Just out of curiosity, when you go to a bank to withdraw cash do you ask for freshly printed bills directly from the mint?
If yes, how often are you laughed at? If no, aren't you concerned that the bill you receive may have been stuffed into a strippers skivvies? What if that money was deposited into said bank by a drug dealer or a doctor who overprescribes narcotic pain killers? What if those funds were donated to a politician who's views you don't share? Would you still accept them?
My desire:I prefer fungibility as a user, since it makes the use easy.
➤ If I was god or at least government, I would declare discrimination of Bitcoin illegal or at least not punish depending on Bitcoin history.
The ruler enforces fungibility of cash, because it benefits them, but the ruler interferes with fungibility, if it benefits them:
❶ Similar land can have different values depending on zoning laws.
❷ Similar houses can have different prices if one was build with building permit and one was build without building permit.
❸ Similar people can have different right according to the demographic group they belong to.
➤ Do I like zoning laws? Do I like discrimination of humans? No. But I don't have the guns so I don't make the rules.
In many cases it is possible to interfere with fungibility, if it benefits the people in power.
So is it beneficial for the rulers to attack fungibiltiy of Bitcoin or not?
Probably yes. And they are already interfering with the frangibility, by linking prison sentences to addresses.
It's ideas like yours (and those reprehensible links you shared) that hurt bitcoin's fungibility and keep people afraid of using it. This plays right into the hands of draconian government overreach which relies on financial control to keep people enslaved.
I dislike tyranny, but closing your eyes only solves some problems, but not others.
Many people already recognised the fungibility issue in Bitcoin.
❶ Some use conjoins to try to solve this.
❷ Some switch to Monero.
❸ Some buy virgin Bitcoin.
➤ The solution is to enable fungibility on the Blockchain layer not pretending this attack vector does not exist.
It is like keeping the gate open when the enemy attacks.
I will say: "Hey, the gate is open. Best to close our gate. But if we can't manage to close our gate I will hide in the basement."
You say: "Quiet, you only destroy confidence in our caste."
We don't have a confidence problem, we have an open gate problem.
The fungibility issue of Bitcoin is not a issue solved at the marketing level or the social shaming level. It is solved on a software engineering level and on the level of Bitcoiner group coordination.
Shaming people to talk about the lack for fungibility, interferes with recognition of the problem, interferes with the group coordination in the Bitcoin community to improve fungibility and delays our response to close the gate, while already being under attack.
I can respect solution ❶ and ❷
I can understand solution ❸
❶ Coinjoins
❷ Monero
❸ virgin Bitcoin
But trying to solve an engineering problem on the marketing level is harmful in my opinion.