7 ms·

I think your comment raises some very interesting points, but that you go too far. There are costs (in the wider not just monetary sense) and benefits to vario

I think your comment raises some very interesting points, but that you go too far. There are costs (in the wider not just monetary sense) and benefits to various approaches. The reason you had to resort to crypto-currency first of all seems to me to be the problems in the countries you lived in. If they had working institutions, if you had lived in a Western country and had had access to the banking there, would you have come to the same conclusions? Also, there is a reason why Western banks and Asian ones too, it seems, prefer losing business over dealing with customers from some countries, and I doubt the reason is spite. Having completely anonymous money sure benefits some small businesses (mostly those living in places with bad institutions), but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people. I would suspect that as far as volume goes the latter might actually be far bigger than the former. As always those who have most to gain are those who have a lot of money to move (same with the question about who benefits from government more - the rich or the poor? The rich! Any "redistribution" is dwarfed by the amounts of money people get to make and to keep under the protections of strong government institutions). Anonymity, not just for money, always works for those who have their eyes closed to all the horrible things humans do when nobody is looking - and that is not a negligibly small amount. Of course, the extremely wealthy already have "anonymous money", tracing who owns what is very hard even for the government, but I doubt giving everybody access to anonymity would be a net positive.

dreit1 9y ago
> Having completely anonymous money sure benefits some small businesses (mostly those living in places with bad institutions), but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people. I'm not in favor of this argument at all. The internet has incredible benefits, but enables a lot of bad actors. Encryption has incredible benefits but enables a lot of bad actors. Lots of good things also enable bad things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them. Outside of third world or financially repressive countries, cryptocurrencies are great for "global citizens." I have done contract work while living in a different country, for clients in other countries, both parties have found it much easier to pay each other using cryptocurrencies as opposed to fiat.
- candiodari 9y ago
  The problem is that when it comes to governments and bad actors. The difference, at times, is murky. Even in the west.
ThomPete 9y ago
“but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people.“ So basically like cash.
- mstade 9y ago
  Which banks are desperately trying to get rid of.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Which they haven't yet.
    - mstade 9y ago
      But certainly not for lack of trying. In Sweden, it’s fast becoming nigh impossible to pay for things with cash, particularly in places like restaurants, cafés and bars. If you have a business that deals in cash, banks make it almost farcically difficult to deposit said cash into your business account. For example, in one town the largest bank will only accept cash through a deposit machine, outdoors, for one hour during the middle of the day. Oh and you can only deposit something like $1500 per day. Your only other option is to order pickups from a security company, which will cost quite a bit more than you’ll pay for card transactions most likely. Granted, this example is from a smaller town (aprox. 12000 inhabitants, but LOTS of tourists from abroad that tend to carry cash) but even in a place like the capital Stockholm, you’ll have very particular cash handling restrictions. Some because regulation, but most because banks don’t like to deal with cash. It’s a very real security risk and requires manual labor – both of which are costly and like any business banks like to keep costs down. Most smaller (and local) branches these days don’t deal with cash at all, or deals in very limited amounts. If you run a small shop that deals in cash, there’s a very real possibility that you’ll have to face the question of whether to pay a lot of money for secure cash handling, or just getting a safe and hope you don’t get robbed.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Sweden is an outlier (same things also happening in Denmark, where I am originally from) But contrary to cash, cryptocurrencies like bitcoin can be traced fairly easily in fact, it's one of the most transparent currencies that's ever existed. As color coins show it will be possible to trace the history of a coin and thus trace what's it's been used for. This will potentially allow NGO's to recieve funding and track how they are used and make sure they can't be used for approved expenses all autimatic. Cryptocoins are exactly what governments would want if they really thought it trough. The control they loose in creating the currency is gained in controlling the history of them.
totalZero 9y ago
> I doubt giving everybody access to anonymity would be a net positive. I would think that freedom from surveillance is a negative right, but you are framing it as a positive right. Why?

dreit1 9y ago

> Having completely anonymous money sure benefits some small businesses (mostly those living in places with bad institutions), but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people. I'm not in favor of this argument at all. The internet has incredible benefits, but enables a lot of bad actors. Encryption has incredible benefits but enables a lot of bad actors. Lots of good things also enable bad things, that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them. Outside of third world or financially repressive countries, cryptocurrencies are great for "global citizens." I have done contract work while living in a different country, for clients in other countries, both parties have found it much easier to pay each other using cryptocurrencies as opposed to fiat.

candiodari 9y ago
The problem is that when it comes to governments and bad actors. The difference, at times, is murky. Even in the west.

ThomPete 9y ago

“but it also enables a lot of very questionable businesses and people.“ So basically like cash.

mstade 9y ago
Which banks are desperately trying to get rid of.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Which they haven't yet.
  - mstade 9y ago
    But certainly not for lack of trying. In Sweden, it’s fast becoming nigh impossible to pay for things with cash, particularly in places like restaurants, cafés and bars. If you have a business that deals in cash, banks make it almost farcically difficult to deposit said cash into your business account. For example, in one town the largest bank will only accept cash through a deposit machine, outdoors, for one hour during the middle of the day. Oh and you can only deposit something like $1500 per day. Your only other option is to order pickups from a security company, which will cost quite a bit more than you’ll pay for card transactions most likely. Granted, this example is from a smaller town (aprox. 12000 inhabitants, but LOTS of tourists from abroad that tend to carry cash) but even in a place like the capital Stockholm, you’ll have very particular cash handling restrictions. Some because regulation, but most because banks don’t like to deal with cash. It’s a very real security risk and requires manual labor – both of which are costly and like any business banks like to keep costs down. Most smaller (and local) branches these days don’t deal with cash at all, or deals in very limited amounts. If you run a small shop that deals in cash, there’s a very real possibility that you’ll have to face the question of whether to pay a lot of money for secure cash handling, or just getting a safe and hope you don’t get robbed.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Sweden is an outlier (same things also happening in Denmark, where I am originally from) But contrary to cash, cryptocurrencies like bitcoin can be traced fairly easily in fact, it's one of the most transparent currencies that's ever existed. As color coins show it will be possible to trace the history of a coin and thus trace what's it's been used for. This will potentially allow NGO's to recieve funding and track how they are used and make sure they can't be used for approved expenses all autimatic. Cryptocoins are exactly what governments would want if they really thought it trough. The control they loose in creating the currency is gained in controlling the history of them.

totalZero 9y ago

> I doubt giving everybody access to anonymity would be a net positive. I would think that freedom from surveillance is a negative right, but you are framing it as a positive right. Why?