Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.
I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?
it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?
(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)
impossible to answer. there may be digital currencies in the future that don't use cryptographiy. so how to answer, is that a trick question?
what about my question?
Again, you don't need to answer for the future, just the present: Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?
*your question doesn't pertain to what I am or was talking about--and you know it.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function. So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already.