And if you do have permissionless, decentralized block chain design, then you don't absolutely need anonymity to have fungibility.
Disagree. Without obscuring the chain you will have constant battles over fungibility even with censorship resistance.
Really? I have no battles in Bitcoin about fungibility. All my Bitcoins so far have been acceptable to all merchants. No one can yet block a Bitcoin transaction, thus they are fungible. No one can yet force laws on every netizen requiring them to go to jail if they accept someone's bad Bitcoins.
If we ever get to that point in the future (then you even were the one who argued in the past) that anonymity won't help us.
Your use of the term, and understanding of the monetary concept behind it, is incorrect. There is essentially no censorship in Bitcoin today (ignoring Luke-Jr), nor any real sign of it any time soon, but there are already fungibility issues and they are getting worse not better.
Who has suffered a loss of fungibility with their Bitcoins?
You don't understand monetary definitions and theory if you conflate anonymity with fungibility.
[
Ideally you'd have both
Of course. Better, you must have both.
False. Cash is rarely anonymous, but is most always fungible. And it is very rarely censored (because can't).
Sorry major failure in your logic.
You made a wrong turn on this when you decided to drop anonymity to launch a coin in your name. See I am helping you now. Just a couple of programmers talking about silly ideas on a forum.
So this all about who has bragging rights?
This is competition between you and I?
Please say yes. I will gladly accept the challenge.
I believe you will eventually come to realize I didn't make a wrong turn by choosing to deprioritize anonymity.
Please tell me this a competition. Please.
Shelby versus smooth. I accept that challenge. Are we on?