>, but when did it become acceptable to base an argument on slight inconveniences? It's not about avoiding any and all inconveniences. My comment was based on

>, but when did it become acceptable to base an argument on slight inconveniences? It's not about avoiding any and all inconveniences. My comment was based on gp's framing of the situation as "being required to do <X>". He wrote that a cashless businesses was not ideal because it means "being required to bring my phone / debit card with me". Ok, I can accept that inconvenience exists but then the alternative to "hassle of debit card" is just substituted with "hassle of being required to regularly re-supply the inventory of cash on hand". Substituting <X> with "debit card cashless" with "visit ATMs and carry wad of cash" didn't seem like a slam dunk tradeoff. Another issue I remember with cash is getting a stack of $20 bills from the ATM and then trying to spend it but the business' cash drawer doesn't have the appropriate inventory of small denomination bills to give back the correct change. (Even if the ATM can also spit out smaller $10s or $5s, they can often run out which then leaves only the larger $20 bills left for dispensing.) The credit-card transactions eliminate that issue because you just pay the exact amount. Sure, if transactions privacy is the #1 concern, then one will happily withdraw cash and deal with its inconveniences. But privacy wasn't in the gp's comment so I just interpreted it at face value.