6 ms·

This is how it begins... mandate a "privacy-respecting" electronic currency capable of offline, anonymous, peer-to-peer payments. Then a few years later, manda

by maxk42 5y ago

This is how it begins... mandate a "privacy-respecting" electronic currency capable of offline, anonymous, peer-to-peer payments. Then a few years later, mandate an exception for convicted criminals: gotta get their money to pay the victims, after all. Then later still mandate an exception for suspected drug traffickers or money launderers: we have to know where the money's been. Pretty soon anyone the government mandates will have their money frozen for any reason they choose.

giaour 5y ago
...those exceptions already exist? It sounds like you're describing court orders and civil forfeiture, both of which let the government take your cash, durable goods, deposit account contents, stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies, etc.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  The government has to know about your transactions and has to know where your cash is in these cases. The point is privacy like _cash_ -- not like digital bank transfers.
  - giaour 5y ago
    From the article: > An E-Cash device is any piece of secured hardware issued and/or authorised by the government for the purpose of receiving, holding, and transferring e-cash balances. > In contrast to ledger-based systems (including those that use a blockchain and/or distributed-ledger rather than a centralized ledge), which prevent double-spending by verifying unspent balances against a common record of all previous transactions, e-cash devices verify funds locally via a dedicated or trusted computing environment located on the device itself. > This allows it to facilitate both offline and genuine peer-to-peer transactions without generating transactional data or requiring the approval of third party intermediaries or network validator nodes.
- daenz 5y ago
  It sounds like you're suggesting that because they already exist in some more-bureaucratic form (seizing cash isn't logistically straightforward), there is no meaningful change to making these things digital and "push button".
  - giaour 5y ago
    The (hypothetical) proposal from the linked piece is to create a non-forgeable digital bearer instrument. The enumerated requirements include that there be no ledger or central clearinghouse and that the medium support offline transactions. I don't see how this is different from physical cash wrt civil forfeiture or court-ordered seizure.
hackerfromthefu 5y ago
Yes. Just stick to cash. Its been tested and its proven. It works. Its stable. Lets focus societal change on fixing climate damage instead of gambling with our economic structure adapting to new high risk changes.
- clairity 5y ago
  and it's not just stick to cash, but use cash as much as possible. it's as convenient as a card, and has built-in loss aversion effects to help curb frivolous spending. cash is anonymous, universal, fungible, and hidden-fee-free.
reedjosh 5y ago
Totally agree. If it was so genuine, it should immediately mention existing alternatives like Monero as possible options. Why recreate the wheel when there is already a successful cash like digital asset that meets all requirements _and_ is technically infeasible to be screwed with later by politicians.
- bityard 5y ago
  According to TFA, they are searching for a solution that does not involve a decentralized blockchain. They are looking at portable physical devices (either dedicated or built into your phone) to store balances and verify transactions. I'm concerned about whether or not this whole thing is a sham right off the bat because any security expert will tell you that there's no such thing as guaranteed security of a device in the physical possession of a motivated attacker. The best you can do is make it "pretty hard" below some threshold of spending.
  - iggldiggl 5y ago
    > According to TFA, they are searching for a solution that does not involve a decentralized blockchain. They are looking at portable physical devices (either dedicated or built into your phone) to store balances and verify transactions. The goal sounds admirable and better than some Orwellian central database, but on the other hand it seems that it would to some extent also combine the drawbacks of both cash and hardware devices, especially in the case of something as complex as a phone: Things that would destroy the cash in my wallet would most likely also wreck my phone, but additionally my phone is more sensitive to being dropped (on the ground and/or in water), subject to random hardware failures, bad software updates, etc. etc. which currently wouldn't affect physical cash at all.
Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
Well yes, obviously this will be the case, and it will also be the case with any future crypto currency. If a currency can be used completely free of interference from the government, then it can and will be used for crime. In fact, if crime is easier and more profitable because the finances are safe and protected, there will be more of it. Eventually victims of all this crime will demand, rightly, that the government put a stop to it. So in come measures where government can interfere in the finances of the currency, for the purpose of preventing crime. The power is zero-sum and it'll always be a trade-off between who has it. Total government control has problems because of potential abuses, by politicians. But a complete lack of government control also has problems of abuses, for crime. Both are bad, so it'll always be a trade-off.
- psychlops 5y ago
  >Total government control has problems because of potential abuses, by politicians. Now that's an understatement. When in doubt, err on the side of limited government control.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
    That's my point, its a trade off. Who decides what 'limited' means? The answer is the that it depends who already has the most power. In China, you can be certain any new e-currency of any form will be completely controlled and monitored by the central government. But in western democracies, there is at least a chance that a negotiated balance between oversight and control needed to prevent crime, and privacy and autonomy for citizens. But there has to be that balance. A completely unpolicable currency/financial system is just as bad (but in different ways) as a completely policed one.
    - psychlops 5y ago
      Excellent points. I'd suggest that even if the financial records are completely untraceable that policing would still be possible. Of course, it wouldn't be as easy as full transparency. Perhaps I'm in a stage of paranoia when I think that all democracies are on a slow inevitable slide toward a China-like fully monitored economic system. Either with or without cryptos.

by maxk42 5y ago

giaour 5y ago

...those exceptions already exist? It sounds like you're describing court orders and civil forfeiture, both of which let the government take your cash, durable goods, deposit account contents, stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies, etc.

reedjosh 5y ago
The government has to know about your transactions and has to know where your cash is in these cases. The point is privacy like _cash_ -- not like digital bank transfers.
- giaour 5y ago
  From the article: > An E-Cash device is any piece of secured hardware issued and/or authorised by the government for the purpose of receiving, holding, and transferring e-cash balances. > In contrast to ledger-based systems (including those that use a blockchain and/or distributed-ledger rather than a centralized ledge), which prevent double-spending by verifying unspent balances against a common record of all previous transactions, e-cash devices verify funds locally via a dedicated or trusted computing environment located on the device itself. > This allows it to facilitate both offline and genuine peer-to-peer transactions without generating transactional data or requiring the approval of third party intermediaries or network validator nodes.
daenz 5y ago
It sounds like you're suggesting that because they already exist in some more-bureaucratic form (seizing cash isn't logistically straightforward), there is no meaningful change to making these things digital and "push button".
- giaour 5y ago
  The (hypothetical) proposal from the linked piece is to create a non-forgeable digital bearer instrument. The enumerated requirements include that there be no ledger or central clearinghouse and that the medium support offline transactions. I don't see how this is different from physical cash wrt civil forfeiture or court-ordered seizure.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago

Yes. Just stick to cash. Its been tested and its proven. It works. Its stable. Lets focus societal change on fixing climate damage instead of gambling with our economic structure adapting to new high risk changes.

clairity 5y ago
and it's not just stick to cash, but use cash as much as possible. it's as convenient as a card, and has built-in loss aversion effects to help curb frivolous spending. cash is anonymous, universal, fungible, and hidden-fee-free.

reedjosh 5y ago

Totally agree. If it was so genuine, it should immediately mention existing alternatives like Monero as possible options. Why recreate the wheel when there is already a successful cash like digital asset that meets all requirements _and_ is technically infeasible to be screwed with later by politicians.

bityard 5y ago
According to TFA, they are searching for a solution that does not involve a decentralized blockchain. They are looking at portable physical devices (either dedicated or built into your phone) to store balances and verify transactions. I'm concerned about whether or not this whole thing is a sham right off the bat because any security expert will tell you that there's no such thing as guaranteed security of a device in the physical possession of a motivated attacker. The best you can do is make it "pretty hard" below some threshold of spending.
- iggldiggl 5y ago
  > According to TFA, they are searching for a solution that does not involve a decentralized blockchain. They are looking at portable physical devices (either dedicated or built into your phone) to store balances and verify transactions. The goal sounds admirable and better than some Orwellian central database, but on the other hand it seems that it would to some extent also combine the drawbacks of both cash and hardware devices, especially in the case of something as complex as a phone: Things that would destroy the cash in my wallet would most likely also wreck my phone, but additionally my phone is more sensitive to being dropped (on the ground and/or in water), subject to random hardware failures, bad software updates, etc. etc. which currently wouldn't affect physical cash at all.

Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago

Well yes, obviously this will be the case, and it will also be the case with any future crypto currency. If a currency can be used completely free of interference from the government, then it can and will be used for crime. In fact, if crime is easier and more profitable because the finances are safe and protected, there will be more of it. Eventually victims of all this crime will demand, rightly, that the government put a stop to it. So in come measures where government can interfere in the finances of the currency, for the purpose of preventing crime. The power is zero-sum and it'll always be a trade-off between who has it. Total government control has problems because of potential abuses, by politicians. But a complete lack of government control also has problems of abuses, for crime. Both are bad, so it'll always be a trade-off.

psychlops 5y ago
>Total government control has problems because of potential abuses, by politicians. Now that's an understatement. When in doubt, err on the side of limited government control.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
  That's my point, its a trade off. Who decides what 'limited' means? The answer is the that it depends who already has the most power. In China, you can be certain any new e-currency of any form will be completely controlled and monitored by the central government. But in western democracies, there is at least a chance that a negotiated balance between oversight and control needed to prevent crime, and privacy and autonomy for citizens. But there has to be that balance. A completely unpolicable currency/financial system is just as bad (but in different ways) as a completely policed one.
  - psychlops 5y ago
    Excellent points. I'd suggest that even if the financial records are completely untraceable that policing would still be possible. Of course, it wouldn't be as easy as full transparency. Perhaps I'm in a stage of paranoia when I think that all democracies are on a slow inevitable slide toward a China-like fully monitored economic system. Either with or without cryptos.