JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 2 weeks ago
How is that not the case with Monero on a theoretical exchange? Exchanging fiat for Bitcoin or Monero is a social contract only enforceable by the parties and trust assumptions therein. My whole point here is pointing out "Bitcoin UTXOs can be frozen" is just as true for Monero on an exchange with a similar payment structure -> Fiat in ->Monero out but until payment is completed, any coin can be rugged. So, I just find this argument the weakest against Bitcoin especially from Monero advocates.

Replies (2)

weev's avatar
weev 2 weeks ago
Monero doesn't have tainted coins. Nobody is demonstrably showing path of Monero funds moving on the blockchain. I don't understand how you don't seem to understand this. If I deposit my Bitcoin on an exchange it is frozen and seized. If I deposit my Monero it is seamlessly sold. The behavior is observable by literally everyone who gets their Bitcoin regularly frozen and then switches to Monero. When I receive Monero it remains fungible at any exchange that takes Monero. When I receive Bitcoin I have no assurances that is the case. I would have preferred to use Bitcoin forever, but unfortunately Core decided to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and all the time and resources on the absolute disaster that is LN instead of making Bitcoin fungible and useful from the ground up.
JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 2 weeks ago
Oh, because fiat is the attack vector not the coin you are buying. Fungibility markers only matter to your counterparty. The fiat being the control mechanism is so much more likely that I am kind of shocked this is still a talking point. The whole Monero coin IS a tainted coin in the eyes of OFAC exchanges, do you see what I am saying? So, if we are talking about the same exchanges, Monero is no different than Bitcoin in this respect. If we are talking about exchanges that are non-compliant to OFAC, then there is no difference either. This is why I don't understand this talking point. It doesn't make any sense.