Also, regarding iterating, clients just need a way to say “iterate since…”. So they can resume iterating at a given point (and validate). As you say, it wouldn’t work very well to always start from the genesis… spentbook client’s must be able to keep local state and resume.
5 Likes
Even so at millions of spends a day, or even hundreds of millions of spends per day. And worse if morning coffee from cafe is transacted with Safe.
At those rates the effort of auditing becomes a huge task.
Then a simple attack of spending tiny amount in ping pong makes it worse
one idiot running 5 clients would get approx 80K transactions a day, then if there are 1000 idiots doing this at any one time its 80 million. When we break 1 billion users then its expected there will be 1000 idiots many times in a year.
1 Like
yes, of course at those scales we will be having the “problems of success” and also will have a lot more people interested in solving the problems.
Anyway, that’s why I think the utxo-like snapshot concept is interesting, as it only requires looking at the very latest set (either spent, or unspent), rather than all the history.
Hopefully in a week or two the team can begin to really focus on auditing and I expect some good solutions will be forthcoming.
9 Likes
Juts to add some thoughts.
While I agree with the technicals that @danda is putting forth in the other thread “fungibility fun” … the banning of “unclean” bitcoin already carries over to the banning of ANY crypto that is strongly fungible - e.g. Monero.
This is driving those unclean and strongly fungible tokens into the black market - and hence driving more people into such markets.
As an AnCap, I am pleased!
SNT will be in the same boat as Monero and similar I think. So if any are thinking that being more fungible is somehow protection from the two-tier marketplace (government sanctioned versus black markets) … I think you are looking at this completely wrong.
What’s happening here is that governments are shooting themselves in the foot. As I mentioned in other posts, eventually all bitcoin wallets will become contaminated with unclean coins … humanity will be driven into black markets.
Safe Network is going to become the haven for black markets globally – which as I understand are already a huge proportion of the global economy - so YAY!
All in all fungible or not, I still come to the conclusion that it’s not going to make any difference. The control freaks of the world will end up locking themselves out of the economy by their own hand.
There is nothing here to fear.
Edit: BTW, I definitely prefer the fungible over the non-fungible … more privacy is better for sure. I just think that human economies can’t really exist/function if private transactions are blocked … it’s why physical cash/coin has always existed in some form or another.
2 Likes
Hopefully you are right in the long term and at a macro scale. However at an individual/human scale, people are already having funds frozen and losing bitcoin over fungibility issues, Also various individuals have been targeted (robbed, kidnapped) for holding a lot of funds, and dealing with other privacy losses due to transparent blockchains. We have also seen the rise of “social credit scores” tied to bank accounts and finance apps. Central bank digital currencies are a specter on the horizon. I think it is wise to be cognizant of these matters and plan accordingly.
Fungible, privacy coins are necessary to demonstrate that there is a real, viable alternative to global financial surveillance in the digital realm, and to give people a choice and a way to “opt out”.
8 Likes
While I think you’re too hung up on simplified “isms”, I do agree with some of your points. The trouble is, the “freaks” won’t give up control peacefully. And there will always be new “freaks” looking to take over. I’m not keen on living in some Wild West, especially since I’m getting older, and a little arthritis in my trigger finger would mean certain death in a muddy street.
3 Likes
?? Our world is dominated by the ‘isms’, the core of which is Statism … and we are discussing technology that is radically going to take power away from them and enable the little guy … so sure, I’m “hung up” on the topic … okay, sue me.
This is the way it has always been. The technology though is allowing choice - so locking them out of control. There’s always been bullies and we are getting better locks to keep them out … this is a good thing, I for one embrace it.
?? This isn’t what AnCap world looks like if that’s what you are asserting. AnCapistan looks more like our world 50 years ago when people had a future as they could save and invest. That’s a world of hope, not the depressing shitshow we have today where inflation and a shrinking middle-class is driving society to a new form of feudalism.
I’m not really asserting anything. We could perhaps continue this discussion in another thread, but without relying on isms and what we dream of them resulting in as facts. Idealized capitalism, communism or anarchism makes no difference. The devil is in the practical details, not in the naming of the ideologies.
2 Likes
I’m not an idealist. I don’t believe in utopia. You brought this up as well - even if it wasn’t an assertion it was certainly an allusion to my “ideology” voluntaryism and the “wild west”, even if you don’t specifically name it, and it wasn’t backed up with any “practical details” either.
You are subtly casting aspersions - don’t think people here are blind to your political art-form.
You’re reading too much between the lines, and I don’t really care what people think of my “political art form”. All I said is that I don’t want to live in the Wild West. I do, however, want everybody to be happy and free. I call this Saschaism. Are you not a Saschaist?
6 Likes
Clucking right, pal 
1 Like
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?
Even though on any blockchain the tokens remain fungible, because the past is linked and the chain is only pseudonymous then Chainalysis can link tokens to illegal activities and be blacklisted on third party services which makes you lose your coin that have been linked to such activities, afaik. That’s my simplistic take on the situation.
Coins like Monero or SNT should remain fungible in any circumstance because you can’t prove any previous trail or wrongdoing. Much like cash.
6 Likes
@Kagetoki you are welcome to your opinion.
I happen to hold a different one. To me, it is self evident that the history of each individual unit is visible, and thus units are distinguishable. Thus, individual actors will value units differently according to that history. While it is true that coinjoin can help hide the history (a) it is not widely used and (b) coinjoin transactions stand out and themselves become blacklisted, and (c) amounts are not hidden which leaks information. Further, in the case of wasabi wallet, the coinjoin requires a central coordinator. It has recently been revealed this coordinator is blacklisting funds from certain addresses.
If you don’t believe there is such a thing as tainted btc, that’s up to you, but I for one would consider any funds coming from a blacklisted address to be “tainted”, and I think many would agree. Yes, it is true that blacklists may not be followed by everyone, but they can be legally enforced/required. Thus, in my opinion it is better to use a currency that hides information to the extent that blacklists are pointless. Redefining the word fungibility is not going to change that.
I don’t have interest in debating this further. It feels like debating a flat earther. Feel free to try and convince the rest of the forum @kagetoki. let’s see how that goes. Again I would ask that you start your own thread for it, or move to Fungibility Talk.
mods: please move this and related comments to the fungibility talk thread when you have a chance. thx.
6 Likes
Thank you for responding!
Like I mentioned above, Chainanaylsis is NOT an issue of fungibility. Fungibility has a specific meaning. It means that two units are interchangeable. That’s all. There are stores that say NO CASH accepted for various reason (no ability to take or make change), or credit card only. Does this mean that the dollar is not fungible? Of course not!
Fungibility and acceptance are two distinct issues. Furthermore, XMR does NOT solve this issue! Any service that uses chainanalysis to blacklist UTXOs can just BLACKLIST MONERO ENTIRELY! There is no benefit there. Furthermore, UTXO cryptocurrencies are PSUEDONYMOUS. That means that unless you tell them, they don’t know who’s address belongs to whom. Which means they can’t prove a previous trail or wrongdoing belongs to you with them either! Also, Coinjoin completely removes a coin’s history! Which makes the entire discussion moot.
This issue is important to get right because I feel as if the XMR community is being dishonest. Not only are they changing the definition of fungibility, but they are also not actually providing a solution. Anything blacklisted by chainanalysis can blacklist the entire cryptocurrency of XMR, so you gain nothing by using it. Disagree?
1 Like
No one denies that address histories are visible, this is the purpose of cryptocurrencies, to provide transparency. However, this does NOT make them “distinguishable” by the definition of fungibility. Different bills have different serial numbers, so by your definition dollars are not fungible either. This is clearly incorrect!
Furthermore, if you use coinjoin, the coin’s history goes away! Try it. Look up any newly coinjoined address on the blockchain, it WILL NOT have any history! Coinjoined coins come from NEW addresses with no history. You can create an infinite amount of new addresses which means by your own definition they must be fungible (this isn’t the true meaning of fungible but by your definition they must be).
Coinjoin IS very widely used. Tornado.cash on Ethereum is extremely popular. DASH’s coinjoin is also very popular. If coinjoin transactions can be blacklisted then the entire coin of XMR can be blacklisted. And blacklisting is NOT the same thing as being nonfungible! Fungibility doesn’t refer to acceptance, you can refuse to accept dollars, coins, pennies whatever. But that doesn’t mean they’re not fungible! Laundry machines don’t accept dollars, only quarters, does that mean that the USD isn’t fungible?
Clearly not!
Please do not misrepresent my position. It is true that there is no such thing as tainted BTC, but my position is that even if there were this has nothing to do with fungibility! Acceptance and fungibility are NOT the same thing and conflating the two together is dishonest. This is my position fundamentally.
It is not me but YOU who are redefining the word fungibility.
If you need to ridicule my argument by comparing it to the flat earth (which is an easily disproven theory) then that only shows that you do not have the ability to actually debate my argument on its merits, which means that you shouldn’t respond! Moving this discussion to suit your tastes and hide dissension is DISHONEST behavior! I have not violated any of the OP’s conditions nor the rules of this forum.
The best thing about a debate is that it IS NOT a highschool prom, you can’t win by popular vote!
For the record I also disagree with you. The question pivots around the definition of fungibility and I’m not convinced by your argument that it doesn’t matter if the units can be tracked. That’s an essential quality IMO because it does affect their ability to be used, does affect their value and does make them distinguishable.
From a user’s point of view, I contend that @danda’s position is what matters: equal value because one unit is indistinguishable from another. If my spending can be tracked, that’s a problem and the problem doesn’t go away because you say but it’s still fungible according to your interpretation.
If Bitcoin or dollars can be tracked under certain conditions then they lack one essential quality of fungibility in my opinion. If that’s technically incorrect we just need a different term to distinguish the two cases and you can use one that ignores tracking, and we can use the other.
5 Likes
Thank you for replying @happybeing! Off-topic, how is the rust training going? I’ve watched you grow as a developer over the years here, and as a fellow Rustacean I was quite pleased that you decided to learn.
Back on topic, I would say that you’re both wrong. The definition of fungibility is clear. The units must be interchangeable. There is no way to prevent 1 btc from being traded versus another, which means they are fungible by defintion! Distinguishable DOES NOT EQUAL nonfungible! “Not accepted here” also does not mean nonfungible! Different dollar bills have different serial numbers, so do you contend that USD is not fungible? This question is NOT rhetorical, I would like an answer please!
Also, many businesses and services don’t accept change or dollar bills (laundrymats for example only accept quarters). Does this mean that dollars, pennies and nickles and dimes are not fungible either? Please also answer this question!
I contend that both you and @danda are deliberately misinterpreting the definition of the term and my proof is the above two unanswered questions. Remember, in a debate, if you cannot respond to your opponents arguments legitimately, then YOU HAVE LOST. So it is not enough for you to say that I am incorrect, YOU MUST SHOW IT!
Further, even if you were correct, and I’ve shown that you’re not, if you use coinjoin then your spending CANNOT be tracked. Which means, even by your own definition, UTXO coins must be fungible. “The problem”, which isn’t a problem since blockchains do not store personal information so nobody knows your addresses anyway, completely goes away in that scenario. What say you to this as well?
Imo, this is why they are non-fungible or at best only pseudo-fungible, in an analogous manner to being only pseudo anonymous. The history matters. Fungibility demands non-uniqueness. When a history can be associated with an item it becomes unique and distinct from all other members of its population, which makes it non-fungible by definition if the non-uniqueness interferes with easy substitution or interchangeability. For some commodities like grain or corn or precious metals, quality standards are used to ensure a uniform and consistent history of production, thus maintaining fungibility of the commodity as a whole.
Establishing a currency that is truly fungible demands a consistent history standard for all currency units (ex. 1 gram 24k gold vs 18k gold), or no history (ex. 1 kwh of electricity). Having no history a priori and relying on intrinsic utility is superior. This cannot be achieved with any public ledger system that maintains a global history of unique transactions.
4 Likes
You are increasingly talking nonsense IMO. I’m under no obligation to keep responding and you prove nothing if I now stop doing so.
I’ve explained my position, that I’m not concerned about the definition of the term, but the practical implications. Your are ignoring my point rather than responding to it but it’s not important to me to win an argument here.
The point of my post was to explain what matters to me and I’m sure to anyone who cares about freedom to transact, and that I’m comfortable using the term fungible whether you agree or not. Though I’d be happy also to use a different term if there was a more suitable alternative.
7 Likes