Pages:
Author

Topic: Is Bitcoin currency or goods? Fungible or not? - page 2. (Read 5156 times)

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254

If, by your definition, fiat is fungible until it gets stolen (which is a bit nonsensical), then Bitcoin could be treated similarly:  Fungible until stolen.  Where's the problem?
 

That's not what we're talking about.  Read the thread more carefully.  And tell us how you voted... :-)

Perhaps some rest?  Your posts are getting that peaked cantankerous vibe one associated with an exhausted mind.

Feel free to retract or redraft your post once you're well rested... :-)
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1115

If, by your definition, fiat is fungible until it gets stolen (which is a bit nonsensical), then Bitcoin could be treated similarly:  Fungible until stolen.  Where's the problem?
 

That's not what we're talking about.  Read the thread more carefully.  And tell us how you voted... :-)

I'm interested in the demand for so-called 'virgin coins'. I'm not sure for how much longer all bitcoins will be created equal when there is a market for coins with clean transaction histories?

That's an interesting point.... so you are after coins newly minted by miners?  Presumably they are untainted, which works both ways it seems to me.   Being untainted they might be more easy to trace to one owner.

I never thought of that..
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100

If, by your definition, fiat is fungible until it gets stolen (which is a bit nonsensical), then Bitcoin could be treated similarly:  Fungible until stolen.  Where's the problem?
 

That's not what we're talking about.  Read the thread more carefully.  And tell us how you voted... :-)

I'm interested in the demand for so-called 'virgin coins'. I'm not sure for how much longer all bitcoins will be created equal when there is a market for coins with clean transaction histories?

That's an interesting point.... so you are after coins newly minted by miners?  Presumably they are untainted, which works both ways it seems to me.   Being untainted they might be more easy to trace to one owner.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100

Answer: crude oil of a certain energy content is fungible.  That's what that gated paper says...so Alex Hern was right.

No.  The statement was:
Quote from: Alex Hern
So, for instance, crude oil is fungible, because if a trader buys a gallon of it, they don't care which gallon they get.
You don't get to substitute this statement for a different one in some gated paper.

But that was the paper you cited, not me.  Anyway I'm not going to parse this any more...I've leave the last word to you.



To get a better idea of what Levitin meant, let's expand the quote:
Quote from: Adam Levitin
One reason dollars work really well as a currency is that one $20 bill is entirely fungible with another $20 bill.  This means that when I pay, I don't have to make a decision about which $20 bill to use (unless I have some idiosyncratic attachment to the crisp ones or the like). It means that when I accept a payment, I don't care which $20 bill I am given, in part because I know that my ability to spend that $20 bill will not depend on which $20 bill it is.
(Emphasis mine)

I care which $20 bill I receive.  I'd much rather have an uncirculated one that's over 60 years old.  Is this idiosyncratic attachment?  What precisely did he mean by $20 bill?


It seems you are confused about what Adam meant--perhaps that's the problem?  It's clear to me and I think most people reading this what he meant...
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1115

If, by your definition, fiat is fungible until it gets stolen (which is a bit nonsensical), then Bitcoin could be treated similarly:  Fungible until stolen.  Where's the problem?
 

That's not what we're talking about.  Read the thread more carefully.  And tell us how you voted... :-)

I'm interested in the demand for so-called 'virgin coins'. I'm not sure for how much longer all bitcoins will be created equal when there is a market for coins with clean transaction histories?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100

That is how the blockchain works.  You can sometimes track bitcoins and that has happened on a few occasions.

I believe we disagree on how the blockchain works.  You are talking about combining bitcoins, or splitting them, and that's fine, but in the end you can trace them.  If you disagree show me the cite that says you cannot trace a bitcoin.  Remember, a mixer only means you're getting somebody else's bitcoin, not that you cannot trace the bitcoin.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100

If, by your definition, fiat is fungible until it gets stolen (which is a bit nonsensical), then Bitcoin could be treated similarly:  Fungible until stolen.  Where's the problem?
 

That's not what we're talking about.  Read the thread more carefully.  And tell us how you voted... :-)
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1004
Non-fungibility by law does not mean non-fungibility in nature.
For example, water is property and therefore it is not fungible, by your logic. But if I steal your water and I pour it into a lake, I would like to see you try to get it back.
Bitcoin is intangible and as a result it is fungible like water. There is a history of bitcoins passing from address to address, but there is no way to distinguish individual satoshis because they don't actually exist.

Not true.  That's not how the BTC blockchain works.  You can easily trace stolen BTC, and that's what happened with the klee stolen bitcoins.  In fact, in that thread, you will notice that a innocent third party who had, through a mixer, ended up with some of the stolen bitcoins of klee was asking the forum whether it's Ok to spend them, or whether he would have to return them (apparently he thought bitcoins were not fungible by law, which is mistaken, but it shows you can easily trace bitcoins).

That is how the blockchain works.  You can sometimes track bitcoins and that has happened on a few occasions.  You can sometimes track water: If I have a red bucket of water, and you give me a blue bucket of water, later I can give a bucket of water to odolvlobo and he can know which chunk of water he's received by the colour of the bucket.  Sometimes, however, you cannot track water: I take a large green bucket and pour the contents of both the red and blue bucket into it.  Later, I meet odolvlobo and pour him half of the green bucket's water.  Now the question of which chunk of water he's received is nonsensical; the chunks of water lost their identities when they were combined.  Water is not traceable in general.  Bitcoin is not traceable in general.

You can't distinguish one satoshi from another. For example, if a thief sends 2 BTC, 1 stolen and 1 clean, to 1xyz..., you cannot not look at 1xyz... and determine which satoshis are stolen and which are clean.

Well put.  Here's a closely related fiat example to help those still struggling with the concept.

Suppose I have two bank accounts, $200 with Chase and $0 with HSBC.  On Monday, I transfer $100 from Chase to HSBC.  On Tuesday, I send the remaining $100 to HSBC.  On Wednesday.  I transfer $100 back from HSBC to Chase.  Which $100 does Chase now have?  Are they the Monday dollars or the Tuesday dollars, or perhaps a mixture of both?
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1004
Quote from: Alex Hern
So, for instance, crude oil is fungible, because if a trader buys a gallon of it, they don't care which gallon they get.
What about this?


Answer: crude oil of a certain energy content is fungible.  That's what that gated paper says...so Alex Hern was right.

No.  The statement was:
Quote from: Adam Levitin
One reason dollars work really well as a currency is that one $20 bill is entirely fungible with another $20 bill.
Really?

Yes, really, because Adam Levitin is referring to fiat paper, not collectible paper.

To get a better idea of what Levitin meant, let's expand the quote:
Quote from: Adam Levitin
The price at which a particular Bitcoin was acquired (and this is traceable) determines the capital gains on that particular Bitcoin when spent.
Not necessarily traceable.

Yes, it is traceable, as per the blockchain definition.  What you are referring to perhaps is that unless you also log the IP address of the person using bitcoin, it's not easy to find out who spent the bitcoin.  But the bitcoin is traceable.

No, that's not what I was referring to.  Bitcoins themselves are simply not traceable in general.  Study odolvlobo's informative examples.  I linked to the CoinJoin thread which describes a method for utilising this general aspect of Bitcoin to help people reclaim some lost privacy.
[/quote]

Which way did you vote?  Do you think BTC is fungible or not?

I voted yes.  It is presently fungible.  This is clear from the Bitcoin exchange markets in which most actors treat the transactions linked to theirs with indifference.  There are examples of people caring about closely linked transactions, particularly due to crime or collectability, but such concerns are certainly not the norm.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254

Quote
Also while cash is fungible...

By your definition, it isn't.

You have to distinguish between stolen, marked cash (which is not fungible) and stolen, unmarked cash (which is fungible).  Courts have made this distinction.

Care to cite the case?
If, by your definition, fiat is fungible until it gets stolen (which is a bit nonsensical), then Bitcoin could be treated similarly:  Fungible until stolen.  Where's the problem?

Quote
More importantly, which way did you vote?  Do you think Bitcoin is fungible?

I didn't.  See boldface Cheesy
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Quote from: Alex Hern
So, for instance, crude oil is fungible, because if a trader buys a gallon of it, they don't care which gallon they get.
What about this?


Answer: crude oil of a certain energy content is fungible.  That's what that gated paper says...so Alex Hern was right.

Quote from: Adam Levitin
One reason dollars work really well as a currency is that one $20 bill is entirely fungible with another $20 bill.
Really?

Yes, really, because Adam Levitin is referring to fiat paper, not collectible paper.

Quote from: Adam Levitin
The price at which a particular Bitcoin was acquired (and this is traceable) determines the capital gains on that particular Bitcoin when spent.
Not necessarily traceable.

Yes, it is traceable, as per the blockchain definition.  What you are referring to perhaps is that unless you also log the IP address of the person using bitcoin, it's not easy to find out who spent the bitcoin.  But the bitcoin is traceable.

Which way did you vote?  Do you think BTC is fungible or not?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100

Quote
Also while cash is fungible...

By your definition, it isn't.

You have to distinguish between stolen, marked cash (which is not fungible) and stolen, unmarked cash (which is fungible).  Courts have made this distinction.

More importantly, which way did you vote?  Do you think Bitcoin is fungible?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
...I bet some judge rules that BTC are more like non-fungible goods than fungible currency.
...

You can mark a dollar bill (let's say with your signature), which doesn't make fiat any less fungible.
Neither does marking bills with a dye pack (money stolen by a clueless bank robber--your example).
I doubt the courts would treat BTC any different than a signed dollar bill, or one stained with a dye pack.

Not true.  If you don't believe me, try a simple experiment:  spray paint lightly a twenty dollar bill red, of the same bright pink shade used in bank dye bombs, and then try and spend it.  Unless you are dealing with a hapless clerk, they are likely to say it is marked and cannot be used.  

This argument shows that cash is nonfungible (my dyed bill is unlike other bills, your signed bill is unlike other bills, both could be readily identified and appropriate action taken based on this info.)

Further, "Each note of the same denomination and series has its own individual serial number," so we don't need to mark bills to differentiate them from each other--they're made different from the start.  This doesn't change the fact that fiat is considered fungible.

Quote
Also while cash is fungible...

By your definition, it isn't.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1004
Quote from: Alex Hern
So, for instance, crude oil is fungible, because if a trader buys a gallon of it, they don't care which gallon they get.
What about this?

Quote from: Adam Levitin
One reason dollars work really well as a currency is that one $20 bill is entirely fungible with another $20 bill.
Really?

Quote from: Adam Levitin
The price at which a particular Bitcoin was acquired (and this is traceable) determines the capital gains on that particular Bitcoin when spent.
Not necessarily traceable.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
Knowledge its everything
I don't care how they got bitcoin, that they send to me
But, what i care is how we use it for something legal

For me bitcoin is currency & not fungible
And you can track bitcoin easily with blockchain explorer
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
...I bet some judge rules that BTC are more like non-fungible goods than fungible currency.
...

You can mark a dollar bill (let's say with your signature), which doesn't make fiat any less fungible.
Neither does marking bills with a dye pack (money stolen by a clueless bank robber--your example).
I doubt the courts would treat BTC any different than a signed dollar bill, or one stained with a dye pack.

Not true.  If you don't believe me, try a simple experiment:  spray paint lightly a twenty dollar bill red, of the same bright pink shade used in bank dye bombs, and then try and spend it.  Unless you are dealing with a hapless clerk, they are likely to say it is marked and cannot be used.  

Also while cash is fungible, this thread is whether bitcoin is like cash or not.  I say not, and so does the IRS and at least one Georgetown University law professor.  We will see what a US court says but it would not surprise me if they side with the IRS, which would kill or severely hamper bitcoin as a currency.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Non-fungibility by law does not mean non-fungibility in nature.

For example, water is property and therefore it is not fungible, by your logic. But if I steal your water and I pour it into a lake, I would like to see you try to get it back.

Bitcoin is intangible and as a result it is fungible like water. There is a history of bitcoins passing from address to address, but there is no way to distinguish individual satoshis because they don't actually exist.



Not true.  That's not how the BTC blockchain works.  You can easily trace stolen BTC, and that's what happened with the klee stolen bitcoins.  In fact, in that thread, you will notice that a innocent third party who had, through a mixer, ended up with some of the stolen bitcoins of klee was asking the forum whether it's Ok to spend them, or whether he would have to return them (apparently he thought bitcoins were not fungible by law, which is mistaken, but it shows you can easily trace bitcoins).
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
...I bet some judge rules that BTC are more like non-fungible goods than fungible currency.
...

You can mark a dollar bill (let's say with your signature), which doesn't make fiat any less fungible.
Neither does marking bills with a dye pack (money stolen by a clueless bank robber--your example).
I doubt the courts would treat BTC any different than a signed dollar bill, or one stained with a dye pack.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10

Just like a person can have millions of ancestors and descendants, so can a bitcoin trace back or forward to millions of bitcoins. But since some bitcoins can be traced back to a particular transaction/address and some cannot, they are not completely fungible, and different bitcoins may be worth more or less.

Here is an example of someone offering to pay 2 "ordinary" bitcoins for 1 bitcoin that can be traced back to the historic transaction of buying pizza for 10K BTC.

Darkwallet/anonymity of transactions will perhaps bring 100% fungibility

What if goverments start opening packages of orders to see what currency has been used to pay?
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500

Just like a person can have millions of ancestors and descendants, so can a bitcoin trace back or forward to millions of bitcoins. But since some bitcoins can be traced back to a particular transaction/address and some cannot, they are not completely fungible, and different bitcoins may be worth more or less.

Here is an example of someone offering to pay 2 "ordinary" bitcoins for 1 bitcoin that can be traced back to the historic transaction of buying pizza for 10K BTC.

Darkwallet/anonymity of transactions will perhaps bring 100% fungibility
Pages:
Jump to: