4 ms·

People who think the government should have the technological power to decide who pays who in the world need to ask themselves this. Do you think that there sho

People who think the government should have the technological power to decide who pays who in the world need to ask themselves this. Do you think that there should be a hardware filter on all internet fiber cables that allows the government to filter that traffic? Banning cryptocurrencies because they physically allow money laundering is as logically indefensible as banning internet fibers because they physically allow illegal content. The solution is to make the transactions illegal but physically possible. I’ve seen no reasonable people saying that all transactions should be legal, but I’ve seen a lot of people here saying that technology which allows illegal transactions should be banned. This is mind boggling to me and seems like a dangerous precedent. After all cash physically allows money laundering, should we ban cash? Cryptocurrencies are baby technologies, why would we make innovating on them illegal before we even know what they’re capable of?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jlmorton 7y ago
> After all cash physically allows money laundering, should we ban cash? Yes, we probably should, now that better alternatives exist. We should have public postal banking, so no one is unbanked. And then we should stop issuing cash.
- wilg 7y ago
  What better alternatives exist?
  - jlmorton 7y ago
    Preferably low-cost digital payments, such as debit cards, mobile payments, or whatever else, perhaps including cryptocurrencies like Libra. I understand many of these methods as they exist in the US come with significant fees, although debit cards have improved significantly since Dodd-Frank. Sweden will stop accepting cash payments in 2023, and already nearly 90% of transactions are completed without it. There's not a one-size solution, but 98% of Swedes have a bank card, and 60% have used mobile payment app Swish over the past year.
    - drivingmenuts 7y ago
      Electronic payments completely exclude the unbanked and cost proportionally far more for low-income brackets. Cash is the only near-zero or zero cost transaction method available.
      - jlmorton 7y ago
        Fixing that would be a prerequisite. Public/postal banking is one way to accomplish that. Regulation is another. I actually disagree that cash is currently near-zero cost, though. The current situation is that credit cards charge large interchange fees, and their agreements with most merchants prohibit them from passing those fees to their customer. The result is that most of the fees are added to prices for all customers. Unless you're paying with cash at a cash-only business, you're using one of the most expensive payment methods. The closest you can come to a low-cost payment method is a rewards credit card that provides some of those interchange fees back in the form of cash bonuses, points, or whatever, and then paying off the balance each month.
    - wtmt 7y ago
      Debit cards and mobile payments are not low cost in many places. They may seem to be no cost to consumers, but the costs are added in every product or service that's being sold because every player and "middleperson" in the payment chain takes a fat enough cut. This affects the poorer people disproportionately, and they end up subsidizing the costlier digital payment modes used by the relatively richer people.
    - gjs278 7y ago
      credit card companies charge swipe fees which isn’t fair to every business doing low cost transactiona
Mengkudulangsat 7y ago
I foresee money laundering eventually getting decriminalized, much like drugs are right now. The pretext of the offence always felt strange to me. If I robbed a bank, did a getaway drive but got caught afterwards, I expect to be charged with robbery, not driving.
- tim333 7y ago
  The trend seems the other way if anything, that its being more clamped down on. If you rob a bank and make off with $10m in banknotes the kind of offence would be your lawyer certifying it came from honest sources and letting you buy a mansion with it. The argument for criminalising it is the lawyer would be assisting in your operation and effectively encouraging you to rob more banks which is not victimless in the way smoking a joint may be.
  - tenpies 7y ago
    Yes, the desired outcome by the governments seems to be: > You rob a bank and make off with $10 MM in bank notes > They strike those bank notes' serials from a central database and you are now holding a duffel bag of paper. Fiat currency is just make belief paper. It's backed by nothing but hopes and dreams at this point, so the actual paper you hold is really just a manifestation of that. It has no inherent value beyond what the government says it's worth. If we move to centralized ledgers it becomes even easier for them to decide which transactions are legitimate and which are not. Of course this then extends to: > You tried to give $5 to a government critic's podcast > The transaction was flagged as illegitimate and cancelled. Your $5 was returned to you.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      US Fiat currency is backed by nuclear weapons.
    - tim333 7y ago
      Or rather you can't make off with $10m in bank notes because everything's gone cashless. By the way fiat is backed by more than hopes and dreams, it's usually backed by quite a few institutions and societal expectations. Unlike many of the altcoins which really are hopes and dreams backed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jlmorton 7y ago

> After all cash physically allows money laundering, should we ban cash? Yes, we probably should, now that better alternatives exist. We should have public postal banking, so no one is unbanked. And then we should stop issuing cash.

wilg 7y ago
What better alternatives exist?
- jlmorton 7y ago
  Preferably low-cost digital payments, such as debit cards, mobile payments, or whatever else, perhaps including cryptocurrencies like Libra. I understand many of these methods as they exist in the US come with significant fees, although debit cards have improved significantly since Dodd-Frank. Sweden will stop accepting cash payments in 2023, and already nearly 90% of transactions are completed without it. There's not a one-size solution, but 98% of Swedes have a bank card, and 60% have used mobile payment app Swish over the past year.
  - drivingmenuts 7y ago
    Electronic payments completely exclude the unbanked and cost proportionally far more for low-income brackets. Cash is the only near-zero or zero cost transaction method available.
    - jlmorton 7y ago
      Fixing that would be a prerequisite. Public/postal banking is one way to accomplish that. Regulation is another. I actually disagree that cash is currently near-zero cost, though. The current situation is that credit cards charge large interchange fees, and their agreements with most merchants prohibit them from passing those fees to their customer. The result is that most of the fees are added to prices for all customers. Unless you're paying with cash at a cash-only business, you're using one of the most expensive payment methods. The closest you can come to a low-cost payment method is a rewards credit card that provides some of those interchange fees back in the form of cash bonuses, points, or whatever, and then paying off the balance each month.
  - wtmt 7y ago
    Debit cards and mobile payments are not low cost in many places. They may seem to be no cost to consumers, but the costs are added in every product or service that's being sold because every player and "middleperson" in the payment chain takes a fat enough cut. This affects the poorer people disproportionately, and they end up subsidizing the costlier digital payment modes used by the relatively richer people.
  - gjs278 7y ago
    credit card companies charge swipe fees which isn’t fair to every business doing low cost transactiona

Mengkudulangsat 7y ago

I foresee money laundering eventually getting decriminalized, much like drugs are right now. The pretext of the offence always felt strange to me. If I robbed a bank, did a getaway drive but got caught afterwards, I expect to be charged with robbery, not driving.

tim333 7y ago
The trend seems the other way if anything, that its being more clamped down on. If you rob a bank and make off with $10m in banknotes the kind of offence would be your lawyer certifying it came from honest sources and letting you buy a mansion with it. The argument for criminalising it is the lawyer would be assisting in your operation and effectively encouraging you to rob more banks which is not victimless in the way smoking a joint may be.
- tenpies 7y ago
  Yes, the desired outcome by the governments seems to be: > You rob a bank and make off with $10 MM in bank notes > They strike those bank notes' serials from a central database and you are now holding a duffel bag of paper. Fiat currency is just make belief paper. It's backed by nothing but hopes and dreams at this point, so the actual paper you hold is really just a manifestation of that. It has no inherent value beyond what the government says it's worth. If we move to centralized ledgers it becomes even easier for them to decide which transactions are legitimate and which are not. Of course this then extends to: > You tried to give $5 to a government critic's podcast > The transaction was flagged as illegitimate and cancelled. Your $5 was returned to you.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    US Fiat currency is backed by nuclear weapons.
  - tim333 7y ago
    Or rather you can't make off with $10m in bank notes because everything's gone cashless. By the way fiat is backed by more than hopes and dreams, it's usually backed by quite a few institutions and societal expectations. Unlike many of the altcoins which really are hopes and dreams backed.