3 ms·

> I really don't like cash and am happy to see it basically dead in the country. What would you do in case of a emergency or natural distaster? Basically a si

by _xivi 3y ago

> I really don't like cash and am happy to see it basically dead in the country. What would you do in case of a emergency or natural distaster? Basically a situation where any of the following is not available for any period of time: power, network, financial infrastructure, access to digital devices. 1. On personal level: Maybe your wallet and phone was stolen 2. Region: Power/Network is down 3. National level: the whole infrastructure is down or under attack Have you been in such situation or thought about it?

madsbuch 3y ago
This is usually the go-to arguments for cash, though I think it is not the right ones. The right argument is privacy. These things can be handled easily: In case of an emergency you can just revert to writing credit notes to each other, which is is spirit the same as cash (contracts denoting that someone owes you something). > On personal level: Maybe your wallet and phone was stolen This is the same as forgetting to withdraw money and an unfortunate accident. It is also handled quite well already, as modern people have credit cards in their wallet, in their phone and on their watch. So there is already a 3-way backup that needs to break.
- _xivi 3y ago
  > It is also handled quite well already, as modern people have credit cards in their wallet, in their phone and on their watch. So there is already a 3-way backup that needs to break. Personally, I'd not use the word 'backup' if you can lose all three in a single accident. Also, these are just different forms of access, none of these would work if the infrastructure is down. It seems you dodged my points. I'm not advocating for cash, more like warning that an online-only system isn't resilient enough in the first place. In the scenarios I provided, if cash doesn't exist (as per OP wishes), the only solution I see would be going back to trading goods/services. What valuable possession/skills does a person have.
ACS_Solver 3y ago
Such robustness is currently a subject of government studies and planning. It's definitely an area of concern. A personal-level outage is a problem but less so than with cash. I have three separate items on me I can use to pay - my card holder with bank cards, my phone and my watch. That's more redundancy than with cash, which is one item (wallet). Power or network outages aren't a big issue. I've experienced those and it's smooth. Most payment machines work fine without power (batteries) or without network because they then store the transactions locally and send them later. I've even had lunch when the lunch restaurant was having IT problems and couldn't accept any payments - they noted how many people came on paper and I came back the next day to pay, as I'm sure the vast majority of patrons did. Bank or card issuer outages are handled by using another card or payment method. If some bank's cards aren't working (uncommon but it happens), mobile payments generally work still, and most people have more than one card. Major national level outages are a concern. It would be impossible to buy e.g. a train ticket as those require immediate payment, so if somehow Internet was down nationwide, you couldn't get a train ticket online or at the ticket machines. This is one major goal that the e-krona (state-issued digital currency) project is meant to address as e-krona is intended to also work offline.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  For you last point regarding national level outages: I am quite sure that trains companies would instantiate emergency systems in that case – maybe just by letting people travel for free. Such an event is also not expected to last for long.
  - ACS_Solver 3y ago
    Quite possibly, yes. There's also the consideration that such an outage would likely be part of an even bigger problem. Over here, like most of Europe, we're pretty safe from natural disasters aside from storms causing local power outages. There are no earthquakes, tsunamis or similarly destructive events. So a hypothetical situation where payments are down nationwide for a significant period of time would almost certainly be part of an even larger disaster where a lot of infrastructure is non-functional due to military attack or something akin to a complete crash of all computers.
  - el-salvador 3y ago
    Not a natural disaster, but there's something similar happening for about 10 days in Central America. The largest Telco was hit by ransomware and this has affected most of their systems. They are unable to receive electronic and card payments, or sell digital packages, it seems their billing, CRM and Helpdesk systems are down. So all prepaid users are able to use the inrernet and call for free.
- boricj 3y ago
  > I have three separate items on me I can use to pay - my card holder with bank cards, my phone and my watch. That's more redundancy than with cash, which is one item (wallet). All of which are electronic and depend on centralized services. Bank notes and coins work offline and without electricity. Not too long ago, a restaurant I went to with a coworker had an Internet outage and no card or mobile payment would go through. I paid for the whole bill since I was the only one carrying cash, then we went to the nearest ATM to reimburse me. I always carry cash. I don't use it often but it always works, even if everything else fails.
alkonaut 3y ago
This is a real concern, but even if I keep cash for use in an emergency, stores and banks would also need to be prepared to handle cash in an emergency and I doubt they are today (since no one uses cash). Telling people they need to use a less convenient payment method only to keep it alive for an emergency also seems doomed to fail. The correct solution is probably to force banks and critical stores to always accept cash + encourage people to keep some cash for an emergency. But changing the banknotes (and making the previous ones invalid) every 10 years doesn’t help with encouraging people to save cash at home. That’s another one of those US-isms that blow peoples minds: that dollar bills of any age are legal tender. That and the use of paper checks. I think it was the mid 80’s the last time I saw a check.
- _xivi 3y ago
  > Telling people they need to use a less convenient payment method only to keep it alive for an emergency also seems doomed to fail. Who said that? Certainly not me Personally, I'm not advocating for cash. I just think it's stupid to brag about eliminating cash while putting all your savings and trust in a fragile system and infrastructure . There's nothing revolutionary about that. People should have options and backups.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    I meant that (Telling people to use cash more to keep the system afloat) would be one potential solution to the problem, but not one I think would work. I think people should not have to use cash, and I certainly won’t. But I do think society must have a resilient payment system - even if only as backup.
    - _xivi 3y ago
      > I do think society must have a resilient payment system - even if only as backup On that note we can agree. The goal is having a resilient system where you can access your funds when you need it most. See my other comment for backstory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39239919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39239919

by _xivi 3y ago

madsbuch 3y ago

This is usually the go-to arguments for cash, though I think it is not the right ones. The right argument is privacy. These things can be handled easily: In case of an emergency you can just revert to writing credit notes to each other, which is is spirit the same as cash (contracts denoting that someone owes you something). > On personal level: Maybe your wallet and phone was stolen This is the same as forgetting to withdraw money and an unfortunate accident. It is also handled quite well already, as modern people have credit cards in their wallet, in their phone and on their watch. So there is already a 3-way backup that needs to break.

_xivi 3y ago
> It is also handled quite well already, as modern people have credit cards in their wallet, in their phone and on their watch. So there is already a 3-way backup that needs to break. Personally, I'd not use the word 'backup' if you can lose all three in a single accident. Also, these are just different forms of access, none of these would work if the infrastructure is down. It seems you dodged my points. I'm not advocating for cash, more like warning that an online-only system isn't resilient enough in the first place. In the scenarios I provided, if cash doesn't exist (as per OP wishes), the only solution I see would be going back to trading goods/services. What valuable possession/skills does a person have.

ACS_Solver 3y ago

Such robustness is currently a subject of government studies and planning. It's definitely an area of concern. A personal-level outage is a problem but less so than with cash. I have three separate items on me I can use to pay - my card holder with bank cards, my phone and my watch. That's more redundancy than with cash, which is one item (wallet). Power or network outages aren't a big issue. I've experienced those and it's smooth. Most payment machines work fine without power (batteries) or without network because they then store the transactions locally and send them later. I've even had lunch when the lunch restaurant was having IT problems and couldn't accept any payments - they noted how many people came on paper and I came back the next day to pay, as I'm sure the vast majority of patrons did. Bank or card issuer outages are handled by using another card or payment method. If some bank's cards aren't working (uncommon but it happens), mobile payments generally work still, and most people have more than one card. Major national level outages are a concern. It would be impossible to buy e.g. a train ticket as those require immediate payment, so if somehow Internet was down nationwide, you couldn't get a train ticket online or at the ticket machines. This is one major goal that the e-krona (state-issued digital currency) project is meant to address as e-krona is intended to also work offline.

madsbuch 3y ago
For you last point regarding national level outages: I am quite sure that trains companies would instantiate emergency systems in that case – maybe just by letting people travel for free. Such an event is also not expected to last for long.
- ACS_Solver 3y ago
  Quite possibly, yes. There's also the consideration that such an outage would likely be part of an even bigger problem. Over here, like most of Europe, we're pretty safe from natural disasters aside from storms causing local power outages. There are no earthquakes, tsunamis or similarly destructive events. So a hypothetical situation where payments are down nationwide for a significant period of time would almost certainly be part of an even larger disaster where a lot of infrastructure is non-functional due to military attack or something akin to a complete crash of all computers.
- el-salvador 3y ago
  Not a natural disaster, but there's something similar happening for about 10 days in Central America. The largest Telco was hit by ransomware and this has affected most of their systems. They are unable to receive electronic and card payments, or sell digital packages, it seems their billing, CRM and Helpdesk systems are down. So all prepaid users are able to use the inrernet and call for free.
boricj 3y ago
> I have three separate items on me I can use to pay - my card holder with bank cards, my phone and my watch. That's more redundancy than with cash, which is one item (wallet). All of which are electronic and depend on centralized services. Bank notes and coins work offline and without electricity. Not too long ago, a restaurant I went to with a coworker had an Internet outage and no card or mobile payment would go through. I paid for the whole bill since I was the only one carrying cash, then we went to the nearest ATM to reimburse me. I always carry cash. I don't use it often but it always works, even if everything else fails.

alkonaut 3y ago

This is a real concern, but even if I keep cash for use in an emergency, stores and banks would also need to be prepared to handle cash in an emergency and I doubt they are today (since no one uses cash). Telling people they need to use a less convenient payment method only to keep it alive for an emergency also seems doomed to fail. The correct solution is probably to force banks and critical stores to always accept cash + encourage people to keep some cash for an emergency. But changing the banknotes (and making the previous ones invalid) every 10 years doesn’t help with encouraging people to save cash at home. That’s another one of those US-isms that blow peoples minds: that dollar bills of any age are legal tender. That and the use of paper checks. I think it was the mid 80’s the last time I saw a check.

_xivi 3y ago
> Telling people they need to use a less convenient payment method only to keep it alive for an emergency also seems doomed to fail. Who said that? Certainly not me Personally, I'm not advocating for cash. I just think it's stupid to brag about eliminating cash while putting all your savings and trust in a fragile system and infrastructure . There's nothing revolutionary about that. People should have options and backups.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  I meant that (Telling people to use cash more to keep the system afloat) would be one potential solution to the problem, but not one I think would work. I think people should not have to use cash, and I certainly won’t. But I do think society must have a resilient payment system - even if only as backup.
  - _xivi 3y ago
    > I do think society must have a resilient payment system - even if only as backup On that note we can agree. The goal is having a resilient system where you can access your funds when you need it most. See my other comment for backstory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39239919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39239919