5 ms·

Regulated, perhaps. But regulation shouldn't entail handing vast amounts of personal details, and the ability of intermediates to be able to track you fully aft

Regulated, perhaps. But regulation shouldn't entail handing vast amounts of personal details, and the ability of intermediates to be able to track you fully afterwards. I want to be able to buy stuff without centralized entities following me everywhere.

ohgodplsno 4y ago
Use cash. The moment you go through a computer, you're already screwed.
- mgamache 4y ago
  Cash's days are numbered. It won't be a thing in 15 years.
  - thingification 4y ago
    This kind of thing always depends entirely on what ideas people end up believing, and the details of the problem-situation when that comes about. I know: "obviously" people will never take the threat of tyranny and mass surveillance seriously. Just like obviously women couldn't possibly get the vote from a position of not having the vote in the first place with which to wield power. It was obvious! But it wasn't true.
colechristensen 4y ago
> I want to be able to buy stuff without centralized entities following me everywhere. Use cash.
- mgamache 4y ago
  Cash is close to being outlawed. Once CBDCs are a thing cash will be phased out. They'll claim paper is too expensive or helps criminals or terrorists or whatever.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - DevKoala 4y ago
    I upvoted you. It is easy to see the end game.
- 323 4y ago
  In many countries (EU for example) is illegal for a seller to accept over a certain amount of cash for a purchase. The maximum allowed amount can be as low as a few thousand USD.
- JTbane 4y ago
  Ah yes, the ragpaper that has a unique serial number could never be tracked. /s
  - thingification 4y ago
    It was never that it was impossible, just that it wasn't cheap enough to allow mass surveillance, right?
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      In order to implement mass surveillance with dollar serial numbers, you would have to identify people during transactions and record them. Nobody taking cash does this outside of ATMs possibly. When I go to the store they don't ask for my ID to pay with cash, they don't record serial numbers, it would be a lot of technology and effort and there's no justification for why. When doing transactions with computers, there's usually a reason for attaching an identity to a transaction, a reason for keeping track of things, addresses, account information, login details, etc above and beyond just banks being required to keep this information.
      - thingification 4y ago
        I don't disagree with you. The post I replied to said "could never be tracked". People using cash can be tracked if it's important to do so. Mass surveillance on cash transactions is trickier (though maybe with machine learning we'll decide that it's a great idea to track physical transactions of any kind using video etc.).
dghlsakjg 4y ago
The ledger for the most popular crypto currencies is public, right? As in, I don’t even have to be an intermediary to see your transaction history for all time.
lancesells 4y ago
> I want to be able to buy stuff without centralized entities following me everywhere. Isn't the blockchain a record of everything you do from here until eternity? I understand your wallet might not be connected to you but that's only going to last for so long. I'm not completely up to speed on this so I could be wrong.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Monero is supposedly designed to prevent this, but most of the big chains are completely open.
  - thingification 4y ago
    I haven't studied it, but I believe ZCash https://z.cash/ https://z.cash/ is not designed to eliminate that record (that's what a blockchain is right?), but to encrypt it and then use zero-knowledge proofs to show the validity of the transactions. That seems like it might be the best of both worlds in some ways: laws can be enforced when it's genuinely important to do so (the record is there so presumably if you seize people's keys you can verify transactions), but not so cheaply as to entail practical mass surveillance and tyranny. In principle presumably a possible weakness is later large-scale decryption if the encryption gets broken -- but that's arguably much less useful to the would-be tyrants and surveillers.
- once_inc 4y ago
  Second layer decentralized solutions for this exist: Lightning Network.
Aaronstotle 4y ago
Monero is touted as digital cash fro this reason. Even if you buy it from an exchange, it's the equivalent of taking cash out from an ATM. There is no way to track where/what you spent that money on.
mbesto 4y ago
> But regulation shouldn't entail handing vast amounts of personal details Please, do tell, how one can regulate and curtail illegal activities without asking for these details? > the ability of intermediates to be able to track you fully afterwards. Fair. This should not be allowed.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

Use cash. The moment you go through a computer, you're already screwed.

mgamache 4y ago
Cash's days are numbered. It won't be a thing in 15 years.
- thingification 4y ago
  This kind of thing always depends entirely on what ideas people end up believing, and the details of the problem-situation when that comes about. I know: "obviously" people will never take the threat of tyranny and mass surveillance seriously. Just like obviously women couldn't possibly get the vote from a position of not having the vote in the first place with which to wield power. It was obvious! But it wasn't true.

colechristensen 4y ago

> I want to be able to buy stuff without centralized entities following me everywhere. Use cash.

mgamache 4y ago
Cash is close to being outlawed. Once CBDCs are a thing cash will be phased out. They'll claim paper is too expensive or helps criminals or terrorists or whatever.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- DevKoala 4y ago
  I upvoted you. It is easy to see the end game.
323 4y ago
In many countries (EU for example) is illegal for a seller to accept over a certain amount of cash for a purchase. The maximum allowed amount can be as low as a few thousand USD.
JTbane 4y ago
Ah yes, the ragpaper that has a unique serial number could never be tracked. /s
- thingification 4y ago
  It was never that it was impossible, just that it wasn't cheap enough to allow mass surveillance, right?
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    In order to implement mass surveillance with dollar serial numbers, you would have to identify people during transactions and record them. Nobody taking cash does this outside of ATMs possibly. When I go to the store they don't ask for my ID to pay with cash, they don't record serial numbers, it would be a lot of technology and effort and there's no justification for why. When doing transactions with computers, there's usually a reason for attaching an identity to a transaction, a reason for keeping track of things, addresses, account information, login details, etc above and beyond just banks being required to keep this information.
    - thingification 4y ago
      I don't disagree with you. The post I replied to said "could never be tracked". People using cash can be tracked if it's important to do so. Mass surveillance on cash transactions is trickier (though maybe with machine learning we'll decide that it's a great idea to track physical transactions of any kind using video etc.).

dghlsakjg 4y ago

The ledger for the most popular crypto currencies is public, right? As in, I don’t even have to be an intermediary to see your transaction history for all time.

lancesells 4y ago

> I want to be able to buy stuff without centralized entities following me everywhere. Isn't the blockchain a record of everything you do from here until eternity? I understand your wallet might not be connected to you but that's only going to last for so long. I'm not completely up to speed on this so I could be wrong.

bombcar 4y ago
Monero is supposedly designed to prevent this, but most of the big chains are completely open.
- thingification 4y ago
  I haven't studied it, but I believe ZCash https://z.cash/ https://z.cash/ is not designed to eliminate that record (that's what a blockchain is right?), but to encrypt it and then use zero-knowledge proofs to show the validity of the transactions. That seems like it might be the best of both worlds in some ways: laws can be enforced when it's genuinely important to do so (the record is there so presumably if you seize people's keys you can verify transactions), but not so cheaply as to entail practical mass surveillance and tyranny. In principle presumably a possible weakness is later large-scale decryption if the encryption gets broken -- but that's arguably much less useful to the would-be tyrants and surveillers.
once_inc 4y ago
Second layer decentralized solutions for this exist: Lightning Network.

Aaronstotle 4y ago

Monero is touted as digital cash fro this reason. Even if you buy it from an exchange, it's the equivalent of taking cash out from an ATM. There is no way to track where/what you spent that money on.

mbesto 4y ago

> But regulation shouldn't entail handing vast amounts of personal details Please, do tell, how one can regulate and curtail illegal activities without asking for these details? > the ability of intermediates to be able to track you fully afterwards. Fair. This should not be allowed.