5 ms·

@Yoric and Lazide Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) That doesn't lessen the case tha

@Yoric and Lazide Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people. When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange.

Yoric 5y ago
> Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) Fair summary :) > That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people. > > When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange. I believe that I understand your point. However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's (pay for a X that I'll be buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? not something I do every day, but probably good idea in a dictatorship? – on the other hand, exposing myself to frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). That's in addition to the issues with PoW (looks like we already agree on this point) and the practical issues with actual decentralization, anonymity, stealth and resilience.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's It is incredibly complex isn't it. Those are solid fears you offer. Perhaps it's a question (formula of moral arithmetic) that extends beyond money - that given a magic wand that offers equal gains to good and evil, do you wave it? Do the wrongs of elite corruption cancel out the freedoms of the working majority? > buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? That's a severe example. But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. That is _literally_ the reality of how this affects me in real life. And if this is just the early days of digital economics I really do not want to see where this road leads. We already have cash, a perfectly fungible, widely accepted and non-traceable (actually slightly traceable) peoples' coin. Oligarchs don't trade in bags of cash. So attacks on cash seem nothing but spite against common economic life. > frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Most of take that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash.
  - Yoric 5y ago
    > But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. I realize that this is a problem that needs to be solve by cryptocurrencies to reach mainstream status, but unless I'm missing something, that is not a problem that needs to be solved by established currencies. Right now, my example of buying things from a black market in case of dictatorship is the only case I can think of from the top of my mind in which I could see myself needing untraceable money. Arguably, making donations to an unpopular political party or to help a persecuted minority may be better examples in dictatorships or near-dictatorships. While all of these examples sound useful, I'm not convinced yet that it would be terribly difficult for a technologically-oriented dictatorship (or one with a $5 wrench) to obtain all the data through side-channels or to block transactions. > Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Good to know. I should take a look at these. > Most of take that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash. Indeed, I was thinking of larger sums.

Yoric 5y ago

> Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) Fair summary :) > That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people. > > When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange. I believe that I understand your point. However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's (pay for a X that I'll be buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? not something I do every day, but probably good idea in a dictatorship? – on the other hand, exposing myself to frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). That's in addition to the issues with PoW (looks like we already agree on this point) and the practical issues with actual decentralization, anonymity, stealth and resilience.

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's It is incredibly complex isn't it. Those are solid fears you offer. Perhaps it's a question (formula of moral arithmetic) that extends beyond money - that given a magic wand that offers equal gains to good and evil, do you wave it? Do the wrongs of elite corruption cancel out the freedoms of the working majority? > buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? That's a severe example. But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. That is _literally_ the reality of how this affects me in real life. And if this is just the early days of digital economics I really do not want to see where this road leads. We already have cash, a perfectly fungible, widely accepted and non-traceable (actually slightly traceable) peoples' coin. Oligarchs don't trade in bags of cash. So attacks on cash seem nothing but spite against common economic life. > frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Most of take that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash.
- Yoric 5y ago
  > But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. I realize that this is a problem that needs to be solve by cryptocurrencies to reach mainstream status, but unless I'm missing something, that is not a problem that needs to be solved by established currencies. Right now, my example of buying things from a black market in case of dictatorship is the only case I can think of from the top of my mind in which I could see myself needing untraceable money. Arguably, making donations to an unpopular political party or to help a persecuted minority may be better examples in dictatorships or near-dictatorships. While all of these examples sound useful, I'm not convinced yet that it would be terribly difficult for a technologically-oriented dictatorship (or one with a $5 wrench) to obtain all the data through side-channels or to block transactions. > Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Good to know. I should take a look at these. > Most of take that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash. Indeed, I was thinking of larger sums.