4 ms·

I didn’t think they were fungible but it’s a long time since I read the paper.

lxgr 3y ago
"Coins on the chain" (i.e. unclaimed transaction outputs) are non-fungible, but you can combine multiple of these as inputs into a single new transaction, and in that sense, all transaction inputs are fungible, and by extension their outputs will be too. So while there are technical differences between the "account" and the "UTXO" models, I doubt it would make any sense in an enforcement context.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Interesting. I bet there’s case law on this (imagine bags of wheat instead of bitcoins) but I don’t know what the rule is.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    I would imagine so too. Intent probably matters; mixing your money through a service that has been widely known to be used to facilitate and obfuscate financial crime is probably not the best look if you end up with tainted coins and their legitimate owner comes knocking on your door. On the other hand, I don't even know how this works in detail in the traditional banking system, i.e. whether stolen money can be clawed back even if it's already moved across several accounts/transfers, the last of which completely oblivious to its source.
    - bradleyjg 3y ago
      So money is specifically different than goods, which was my original point. But money isn’t based on the properties of the item it’s just defined to be, well, money.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        That's what I've been wondering about for a while now: I know about stolen cash having special status in many jurisdictions, but how does this work when it comes to to bank transfers and account balances? These make up almost all of modern "money".
        bradleyjg 3y ago
        That’s even easier because they are technically fungible as well as legally. It is possible to say this $100 bill was once stolen so we are going to seize it from you even though you are perfectly unrelated to the crime and just happen to have ended up with it. The law treats money specially and prevents that from happening, but otherwise it could. It can happen with something like jewelry or a car. With electronic money you don’t even have a practical option even if there was one legally. There’s no specific hundred dollar bill to seize. Banks don’t track with that kind of granularity.

lxgr 3y ago

"Coins on the chain" (i.e. unclaimed transaction outputs) are non-fungible, but you can combine multiple of these as inputs into a single new transaction, and in that sense, all transaction inputs are fungible, and by extension their outputs will be too. So while there are technical differences between the "account" and the "UTXO" models, I doubt it would make any sense in an enforcement context.

bradleyjg 3y ago
Interesting. I bet there’s case law on this (imagine bags of wheat instead of bitcoins) but I don’t know what the rule is.
- lxgr 3y ago
  I would imagine so too. Intent probably matters; mixing your money through a service that has been widely known to be used to facilitate and obfuscate financial crime is probably not the best look if you end up with tainted coins and their legitimate owner comes knocking on your door. On the other hand, I don't even know how this works in detail in the traditional banking system, i.e. whether stolen money can be clawed back even if it's already moved across several accounts/transfers, the last of which completely oblivious to its source.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    So money is specifically different than goods, which was my original point. But money isn’t based on the properties of the item it’s just defined to be, well, money.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      That's what I've been wondering about for a while now: I know about stolen cash having special status in many jurisdictions, but how does this work when it comes to to bank transfers and account balances? These make up almost all of modern "money".
      - bradleyjg 3y ago
        That’s even easier because they are technically fungible as well as legally. It is possible to say this $100 bill was once stolen so we are going to seize it from you even though you are perfectly unrelated to the crime and just happen to have ended up with it. The law treats money specially and prevents that from happening, but otherwise it could. It can happen with something like jewelry or a car. With electronic money you don’t even have a practical option even if there was one legally. There’s no specific hundred dollar bill to seize. Banks don’t track with that kind of granularity.