7 ms·

"In our design users interact with a central transaction processor using digital wallets storing cryptographic keys. ... Despite using ideas from blockchain tec

"In our design users interact with a central transaction processor using digital wallets storing cryptographic keys. ... Despite using ideas from blockchain technology, we found that a distributed ledger operating under the jurisdiction of different actors was not needed to achieve our goals. Specifically, a distributed ledger does not match the trust assumptions in Project Hamilton's approach, which assumes that the platform would be administered by a central actor."

asabjorn 5y ago
To see how tyranny can be instituted by combining a non anonymous transaction system with vaccine passport look at the promo video for Bill Gates funded wallet Thales https://youtu.be/PxvNzzgoJX8 https://youtu.be/PxvNzzgoJX8 All across the world a China style social credit score called ESG is now being adopted by banks. https://youtu.be/8f1Z57hwbWY https://youtu.be/8f1Z57hwbWY What happens when they decide you used up your quota? No flight, no meat or no car ride for you because they won’t let you spend your money.
lvl100 5y ago
This is right to some extent. They can have distributed ledger in virtual sense.
- slickrick216 5y ago
  Isn’t this somewhat like hyperledger where it’s a permissioned federated blockchain?
tylersmith 5y ago
That's basically a requirement for a CBDC. They're certainly not going to promote a coin they don't control the consensus rules for.
DennisP 5y ago
This doesn't sound all that different from the banking system we have now.
- Trias11 5y ago
  They don't need much of a difference. Just more control.
- woah 5y ago
  Less decentralized than the current system
- tadfisher 5y ago
  The key words here are "central transaction processor". Being able to interact with the financial system without going through intermediaries would eliminate an incredible amount of waste in the form of most of the payments industry.
  - WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
  - melony 5y ago
    It is better for the government to run financial infrastructure. The restrictions imposed by PayPal and the banks on certain types of businesses can then be challenged in court.
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    Would also eliminate an incredible last grain of financial privacy people have. When every transaction goes through FED, the government won't need to call or subpoena anyone to know where your money come and go.
    - djbusby 5y ago
      How does the Post remain private, since the Government runs that too?
      - kingcharles 5y ago
        If you're interested in the technical answer, this is the SCOTUS case law that decided that postal mail was subject to the Fourth Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Jackson
triangleman 5y ago
Reading Matt Levine's latest column on this CBDC was sort of mind blowing. With a truly centralized digital currency the Fed would basically monopolize all bank deposits (why store money in the bank at all when your digital wallet is perfectly safe) and destroy the entire banking sector. So they are forced to decentralize the currency to some extent, so that banks are the ones to actually issue the currency (after borrowing it from the fed).
- pessimizer 5y ago
  This is literally the only reason I support it. Banking, debit cards, and paypal are just private taxes.
  - rvense 5y ago
    Exactly. CBDC is not a response to cryptocurrencies. It is a (belated) response to the fact that the way cashless economies have evolved has basically privatized money-as-infrastructure. The privacy implications of CDBC are a real problem, but the rapidly approaching end game of the current slippery slope is one in which, among other things, all participation in the economy is gated entirely by private banks. No sovereign country should accept that. And yes, any real implementation of a blockchain as a day-to-day cash replacement will have the same problem. These are legal problems requiring a legal solution, not a technical one.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- jt2190 5y ago
  I think you’re talking about his column from Tuesday [1], which talks about different research at the Fed [2] that suggested that there is a trade off between “credit provision” (i.e. private lenders taking a risk and extending credit to their customers who they have relationships with) and “stability”. In a credit crunch, investors could flee to a CBDC and make the crisis worse. [1] “The Fed vs. Stablecoins” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-01/hedge-funds-are-a-job-now https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-01/hedge-... [2] “Stablecoins: Growth Potential and Impact on Banking” https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/stablecoins-growth-potential-and-impact-on-banking.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/stablecoins-grow...

asabjorn 5y ago

To see how tyranny can be instituted by combining a non anonymous transaction system with vaccine passport look at the promo video for Bill Gates funded wallet Thales https://youtu.be/PxvNzzgoJX8 https://youtu.be/PxvNzzgoJX8 All across the world a China style social credit score called ESG is now being adopted by banks. https://youtu.be/8f1Z57hwbWY https://youtu.be/8f1Z57hwbWY What happens when they decide you used up your quota? No flight, no meat or no car ride for you because they won’t let you spend your money.

lvl100 5y ago

This is right to some extent. They can have distributed ledger in virtual sense.

slickrick216 5y ago
Isn’t this somewhat like hyperledger where it’s a permissioned federated blockchain?

tylersmith 5y ago

That's basically a requirement for a CBDC. They're certainly not going to promote a coin they don't control the consensus rules for.

DennisP 5y ago

This doesn't sound all that different from the banking system we have now.

Trias11 5y ago
They don't need much of a difference. Just more control.
woah 5y ago
Less decentralized than the current system
tadfisher 5y ago
The key words here are "central transaction processor". Being able to interact with the financial system without going through intermediaries would eliminate an incredible amount of waste in the form of most of the payments industry.
- WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
- melony 5y ago
  It is better for the government to run financial infrastructure. The restrictions imposed by PayPal and the banks on certain types of businesses can then be challenged in court.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  Would also eliminate an incredible last grain of financial privacy people have. When every transaction goes through FED, the government won't need to call or subpoena anyone to know where your money come and go.
  - djbusby 5y ago
    How does the Post remain private, since the Government runs that too?
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      If you're interested in the technical answer, this is the SCOTUS case law that decided that postal mail was subject to the Fourth Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Jackson

triangleman 5y ago

Reading Matt Levine's latest column on this CBDC was sort of mind blowing. With a truly centralized digital currency the Fed would basically monopolize all bank deposits (why store money in the bank at all when your digital wallet is perfectly safe) and destroy the entire banking sector. So they are forced to decentralize the currency to some extent, so that banks are the ones to actually issue the currency (after borrowing it from the fed).

pessimizer 5y ago
This is literally the only reason I support it. Banking, debit cards, and paypal are just private taxes.
- rvense 5y ago
  Exactly. CBDC is not a response to cryptocurrencies. It is a (belated) response to the fact that the way cashless economies have evolved has basically privatized money-as-infrastructure. The privacy implications of CDBC are a real problem, but the rapidly approaching end game of the current slippery slope is one in which, among other things, all participation in the economy is gated entirely by private banks. No sovereign country should accept that. And yes, any real implementation of a blockchain as a day-to-day cash replacement will have the same problem. These are legal problems requiring a legal solution, not a technical one.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jt2190 5y ago
I think you’re talking about his column from Tuesday [1], which talks about different research at the Fed [2] that suggested that there is a trade off between “credit provision” (i.e. private lenders taking a risk and extending credit to their customers who they have relationships with) and “stability”. In a credit crunch, investors could flee to a CBDC and make the crisis worse. [1] “The Fed vs. Stablecoins” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-01/hedge-funds-are-a-job-now https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-01/hedge-... [2] “Stablecoins: Growth Potential and Impact on Banking” https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/stablecoins-growth-potential-and-impact-on-banking.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/stablecoins-grow...