kel-alt - Aug 9 - Fungibility - One Verge is capable of being substituted for another Verge. I don't understand your English reading skills. My take is exactly like the sentence right before you claim Verge is not interchangeable with itself.
I am stunned by what looks to me like a serious misreading of what you read.
Nope, incorrect...it would seem given that someone else also corrected you on mistaking economic divisibility for fungibility so either you do not understand fungbility or you don't understand what you wrote:
That is not what fungibility means. It means that one item of such currency is indivisible from another in the sense that one coin cannot be distinguished from another.
An example would be two 100 dollar bills. One was used in the transaction of illegal drugs, the other in the purchase of a chair. You cannot see just by looking at them which was used for which. [...] And then certain companies can say, we will not touch coins that were part of an illicit transaction. Even if this was not done by you, but by a different owner of that coin. -dazbog835
However it seems dazbog835 doesn't quite understand traceability or linkability. Most coins are not fungible, they fail what I will call the 'WannaCry Test'. Let's say I have an address known to be associated with a WannaCry hacker which we will refer to as a WannaCry Address. The question then for the test is, can I tell if coin is being sent from the WannaCry address to say, an exchange (miners can also refuse to accept such transactions in their block as well by the way). BitCoin the answer is yes it fails the test as ShapeShift and other exchanges have announced they blacklisted the BitCoin WannaCry addresses.
Verge's ledger follows the same set of protocols as BitCoin, it does not hide the true sender and true receiver from anyone viewing the blockchain. Thus, if WannaCry used Verge instead, exchanges and miners would still successfully blacklist the Verge-based coin because they only need a wallet address, not an IP address.
I can tell by the verbiage of this poster who it is. He's an xmr dev. Some of you from Twitter will recognize his dead giveaways. Go away man. You got called out on your anonymity issues. Focus on fixing that instead of being a jerk.
People stopped responding because it's just some troll trying to safe his coin. 
Or because you know, because they can't refute facts.
I own very little XMR at any one time and use it for its privacy, not it's speculation month to month. Personally I prefer Total Market ETFs and maxing out tax advantaged accounts with backdoor Roth IRAs over CC's for investment, but to each their own. If I'm trying to do any saving, it's saving people from misinformation some Verge folk spread here, Twitter, and r/CryptoCurrency.
Then what say you of this? Will you refute these monero user ip's as facts or are they "alternative facts"? Or, no no..."alternative anonymity".
https://pastebin.com/PYghYb39
Yes, because they aren't Monero user IP addr's *those are Monero node addresses*. User here being used to refer to people who actually are the actual senders and receivers of XMR. In other words, I can run a Tor node, but not use the Tor service myself. Likewise I can run BitCoin Cash, Monero nodes on VPS's without transacting/using the CC at all because I run nodes to support networks of things that I find of value. Please show me the origin IP addresses of the actual senders with proof and good luck...
There's been proof that fluffy doesn't know what he is doing back in 2014 and he still doesn't know. When you check Twiter answers to Verge Dev you can clearly see that. It's ok, let them do their thing, I am out of Monero.
Hmm, looking at the most recent conversation between fp and @vergecurrency (https://twitter.com/vergecurrency/status/893894722233782272) it looks like @vergecurrency is the one who hasn't read and/or understood papers like routing attacks on cryptocurrencies. Try again. Meanwhile sunerok who to the best of my understanding is one of the primary devs of Verge thinks that running 'make' to compile a wallet somehow outputs the compiling device's IP addr (https://www.reddit.com/r/vergecurrency/comments/6rvg58/comparison_table_of_anonymous_crypto/dlgc1om/) to the Monero node network. If you have 101 understanding of how make/compiling works than it should be obvious how ridiculous such a statement is and cause you to seriously the credibility of such a dev and/or project. I honestly should have ran Archive on it because now it seems the entire thread has been more or less deleted to cover up the truth and now I can't split my sides by reading it again. Oh well.
Here is what I wrote:
**Do you even know how opening a Monero wallet works? Or for that matter even compiling?
Monero wallets can be opened offline and they can even create transactions offline assuming they have a copy of the blockchain. Compiling is just running clone and make. You don't somehow broadcast out to the Monero node network when you run make for the Monero source code or any FLOSS project source code. If you don't understand how something as basic in programming as make works I seriously question whatever knowledge or expertise you purport in programming and cryptography.
Edit: redundant grammar**
I even issued a challenge to anyone in the Verge community:
**Yep, stealth addresses are cryptographically unlinkable and there have been a good number of academic papers written on them. Read any recently?
Alright. I challenge you good sir or miss. The three flags you need to capture are gaining root, telling the balance in my wallet, and telling me what my node Id is on the Monero network. My node IP addr is 23.19.164.86. Go!**
I later added some details, needs to be done 6 months by now and 10 XMR for anyone in the Verge community who returns all three and reports the exploit ethically. Despite citing over and over again how easy IP addr are easy to get sunerok has yet to even get the node Id flag.