9 ms·

>It is of course not anonymous, but that's far less important to most people. But this only works if the powers that be sanction what you're doing. If the bank

>It is of course not anonymous, but that's far less important to most people. But this only works if the powers that be sanction what you're doing. If the banks or card organizations don't like you, your business or even the industry then it becomes very difficult. Governments already manage cash, they could do the same for a digital currency. It must be legally made anonymous. There needs to be extremely severe penalties for violating that, because people are going to try. And when people try, it will erode trust in the system.

pjc50 4y ago
Perhaps, but it's not me you need to convince; you need to advance a popular political and/or legal argument. The legal line of arguing just got significantly harder in the US: >> It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned. -- DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL The ECHR does enumerate a right to privacy, but with a big law enforcement caveat. And the political argument is an extremely difficult one to make: the police must in no circumstances be able to trace transactions? > this only works if the powers that be sanction what you're doing Well, yes. But protections are only useful against power if there's broad support for the process. Both policing and anti-terrorism, and the handing of vast powers to those bodies, are very politically popular.