5 ms·

> Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime". Exactly. Almost all cash transactions rem

> Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime". Exactly. Almost all cash transactions remain anonymous because there's no criminal investigation involved. Most people are honest and just going about their business with friends and family. That's how it should be. A cost bar for tracing is a desirable feature for non-authoritarian societies. Digital currency mediated by bank apps, active cards, smartphones or whatever, makes for "convenience" but also zero cost to spy on people who are not criminals. And that's a problem. So maybe it is here. Or there. I'm not sure where you're standing :)

coldtea 3y ago
>Exactly. Almost all cash transactions remain anonymous because there's no criminal investigation involved. It's disingenuous to even suggest that the traceability of cash transaction is even remotely close to that of credit cards and e-payments, and that what keeps them anonymous is that "there's no criminal investigation involved". It's the exact opposite: cash transaction are anonymity friendly by nature, and only when there's a great need, and with quite an effort, like in a criminal investigation, are they attempted to be traced, and even there it's more difficult exacty because of the nature of cash making it more difficult.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  That's exactly what I am saying. You are repeating my own argument back to me and labelling it "disingenuous". You've misunderstood something, somewhere. Do please read again with care.