As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.
now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility.
Just because a coin is being used in a specific way that does not make such coin more or less fungible than if such coin is used in another way.
Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
Sure some BIG BLOCKER nutjobs are going to continue to exaggerate negative speculation, like you seem to be doing, and to spread disinformation about supposed catastrophes of lightning network in order to pump their stupid-ass and largely non-substantiated negative talking points.
If you want to argue the
facts of the matter, step up. I made some assertions of fact. Pony up some counter-arguments. If what I said is 'disinformation', then it should be a simple matter for you to put forth proof that they are false. And I am in no way exaggerating nor claiming catastrophe. I made no value judgement on the matter, and even pointed out that the current debate is how significant these flaws are. All you are doing is bloviating. Buck up or shut up.