Quote from: jbreher on June 19, 2018, 01:39:45 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 19, 2018, 03:14:49 AM

Quote from: jbreher on June 19, 2018, 01:51:07 AM

What I am asserting remains what I have been asserting all along. I am asserting that these properties are endemic to Segwit. Period.

O.k. You are asserting a theory.

No. I am not asserting a theory. I am asserting fact. Not theory. Fact. Segwit's separation of Bitcoin into three distinct classes is a readily-observable fact.

You really have a problem with basic definitions here.

O.k. I am with you that before segwit, we had one aspect of bitcoin that is considered on chain transactions. Segwit added functionality to bitcoin and was adopted and implemented through a then agreed to consensus mechanism, but such added functionality did not create a different class of bitcoin, furthermore it remains optional to use segregated witness bitcoin addresses or legacy addresses, and you can send bitcoin's across in any direction.. from segwit to legacy and from legacy to segwit from legacy to legacy and from segwit to segwith... So fucking what? That is not a different class of bitcoin, it is just additional functionality that has been absorbed into the system and likely to continue to exist.. and you have to make some kind of proof that there is some actual rather than theoretical fungibility issue.

Regarding lightning network, this is another test system that is being built in order to federate peg bitcoin's into such nominally second layer. Seems that I am not smart enough to really understand all of the implications of such system that is being built, and surely remains voluntary and in early testing stages. My understanding is that the December 2017/January 2018 spam attack onto bitcoin from BIG BLOCKER nutjob comrades of yourself created incentives to cause the test version of lightning network to go live much more quickly than had been anticipated, and even initially pissed off a few core developers, but in some sense the toothpaste is out of the tube, and the system is being tested on an ongoing basis with limitations in the quantity of coins that can be added to any one channel, and from my understanding lightning network is not creating any new coins, because the coins that are being used on lightning network are federated to actual bitcoins that are verifiable on the blockchain.

You can label this as a new class of coins all that you want, but such labelling seems to be misleading at best, and having seen your track record, I would not be surprised if you are not attempting to engage in deceit and/or trickery regarding the topic to suggest that some kind of significance and meaning is present with additional optional functionality being a new "class of coin" when no fucking new coins are created..

So, in the end, I still don't see what evidence that you have that there is some kind of actual fungibility issue in regards to bitcoins that might be used in the lightning network beyond mere speculation about something that could happen, but there are no actual facts to back up your differences in fungibility assertions related to lightning network and it even seems to be a stretch to be asserting that new functionality rises to the level of some kind of "new coin". In short, you seem to be engaging in either misleading or deception with your discussion of different classes of coins and arguing about some kind of non-existent fungibility issue, no?