You constantly contradict yourself.
Sorry no. You appear to lack the logic skills for comprehension of this subject matter.
This is my last attempt to explain
logic of inclusionary and exclusionary rule of set membership to you.
I don't intend to be mean-spirited, but I can't go on and on. Open your mind and realize you might be wrong and try to think about what is being explained to you.
It's not the fact that the fingerprints compromise anonymity that makes it traceable. It's the fact that they compromise fungibility.
If your logic was correct, then we don't need two words. Just discard one of them.
Fungibility is not anonymity otherwise why have two words.
Separation-of-concerns is a very important technique for correct logic.
Take any object you want and start to describe attributes of that object. For example, an egg is yellow-orange, it is slippery, it is protein, etc.. If it so happens that one of those attributes depends on some other attribute
some of the time, that doesn't mean that former attribute is the other latter attribute.
Substitutability
doesn't always depend on anonymity.
Thus clearly substitutability is an orthogonal attribute from anonymity.
It does happen that sometimes anonymity impacts on substitutability, but not always.
There are many cases where substitutability does not impact on anonymity.
Please do not waste my time (and clutter my thread) with another reply on this silly and easy to grasp topic. Learn.