As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.
now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility.
Just because a coin is being used in a specific way that does not make such coin more or less fungible than if such coin is used in another way.
Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'.
Geez jbreher... I see no reason for me to look up anything related to fungibility. You are trying to make some kind of assertion that lack of fungibility is an issue, and seems that you are just making shit up.
Absolutely false. I am merely saying that Segwit creates a triple-classed asset. And that this is by definition a lack of fungibility. You said that I am "now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility". You were 100% wrong. Own it.
I don't give a ratt's ass about what I said or did not say regarding your attempt to bring up some topic to get into the weeds of nonsense.
Look at the BIG PICTURE jbreher, and the BIG PICTURE remains that you are trolling with your attempt to distract WO peeps with your tangential speculations about some issues that are .1% important, while you are exaggerating the importance.
Even if I may have used strong language in your direction, stop getting caught up in these kinds of technicalities in order to attempt to keep your stupid-ass FUD spreading topic relevant, when it barely is relevant to anything in Bitcoin. You are doing the same thing as a lot of historical trolls have done by attempting to exaggerate the importance of a topic to make it seem way more likely to happen than it is, with little to no evidence and attempting to shift the burden onto other people to rebutt your ongoing spewing of nonsensical points.
That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
O.k. Fungibility issues would exist if some coins were easier to spend then others or if I could not get my coins sent because of some issue with them being tainted in some kind of way. Again, where is the evidence of this seemingly fabricated issue (and if it is not completely fabricated it is surely greatly exaggerated)?
The evidence is already given. Segwit creates a triple-classed asset. And that this is by definition a lack of fungibility.
O.k.. so fucking what if you are correct on the theoretical issue, when such framing has little to no real world practice.
Sure some BIG BLOCKER nutjobs are going to continue to exaggerate negative speculation, like you seem to be doing, and to spread disinformation about supposed catastrophes of lightning network in order to pump their stupid-ass and largely non-substantiated negative talking points.
If you want to argue the
facts of the matter, step up. I made some assertions of fact.
Assertions of facts do not make facts,
true
if you don't show evidence.
but I did.
Are you asserting that such topical pursuit is not getting caught up in the weeds of bullshit, and there is some kind of importance in meandering down such rabbit hole in which you would like to direct me and the rest of this thread's participants? Where we going with the nonsense talk? Is there some kind of widespread practice or a building non-fungibility related practice in bitcoin in which we need to pay attention? besides you quoting from a few WO posters who said that it seems that they had mispoken or that they were worried about segwit "in the beginning"?
Pony up some counter-arguments. If what I said is 'disinformation', then it should be a simple matter for you to put forth proof that they are false.
I have no burden to put forth facts to rebut your bare assertions, because I have not seen anything rising to the level of meaningful facts (
beyond assertions about what could happen ... not something that is actually happening)
Facts about what could happen. Exactly.
Seems like speculation about a phenomena that is .1% likely to happen and you are attempting to treat such speculation as if it has greater than 50% odds, no?
Why isn't your conduct here considered just FUD spreading and trolling?
How is it that you want WO peeps to treat you seriously and with credibility, jbreher, when you seem to take nearly every opportunity to exaggerate negative aspects of bitcoin with highly unlikely theories? You seem to be taking a similar tactic to stolfi, except stolfi left this WO thread a few years ago because apparently he found more hospitable grounds to spew his ongoing nonsensical "making a mound out of a mole hill" bitcoin bear theories.
Not only are you missing something, you are conflating two distinctly different discussions within a single thread.
Flail away, JJG - flail away.
Label my actions "flailing," if you will, but it seems to me that I might be too charitable in giving too much attention to your nonsense, which (like a typical troll) you merely look for little hooks here and there, rather than really attempting to treat significant and meaningful bitcoin WO topics.