4 ms·

Says the guy who stands to make ~3% of every single transaction that is deanonymized. For more clarification of how cashless would save us, look into BofA & Wel

by tunap 10y ago

Says the guy who stands to make ~3% of every single transaction that is deanonymized. For more clarification of how cashless would save us, look into BofA & Wells Fargo's not so distant past laundering of illegal guns & drug monies from Mexico, sure they paid fines & promise to be more diligent. Around the same time was the Wikileaks payments freeze across multi platforms(Guv mandated). Sounds fair & equitable for all who can afford justice.

aminok 10y ago
The destruction of privacy also means that the minority has zero protection against the majority. If the majority imposes an oppressive law, like prohibiting financial transactions with people of a certain nationality, or requiring people to hand over 1/3rd of their income for programs that enrich the political establishment and their donors, there is no way to circumvent the law.
- XorNot 10y ago
  This is not possible today. It is very easy as a government (often something bitcoin people rant about) to bulk transfer wealth from the population to a preferred group, since you have control of the mint. Which is why the mint (reserve bank) is, in all functional countries, a standalone entity with independent decision making power about currency creation. The idea that digitally tampering with bank accounts would not be noticed or reacted to, but softer measures like inflation rate meddling, or stealth measures like doing a currency re-issuance and controlling how hard it is for people to exchange old money, is absurd. Not to mention you've managed to ignore the fact that only a tiny fraction of circulating cash is physical cash anyway. In terms of protecting rights, this is one of the worst, least effective ways to do so.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >The idea that digitally tampering with bank accounts would not be noticed or reacted to, but softer measures like inflation rate meddling, or stealth measures like doing a currency re-issuance and controlling how hard it is for people to exchange old money, is absurd. Who said anything about "digitally tampering with bank accounts"? The situation today, where the bulk of transactions are done through large trusted third parties, which act as deputies for state regulatory organs, means that there is no expectation of privacy in most financial transactions, which increases the power of governments (meaning the political majority of countries) to enforce majority-supported laws that restrict voluntary exchange. It's certainly true that physical cash does not protect against inflation, but the idea this is the only major method by which governments redistribute wealth is false. Taxation is the main way in which governments raise revenues, and destroying privacy increases the ability of governments to tax. >"In terms of protecting rights, this is one of the worst, least effective ways to do so." It is the absolute most effective way to protect rights. Furthering financial privacy increases the protection that the politically disenfranchised have against those with political power more than anything else. Money is power, and having privacy in your usage of money means your power is protected.
    - XorNot 10y ago
      > Furthering financial privacy increases the protection that the politically disenfranchised Wow. This isn't even supported by any of America's notable civil rights successes of years gone by, whereas the entire history of political corruption is enabled by the wealthy's use and access to opaque financial instruments.
      - aminok 10y ago
        I guess you don't consider economically inhibiting regulatory prohibitions, in place in countries all over the world, that funnel economic activity through politically connected gatekeepers - at massive economic cost to the politically disenfranchised masses, or trillions of dollars in taxation to enrich the political class, or sanctions targeting every person of a particular nationality, or the multitude of market prohibitions, like those on drugs, or socialist policies put in place in countries like Cuba and Venzuela - to be forms of oppression inflicted by those with power on those without. You don't seem to appreciate that it is the ability to transact privately that enables people to circumvent all of the above-mentioned laws.
- tunap 10y ago
  More to the point, there is no way to protest or circumvent spurious fees and charges that always follow lock-in to any system. Some charges certainly are justified, but accompanied by many purported new fees and "errors". This is already abused by every telecom & public utility I have dealt with over the past 25 years, and it could only get worse as freer access is secured. I would never give a major monopoly service provider free access to my accounts today to "conveniently" auto-pay my un-scrutinized charges. They are entitled/entrenched beyond retribution excepting the most extreme trespasses and regular 'nicks & dings' on billing cycles in hopes of not being noticed is the norm. Unearned revenue is profitable when it nets > the penalties, if penalties ever were imposed.

by tunap 10y ago

aminok 10y ago

The destruction of privacy also means that the minority has zero protection against the majority. If the majority imposes an oppressive law, like prohibiting financial transactions with people of a certain nationality, or requiring people to hand over 1/3rd of their income for programs that enrich the political establishment and their donors, there is no way to circumvent the law.

XorNot 10y ago
This is not possible today. It is very easy as a government (often something bitcoin people rant about) to bulk transfer wealth from the population to a preferred group, since you have control of the mint. Which is why the mint (reserve bank) is, in all functional countries, a standalone entity with independent decision making power about currency creation. The idea that digitally tampering with bank accounts would not be noticed or reacted to, but softer measures like inflation rate meddling, or stealth measures like doing a currency re-issuance and controlling how hard it is for people to exchange old money, is absurd. Not to mention you've managed to ignore the fact that only a tiny fraction of circulating cash is physical cash anyway. In terms of protecting rights, this is one of the worst, least effective ways to do so.
- aminok 10y ago
  >The idea that digitally tampering with bank accounts would not be noticed or reacted to, but softer measures like inflation rate meddling, or stealth measures like doing a currency re-issuance and controlling how hard it is for people to exchange old money, is absurd. Who said anything about "digitally tampering with bank accounts"? The situation today, where the bulk of transactions are done through large trusted third parties, which act as deputies for state regulatory organs, means that there is no expectation of privacy in most financial transactions, which increases the power of governments (meaning the political majority of countries) to enforce majority-supported laws that restrict voluntary exchange. It's certainly true that physical cash does not protect against inflation, but the idea this is the only major method by which governments redistribute wealth is false. Taxation is the main way in which governments raise revenues, and destroying privacy increases the ability of governments to tax. >"In terms of protecting rights, this is one of the worst, least effective ways to do so." It is the absolute most effective way to protect rights. Furthering financial privacy increases the protection that the politically disenfranchised have against those with political power more than anything else. Money is power, and having privacy in your usage of money means your power is protected.
  - XorNot 10y ago
    > Furthering financial privacy increases the protection that the politically disenfranchised Wow. This isn't even supported by any of America's notable civil rights successes of years gone by, whereas the entire history of political corruption is enabled by the wealthy's use and access to opaque financial instruments.
    - aminok 10y ago
      I guess you don't consider economically inhibiting regulatory prohibitions, in place in countries all over the world, that funnel economic activity through politically connected gatekeepers - at massive economic cost to the politically disenfranchised masses, or trillions of dollars in taxation to enrich the political class, or sanctions targeting every person of a particular nationality, or the multitude of market prohibitions, like those on drugs, or socialist policies put in place in countries like Cuba and Venzuela - to be forms of oppression inflicted by those with power on those without. You don't seem to appreciate that it is the ability to transact privately that enables people to circumvent all of the above-mentioned laws.
tunap 10y ago
More to the point, there is no way to protest or circumvent spurious fees and charges that always follow lock-in to any system. Some charges certainly are justified, but accompanied by many purported new fees and "errors". This is already abused by every telecom & public utility I have dealt with over the past 25 years, and it could only get worse as freer access is secured. I would never give a major monopoly service provider free access to my accounts today to "conveniently" auto-pay my un-scrutinized charges. They are entitled/entrenched beyond retribution excepting the most extreme trespasses and regular 'nicks & dings' on billing cycles in hopes of not being noticed is the norm. Unearned revenue is profitable when it nets > the penalties, if penalties ever were imposed.