shown to be completely disingenuous in your posts, and unwilling to argue in good faith.
1 Like
You didn’t answer the question a single time across repeated asks despite saying you would.
This is not true, I answered it here in the very next post.
We are done.
By refusing to complete this subdebate, you are conceding the debate to me and accepting a loss. You agreed to the condition that we would finish this subdebate before I answered this question, so by refusing to respond to my post above you are admitting to a loss.
Understandably as it was already a checkmate. Furthermore, you are dishonestly complaining that I didn’t answer you, when I clearly did answer you in my very next response as proven above.
I accept this as your final admission of defeat and thank you for your participation, hopefully for the last time!
Now that that the debate has concluded in a victory for me, I would like to take the opportunity to answer this question (again), because it also ironically exposes a flaw in this person’s argument. The answer is “Yes I would!” The reasons being:
-
Technically, there is no such thing as a blacklisted Bitcoin. Even if you have the greatest surveillance state in the world, BTC is a decentralized, peer to peer, globally distributed cryptocurrency. In short, there is no way to generally enforce a “blacklist”.
-
Even if #1 above were not true, all you have to do is coinJoin the Bitcoin and you will have the same value but a different address, effectively completely removing any “blacklist”, so there is no problem with accepting that at all
-
Even if coinjoin somehow “didn’t work” or was unavailable. Guess what? Bitcoins, unlike fiat currencies live on the blockchain only. They don’t ever leave. Which means that all you have to do is send it to a new address and the black list is over.
UTXO coins do not have any identifying info tied to addresses, so any blacklist can’t be certain who owns the coin after the first hop or two. Blacklisting every coin that came from that address eventually will lead to blacklisting the entire usable address space. Which is not only counterproductive and expensive, it also makes blacklisting worthless. If everyone is blacklisted then no one is.
In short, this is why I never had anything to fear from this question or argument and its obvious that @wydileie was just using that as a way to avoid admitting checkmate from our most recent debate. A most deceptive and underhanded, if not completely uneffective tactic. When you have to rely on deception, you’ve already lost.
I want to thank everyone who participated with me in today’s debate. It was great fun!! 
Merriam-Webster
Definition of fungible
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an accountOil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities.fungible goods
I believe this entire post is a never-ending argument over semantics. But here is my fungible two cents anyway: Any fungible asset can have external restrictions placed on it; that does not change the inherent fungibility of the asset but might change the value or usefulness, at least in some places/circumstances. I would then consider that asset to have lost its functional fungibility, even though it might be temporary. Maybe we need a new term for that. I suggest gible (fungible without the fun).
2 Likes
This is correct in all circumstances.
I would then consider that asset to have lost its functional fungibility,
You would do so incorrectly. EVERY NATIONAL, non-reserve currency has the restriction that it can only be used in its issuing nation. This doesn’t affect their fungibility at all, however, so this idea even of “functional fungibility” must be inaccurate and incorrect.
even though it might be temporary.
You have to understand something, that fungibility is an intrinsic property of a currency, good or commodity. You cannot change that from external sources. This is akin to arguing that a height requirement for a roller coster makes you shorter/taller. It is nonsensical on its face.
Was absolutely planning on not getting involved here but I can’t help it: please, don’t debase checkmate like this.
2 Likes
Although its fun for a general sentiment analysis, you should know that debates are much closer to chess matches than they are to popularity contests. A bunch of onlookers from the peanut gallery can’t change a checkmate victory, for example.
That’s the fun of debates! Everyone is objectively scoreable and has a definite winner. This is why these users refused to stop responding, because they knew doing so would result in a loss.
Also, danda, you have already “swept this community off their feet” with your infiltration tactics, as proven by the fact that your previous posts got 10+ likes, despite you being proven wrong and defeated in our debate. This shows that this community is already biased towards you and such a poll is effectively worthless.
Then again, I guess losers need to come away with something so I don’t begrudge you of it at all. Just know that it has no effect on the outcome of my victorious matches.
Also notice that your definition lists lumber as a fungible commodity. This despite the fact that no two pieces of lumber are identical and are easily visually distinguished. Anyone who’s worked in carpentry will know that no two 2x4s are exactly alike and can be visually distinguished by grain, knots, bow, and other characteristics. This of course completely destroys the argument of the opposing side to mine.
It is absolutely not a debasement and you are free to enter the debate on their side to prove me wrong. Otherwise, it is best that you remain silent. Thanks!
Note, the Merriam-Webster definition (not mine) specifies that the two items must be equal, so if your two pieces of lumber are not identical, of course they are not fungible. Likewise, if they are identical (not such a stretch to think you could find two pieces that are) then they could be deemed fungible. Same could probably be said of gold jewelry or blue-fin tuna, for that matter. Again, semantics plays a large role in this discussion.
Don’t mean to get personal, but you seem to be fixated on winning a debate here, unnaturally so. Isn’t truth-seeking more important than debate victory?
3 Likes
This doesn’t change anything. Equality doesn’t mean “indistinguishable” except in math (which is a human construct not a real world thing with real differences like all items in existence are). Just like the other definition we all agreed on using states, fungibility is about “essential interchangeability”. In other words, two different 2x4 are clearly not equal. There can never be two truly identical things that are not the same thing so your argument is completely nonsensical.
Likewise, if they are identical (not such a stretch to think you could find two pieces that are
It is completely a stretch. There is no way to find two things that are identical because at some level, they will differ. They must because they are not the same thing. Even identical twins have differences in their DNA despite looking the same.
Two pieces of lumber come from different trees, or different parts of the same tree. But they both fill the same essential role, thus they are fungible. No one in their right mind would argue that two different pieces of would are actually “equal”, otherwise they’d be the same piece of wood.
Actually they don’t. You want them to play a larger role than they do, but nobody is actually this pedantic except for losers. Because they’re the only people who benefit from it. Truly identical elements don’t exist in the world.
Being pedantic in discussion never really works to win the day. I’d advise you to not do so as you only make yourself seem like a sore loser.
Don’t mean to get personal, but you seem to be fixated on winning a debate here, unnaturally so. Isn’t truth-seeking more important than debate victory?
Great question and I take no offense. It is very important to me that you understand where I’m coming from here so allow me to treat your question with the care it truly deserves.
Although from a cursory glance it may seem that I put “victory over truth”, this is actually the fastest and easiest way TO THE TRUTH. You see, an adversarial environment produces the greatest growth and gains, while a molly-coddled one where everyone circle jerks and “touches and agrees” profiteth nothing. You don’t actually grow.
Even the people I’ve defeated here today (number around 5 - 6), they may hate me now, but look at what happened. They were completely defeated in a ego-struggle for victory. Now they are left to sulk and lick their wounds. Guess what won’t happen again? They won’t make arguments like that, that’s for sure.
The next guy they fight will not be able to beat them as easily as I did. Which means just by interacting with me, their level and intensity will raise and make them better debaters. That is a significant gift! It is very rare that you get a master class in arguing (or anything for that matter). The only time you do is when you put everything on the line like we all did today. Even those watching are now better able to reason and rationalize about the world just from watching our back and forth. All for free too! I’d say that’s a win win for everyone.
The truth is, you learn a lot more from losing a debate than you ever do from winning, and while it doesn’t make you any friends, the taste of victory is sweet enough to compensate. Again, win-win for all involved. Great question!
Which makes my point, not yours. They are fungible DESPITE these differences, which was my entire argument from the beginning, so thank you for that proof!
Same can be said of coins, or dollar bills.
Then the lumber could also be fungible.
You should have stopped while you were ahead. Now you are coming across as just pitiful. Sorry.
1 Like
Which was my point! The lumber is fungible despite being not truly identical. Thank you for making it for me. You in essence have just restated my position. It is good to know that others feel the way I do instinctively, especially when they disagree as you are trying to do.
Nah! The beautiful thing about victory is that it cannot be diminished by the loser. Your thoughts of me as pitiful are not only off-topic and in violation of the guidelines, but they’re also completely inconsequential. I don’t even feel a twinge of sadness at reading it. 
Doesn’t surprise me.
1 Like
You seem to be rather upset with me. What’s the problem?
Nah! The beautiful thing about the Internet is that you normally don’t know anything about the person you are addressing, and, as such, are allowed liberties not usually acceptable in more personal communications.
1 Like
Yea that’s definitely true. Careful though, most of your posts here are off-topic…
No worries. I think the moderators gave up on this thread a long time ago.
2 Likes
That’s for sure!