Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.


Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.