3 ms·

...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

by 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.

3 ms·

...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

by giaour 5y ago

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.