Quote from: dazbog835 on August 13, 2017, 09:15:54 AM

Quote from: kamenrunner on August 10, 2017, 12:52:01 AM

Quote from: kel-alt on August 09, 2017, 09:24:45 PM

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.

Hmm, I thought that's what I was pointing at. Maybe I didn't explain correctly, but yes, I agree with you kamenrunner, this is the exact problem of most coins. I wish there was more discussion on this topic in all of the privacy-centric discussions.

If there's something I don't understand about 'traceability or linkability' would you please explain. I'd like to learn

(no sarcasm)

Sure, no problem. I could have very well mistranslated, but I was referencing in particular:

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.

You CAN do that with almost all of cryptocurrencies.

Namely that you seem to be saying one can't determine which is which with most CC and thus most CC are fungible which is not the case per WannaCry, and AlphaBay et al. Pretty much any coin (nearly all) with a richlist (or capable of having one) is not fungible such as Verge because it order to have a richlist you have to be able to trace where the coin is at any moment in time. Tracing and linking allows for taint. Taint ruins fungibility. The only coins that are fungible of which there are few are coins that make it cryptographically unlikely to trace or link tx. If I misinterpretted what you said my apologies.

Edit: Rereading again, I believe you are actually saying you can (see) that with most CC when I originally thought you were saying the opposite. Again, my apologies; please forgive me.