4 ms·
We already mostly have that. Most of the US dollars that exist are already digital -- numbers in a bank account, only some of which is backed by actual dollar
by twblalock 4y ago
We already mostly have that.
Most of the US dollars that exist are already digital -- numbers in a bank account, only some of which is backed by actual dollar bills. It is trivially easy to use them to pay for things or transfer them to other accounts, and they can easily be converted to/from paper money in reasonable amounts.
What we have now is fine. I don't see any benefit to making our existing currencies more "digital" than they are.
- mypastself 4y agoThe commenter you’re responding to was specifically talking about digital cash, not digital currency. Properties of cash are distinct from other forms of money in specific ways. “Ease” of conversion from one to the other doesn’t make them identical.
- twblalock 4y agoI haven't yet seen anyone demonstrate a meaningful distinction between "digital currency" and "digital cash" that actually matters for how people use money.
- mypastself 4y agoAnonymity (or pseudonimity) is a key appeal of cash as opposed to other forms of money. Combined with the ease of use of digital payments, I can completely understand the attraction that the original comment was referring to.
- Xelynega 4y agoExcept that the lack of anonymity in payments is one of the main features of blockchains. Which is it? Is digital cash a public ledger or an anonymous payment system?
- RinTohsaka 4y agoMonero bridges the two of these things together nicely.
- mypastself 4y agoThe ledger is public, but the users’ identity needn’t be. And as the other commenter noted, different blockchains use different approaches, some of which do offer full anonymity. You’ll also notice that I said “anonymity (or pseudonymity)”. But that’s immaterial to the discussion. The original question was whether or not the idea of digital cash (regardless of implementation) has any value.