5 ms·

Not talking about the specific implementation but the question is: Privacy for whom? Do we need the „innovation“ of untraceable money? For instance, we decide

Not talking about the specific implementation but the question is: Privacy for whom? Do we need the „innovation“ of untraceable money? For instance, we decided to get rid of untraceable cell phone numbers (at least in Germany you can’t get a cell without ID) and - nothing changed for the worse, but arguably some things changed for the better. Why would we introduce that for money/payment flows?

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Do we need the „innovation“ of untraceable money? Yes. We need untraceable money. Controlling how people use money is tantamount to controlling all of their economic interactions. Surveilling how people use their money means becoming privy to their most intimate interactions. This is mass-surveillance, of everything (because money touches everything), being snuck through the backdoor. With the transition from physical to digital currencies, we've created surveillance systems the likes of which the world has never seen. The information collection being done on the population is being done by a tiny proportion of the population, and disproportionately benefiting the political elite. Hyper-centralization exacerbates income and power disparities, and I would bet any money it leads to a more fragile social order. https://twitter.com/SpencerKSchiff/status/1252761285776859137 https://twitter.com/SpencerKSchiff/status/125276128577685913... >>In the last 20 years of available data, real median household income of Washington, D.C.’s residents has increased by 66.11%. For the entire country, the 20-yr increase is only 5.23%. This trend of widening disparity has accelerated dramatically since the Great Recession’s onset. We need the more distributed configuration of power that historically existed, and that can only happen if the privacy that is characteristic of physical currencies is imparted upon digital currencies.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Untraceable money is far more likely to lead to centralization of power, because it allows the already wealthy to act unaccountably. >>In the last 20 years of available data, real median household income of Washington, D.C.’s residents has increased by 66.11%. For the entire country, the 20-yr increase is only 5.23%. With untraceable money you'd never know this. Or you'd have to limit yourself to "declared income", which would be effectively voluntary.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    You observe that the political class benefits disproportionately from their political power. Next you conclude the solution is to grant them more power via regulation.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I would assert the already powerful gain more power from the absence of regulation; forcing them to set rules — imperfect a process as that is — is less bad than anarchy, which seems to often degenerate into handing all the power very quickly to the worst people.
      - aww_dang 5y ago
        "We can't allow more freedom, because that would lead to oppression"
        ben_w 5y ago
        I’m not “free” to go on a machine gun rampage, this lack of freedom isn’t “being oppressed”, and as it applies to everyone it stops other people doing it to me. So I know you’re being sarcastic, but yes, for some things more freedom directly causes oppression. I assert that letting power-hungry tax evaders get away with it is in that category.
        aww_dang 5y ago
        I'll allow that my characterization was mildly hyperbolic. However there's some truth there. You're stretching when you compare people voluntarily consuming products or services with violence. If this is the comparison you need to make, I think it is illustrative of where the argument is going. The clincher is that regulations, taxes or outright prohibitions of cryptocurrencies will be enforced with violence. More directly, if some villainous entrepreneur manages to protect his wealth from government confiscation, that is freedom. Confiscation under the threat of violence can hardly be construed as "freedom". Consider the origins of freedom. Are freedoms granted by government? Where does it stem from? Who is entitled to the value you add to a marketplace? Is a market a zero sum game?
- lobochrome 5y ago
  Has money ever been untraceable? Cash certainly was traceable starting with certain volume. Closest was maybe art and collectibles during Shoa!? A more fragile social order then we have today?!

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>Do we need the „innovation“ of untraceable money? Yes. We need untraceable money. Controlling how people use money is tantamount to controlling all of their economic interactions. Surveilling how people use their money means becoming privy to their most intimate interactions. This is mass-surveillance, of everything (because money touches everything), being snuck through the backdoor. With the transition from physical to digital currencies, we've created surveillance systems the likes of which the world has never seen. The information collection being done on the population is being done by a tiny proportion of the population, and disproportionately benefiting the political elite. Hyper-centralization exacerbates income and power disparities, and I would bet any money it leads to a more fragile social order. https://twitter.com/SpencerKSchiff/status/1252761285776859137 https://twitter.com/SpencerKSchiff/status/125276128577685913... >>In the last 20 years of available data, real median household income of Washington, D.C.’s residents has increased by 66.11%. For the entire country, the 20-yr increase is only 5.23%. This trend of widening disparity has accelerated dramatically since the Great Recession’s onset. We need the more distributed configuration of power that historically existed, and that can only happen if the privacy that is characteristic of physical currencies is imparted upon digital currencies.

pjc50 5y ago
Untraceable money is far more likely to lead to centralization of power, because it allows the already wealthy to act unaccountably. >>In the last 20 years of available data, real median household income of Washington, D.C.’s residents has increased by 66.11%. For the entire country, the 20-yr increase is only 5.23%. With untraceable money you'd never know this. Or you'd have to limit yourself to "declared income", which would be effectively voluntary.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  You observe that the political class benefits disproportionately from their political power. Next you conclude the solution is to grant them more power via regulation.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I would assert the already powerful gain more power from the absence of regulation; forcing them to set rules — imperfect a process as that is — is less bad than anarchy, which seems to often degenerate into handing all the power very quickly to the worst people.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      "We can't allow more freedom, because that would lead to oppression"
      - ben_w 5y ago
        I’m not “free” to go on a machine gun rampage, this lack of freedom isn’t “being oppressed”, and as it applies to everyone it stops other people doing it to me. So I know you’re being sarcastic, but yes, for some things more freedom directly causes oppression. I assert that letting power-hungry tax evaders get away with it is in that category.
        aww_dang 5y ago
        I'll allow that my characterization was mildly hyperbolic. However there's some truth there. You're stretching when you compare people voluntarily consuming products or services with violence. If this is the comparison you need to make, I think it is illustrative of where the argument is going. The clincher is that regulations, taxes or outright prohibitions of cryptocurrencies will be enforced with violence. More directly, if some villainous entrepreneur manages to protect his wealth from government confiscation, that is freedom. Confiscation under the threat of violence can hardly be construed as "freedom". Consider the origins of freedom. Are freedoms granted by government? Where does it stem from? Who is entitled to the value you add to a marketplace? Is a market a zero sum game?
lobochrome 5y ago
Has money ever been untraceable? Cash certainly was traceable starting with certain volume. Closest was maybe art and collectibles during Shoa!? A more fragile social order then we have today?!