In praactice rules and charters would probably have to be written explicity to take advantage of this inequality, so it's likely not a problem. I just find the wording philosophically interesting.
On 05/03/17 13:40, Nic Evans wrote: > But it does have the same value to the market, which is where > fungibility comes in. If we both put 20 fungible shinies in a pile, mix > the pile, and take 20 shinies out, we can be assured we both left with > the same value we started. Whether we both pay 20 shinies to G. or I pay > 15 and you pay 25, G. has received the same value. This wording leaves > an argument that the current owner of a shiny changes its transactional > value. > > > On 05/03/17 11:21, Edward Murphy wrote: >> Nicholas Evans wrote: >> >>> A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing >>> document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are >>> fungible. >>> >>> >>> Implying instances wth different owners aren't fungible? Therefore, they >>> aren't guaranteed to have the same value? >> Your shiny doesn't have the same value /to me/ as my shiny, as I can't >> direct its usage (or I can only do so via a contract or something). >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
