3 ms·

I was responding to your concern that all bitcoins are going to vanish. Regarding fungibility, bitcoins are definitely fungible. They are interchangeable, of e

I was responding to your concern that all bitcoins are going to vanish. Regarding fungibility, bitcoins are definitely fungible. They are interchangeable, of equal value, and sub-dividable. Fungibility does not require that all parts be identical, only of equal value and utility. By your argument, USD is not fungible because old 100 dollar bills may not be accepted in some places. From Investopedia: "A good or asset's interchangeability with other individual goods/assets of the same type. Assets possessing this property simplify the exchange/trade process, as interchangeability assumes that everyone values all goods of that class as the same." http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibility.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibility.asp

jacques_chester 13y ago
> Regarding fungibility, bitcoins are definitely fungible. Where have I argued otherwise? Fungibility is not the issue. Irreversible shrinkage of the monetary base is the issue. > By your argument, USD is not fungible because old 100 dollar bills may not be accepted in some places. You are now confusing fungibility with liquidity. And I note that, unlike bitcoin, if I have a damaged $100 note, I can exchange it with the central bank for an new equivalent note.
- crystaln 13y ago
  I conflated you with the other response to my post saying bitcoin was not fungible. Regardless, you seem very adept at unfairly attacking my vocabulary usage and finding inconsequential issues with bitcoin. Other than that I don't see much in what you are saying. It doesn't matter that the number of bitcoins will slowly decline. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, and whoever lost the money is the only it's a problem for. For everyone else that's a benefit. Even if you were correct, such theoretical long-term concerns will not stop the adoption of bitcoin.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    I'm "attacking" the vocabulary because, by repeatedly raising fungibility, I felt you were talking about a tangential matter. > It doesn't matter that the number of bitcoins will slowly decline. I don't agree. And it needn't be gradual. > Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, and whoever lost the money is the only it's a problem for. For everyone else that's a benefit. Hence the "Bitfinger" scenario I alluded to. > Even if you were correct, such theoretical long-term concerns will not stop the adoption of bitcoin. No, but I think they would be sufficient to prevent bitcoin ever becoming legal tender.
    - crystaln 13y ago
      Bitcoin is legal tender in Germany.

jacques_chester 13y ago

> Regarding fungibility, bitcoins are definitely fungible. Where have I argued otherwise? Fungibility is not the issue. Irreversible shrinkage of the monetary base is the issue. > By your argument, USD is not fungible because old 100 dollar bills may not be accepted in some places. You are now confusing fungibility with liquidity. And I note that, unlike bitcoin, if I have a damaged $100 note, I can exchange it with the central bank for an new equivalent note.

crystaln 13y ago
I conflated you with the other response to my post saying bitcoin was not fungible. Regardless, you seem very adept at unfairly attacking my vocabulary usage and finding inconsequential issues with bitcoin. Other than that I don't see much in what you are saying. It doesn't matter that the number of bitcoins will slowly decline. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, and whoever lost the money is the only it's a problem for. For everyone else that's a benefit. Even if you were correct, such theoretical long-term concerns will not stop the adoption of bitcoin.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  I'm "attacking" the vocabulary because, by repeatedly raising fungibility, I felt you were talking about a tangential matter. > It doesn't matter that the number of bitcoins will slowly decline. I don't agree. And it needn't be gradual. > Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, and whoever lost the money is the only it's a problem for. For everyone else that's a benefit. Hence the "Bitfinger" scenario I alluded to. > Even if you were correct, such theoretical long-term concerns will not stop the adoption of bitcoin. No, but I think they would be sufficient to prevent bitcoin ever becoming legal tender.
  - crystaln 13y ago
    Bitcoin is legal tender in Germany.