4 ms·

So if I understand correctly Taler avoids double spending by having a trusted central authority? Foss version of Visa/Mastercard basically?

by im3w1l 6y ago

dbrgn 6y ago
As far as I understand it, this is meant as an open and standardized payment protocol that provides payment interoperability between different banks, but that protects the privacy of the sender (but not the recipient, due to tax reasons). It doesn't have anything to do with crypto currencies like Bitcoin.
- XorNot 6y ago
  This feels like it wouldn't square with Know-Your-Customer requirements. Although: those only kick in legally above certain transaction and spend levels, so simply rejecting anonymous payments at those levels (or structured payments below those) would make it legally viable. It does make me feel good to see a GNU project like this out there - at the core of the free world IMO, the bits of glue which get our society running, it should really be all open-source and open licenses.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    How can you tell whether the payments are structured if senders are anonymous?
    - XorNot 6y ago
      Because the recipients can't be anonymous, basically by definition. So money moving in an apparently ordered way to a receiver would draw attention to the recipient, who would then have to explain why they were accepting the payments. If they're converting to physical goods, they also have to be sending them somewhere - which is much harder to anonymize.
  - helen___keller 6y ago
    > This feels like it wouldn't square with Know-Your-Customer requirements My understanding is that exchanges would do their due diligence before exchanging your fiat for tokens, and separately shops may do due diligance if necessary before accepting your tokens; the exchange does not know that you performed a transaction at this shop, and the shop does not know with whom you exchange[0], but both those relationships have separately done due diligence. In particular I don't believe there could be a such thing as a "darknet shop" or "darknet exchange" using Taler. If any one entity is not following regulations, it should be possible to track them down and subject them to the law. If a merchant isn't following regulations, then they can't redeem their tokens to fiat at the exchange. If the exchange isn't following regulations, then the auditor/government shuts them down. [0] not sure about this one
    - captn3m0 6y ago
      [0] is not correct, since the shop validates your money against that specific exchange. But since there are going to be a few regulated exchanges, it doesn’t let the shops track you meaningfully. Plus shops will usually have more information: email/address etc.
the8472 6y ago
> Foss version of Visa/Mastercard basically? Current payment providers aren't anonymized. Taler provides anonymity for the spender with blinded signatures.
segfaultbuserr 6y ago
> Foss version of Visa/Mastercard basically? Yes, but it's better. On one hand it's centralized and vendors are regulated, BUT it implements anonymous payment for buyers using a type of blind signature in cryptography (originally envisioned by David Chaum's digital cash), it allows you to pay for things without being tracked and analyzed. In my opinion it's the best compromise between PayPal and cryptocurrencies, I hope one day I can buy things via GNU/Taler.
- rebuilder 6y ago
  It seems surprising to me if governments are willing to adopt a digital payment system that does not enable full tracking of who paid who what.
  - merdadicapra 6y ago
    from the Taler website https://taler.net/en/principles.html https://taler.net/en/principles.html As a payment system must comply with local laws in order to operate legally, GNU Taler must be designed to comply with these requirements. GNU Taler must provide an audit trail for investigators operating under the law. Furthermore, we consider levying of taxes as beneficial to society, and fair taxation requires income transparency. Thus, GNU Taler must enable authorities to track income Which makes a lot of sense. Privacy of buyers is protected from the merchant, that doesn't imply that the payment is untraceable (or that complete secrecy is necessary).
  - dbrgn 6y ago
    Taler supports full tracking of who received how much. That is sufficient for the government's job of taxing income. If - on the other hand - the government would also like to mass surveil all its citizens, then that is a use case that Taler explicitly and intentionally does not support.
    - rowland66 6y ago
      So it looks like Taler is designed as a consumer to merchant payment system, and not person to person. I suppose that person to person could work with banks serving as intermediaries. With anonymity for consumer how would transactions like exchanges and returns work?

So if I understand correctly Taler avoids double spending by having a trusted central authority? Foss version of Visa/Mastercard basically?

by im3w1l 6y ago

So if I understand correctly Taler avoids double spending by having a trusted central authority? Foss version of Visa/Mastercard basically?

dbrgn 6y ago

As far as I understand it, this is meant as an open and standardized payment protocol that provides payment interoperability between different banks, but that protects the privacy of the sender (but not the recipient, due to tax reasons). It doesn't have anything to do with crypto currencies like Bitcoin.

XorNot 6y ago
This feels like it wouldn't square with Know-Your-Customer requirements. Although: those only kick in legally above certain transaction and spend levels, so simply rejecting anonymous payments at those levels (or structured payments below those) would make it legally viable. It does make me feel good to see a GNU project like this out there - at the core of the free world IMO, the bits of glue which get our society running, it should really be all open-source and open licenses.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  How can you tell whether the payments are structured if senders are anonymous?
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Because the recipients can't be anonymous, basically by definition. So money moving in an apparently ordered way to a receiver would draw attention to the recipient, who would then have to explain why they were accepting the payments. If they're converting to physical goods, they also have to be sending them somewhere - which is much harder to anonymize.
- helen___keller 6y ago
  > This feels like it wouldn't square with Know-Your-Customer requirements My understanding is that exchanges would do their due diligence before exchanging your fiat for tokens, and separately shops may do due diligance if necessary before accepting your tokens; the exchange does not know that you performed a transaction at this shop, and the shop does not know with whom you exchange[0], but both those relationships have separately done due diligence. In particular I don't believe there could be a such thing as a "darknet shop" or "darknet exchange" using Taler. If any one entity is not following regulations, it should be possible to track them down and subject them to the law. If a merchant isn't following regulations, then they can't redeem their tokens to fiat at the exchange. If the exchange isn't following regulations, then the auditor/government shuts them down. [0] not sure about this one
  - captn3m0 6y ago
    [0] is not correct, since the shop validates your money against that specific exchange. But since there are going to be a few regulated exchanges, it doesn’t let the shops track you meaningfully. Plus shops will usually have more information: email/address etc.

the8472 6y ago

> Foss version of Visa/Mastercard basically? Current payment providers aren't anonymized. Taler provides anonymity for the spender with blinded signatures.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

> Foss version of Visa/Mastercard basically? Yes, but it's better. On one hand it's centralized and vendors are regulated, BUT it implements anonymous payment for buyers using a type of blind signature in cryptography (originally envisioned by David Chaum's digital cash), it allows you to pay for things without being tracked and analyzed. In my opinion it's the best compromise between PayPal and cryptocurrencies, I hope one day I can buy things via GNU/Taler.

rebuilder 6y ago
It seems surprising to me if governments are willing to adopt a digital payment system that does not enable full tracking of who paid who what.
- merdadicapra 6y ago
  from the Taler website https://taler.net/en/principles.html https://taler.net/en/principles.html As a payment system must comply with local laws in order to operate legally, GNU Taler must be designed to comply with these requirements. GNU Taler must provide an audit trail for investigators operating under the law. Furthermore, we consider levying of taxes as beneficial to society, and fair taxation requires income transparency. Thus, GNU Taler must enable authorities to track income Which makes a lot of sense. Privacy of buyers is protected from the merchant, that doesn't imply that the payment is untraceable (or that complete secrecy is necessary).
- dbrgn 6y ago
  Taler supports full tracking of who received how much. That is sufficient for the government's job of taxing income. If - on the other hand - the government would also like to mass surveil all its citizens, then that is a use case that Taler explicitly and intentionally does not support.
  - rowland66 6y ago
    So it looks like Taler is designed as a consumer to merchant payment system, and not person to person. I suppose that person to person could work with banks serving as intermediaries. With anonymity for consumer how would transactions like exchanges and returns work?