that’s a value judgement. and possibly an area of research. 
I’m just pointing out that it appears to reduce by some amount, which might well be totally acceptable.
5 Likes
Well, fungibility essentially means that tokens are indistinguishable from eachother, interchangeable one for another… like say atoms of gold. So the less this is true, the weaker (less perfect) the fungibility. If one can identify that token A is a rootDBC and token B is a regularDBC then definitionally they are less fungible than two regularDBC.
Going a bit further, human beings might decide that rootDBC are more rare and thus more interesting/collectible/valuable. So they might someday have a kind of collector status. Or less value for some reason.
With regards to privacy, well if I am a farmer (or uploader) and I receive some rootDBC, well then anyone able to observe the Tx (by whatever means) can know the amount I received. Whereas if they observe I receieve a regularDBC, the amount is hidden.
So it seems clear to me that both fungibility and privacy are reduced with these, on a kind of absolute level, vs the system that had only a single GenesisDBC.
I am not presently making statements as to whether that is problematic or not. Just observing that it is a change in the system’s properties. Clearly it is solving some other problems, there are tradeoffs, etc.
6 Likes
I don’t think, though with bulletproofs that is the case. The payment can be hidden and the outputs shown to be <= to the input. I think this makes quite a bit of difference here.
Ditto, it’s 
time 
7 Likes
What input? These are newly minted. (Technically, there is an input keyimage even for genesis dbc, but no amount is associated with it)
I believe the root amounts must be public in order to have an auditable system. Otherwise, how can anyone verify that any given rootBTC has not just doubled the total money supply, for example?
In the case of the Genesis DBC, we get away with keeping the amount hidden because all values are in the code and are deterministic and generate a hash, so anyone can verify the hash is correct and thus the amount must be as stated in the code.
Unless I’m missing something, that would not be true for a rootDBC because some type of random nonce would be involved. Stated differently, I don’t see how a third party could ever hope to audit the spentbook if a mint can generate DBCs of varying amounts where the auditor can never see initial amount. They can verify that all subsequent spends are less or equal, but less or equal to what?
And if the amounts are always fixed and not varying, then that is equivalent to being transparent, as they are publicly known anyway.
or so it seems to me.
ps: it’s not my intent to get into the nitty gritty here. I started just voicing a few concerns/q’s I had when reading the OP, and will now leave it to the team to discuss further. cheers!
6 Likes
The input if you like is the payment for storage. That sets the RootDBC value.
It will be the same as now with bulletproofs. Select all transactions and go back, ensuring none were created. The difference here is the algorithm must be proven to halt rewards when the full amount is paid out. That is non-trivial but possible.
No worries, we need to look at every angle and audibility is critical.
7 Likes
Another fungibility discussion 
Is that any different than saying coin A has a date on it of 2000 and coin B has a date of 2001?
If the regularDBC and rootDBC can purchase the same storage on the network then they are fungible surely 
Do you check the the history of your current money/tokens or do you just spend it/save it ?
I don’t know how much of an issue this is, but token history matters. Look at bitcoin, look at Tornado. If it can be traced it matters.
In theory individual metal coins could be traced, but in practice can you give us an example of that? How would you do it?
5 Likes
not significantly different for this discussion, no.
sure, by that criteria. Are pesos and dollars fungible if a certain payee will accept either? apparently by this standard.
Look, I’ve already stated multiple times I am not putting a judgement on this. I am simply stating we should be aware it is reducing fungibility (by some undefined amount).
Do you check the the history of your current money/tokens or do you just spend it/save it
I have checked the history of BTC.
Fiat currency, I don’t normally, but there are plenty who do. Some look for coins that are more valuable (due to date, mint, imperfection, etc). Banks check for old or imperfect currency to remove from circulation. Sometimes serial numbers are checked, etc.
All those things are possible due to imperfect fungibility.
Whether that is a problem or not is a judgement call, which I am not stating anything about here.
8 Likes
I have no idea. The point I was making was will the masses want to know if their SNT are rootDBC or regularDBC?
Pesos and dollars are different currencies. Both DBCs are SNT.
I have a decent collection myself
Guess I’m just saying it won’t/shouldn’t matter to much to most people.
4 Likes
Thank you for the heavy work team MaidSafe! I add the translations in the first post 
Privacy. Security. Freedom
6 Likes