We must protect our ability to transact privately online (2019)(coincenter.org)
coincenter.org
We must protect our ability to transact privately online (2019)
https://www.coincenter.org/we-must-protect-our-ability-to-transact-privately-online/
94 comments
Paying in cash, in addition to being a minor inconvenience that non-the-less outweighs most people's desire for privacy, does not work in online payments. It also doesn't work in businesses that get robbed.
The better question is, why do you need a new currency to get privacy? Why couldn't we have a private crypto currency backed by dollars or euros? There's no technical reason, indeed several groups are building this. What remains to be seen is if there's sufficient incentives to build anything around these or for any portion of the economy to move to them. Most purchases aren't sensitive, so for private payments to work, they need to be ubiquitous for non privacy reasons and just give people who need it the option for privacy. Much like cash does. But again, cash doesn't work online or increasingly offline
The better question is, why do you need a new currency to get privacy? Why couldn't we have a private crypto currency backed by dollars or euros? There's no technical reason, indeed several groups are building this. What remains to be seen is if there's sufficient incentives to build anything around these or for any portion of the economy to move to them. Most purchases aren't sensitive, so for private payments to work, they need to be ubiquitous for non privacy reasons and just give people who need it the option for privacy. Much like cash does. But again, cash doesn't work online or increasingly offline
> Why couldn't we have a private crypto currency backed by dollars or euros? There's no technical reason, indeed several groups are building this.
That's what Monero is, right? It doesn't really matter how stable it is, if I'm just going to convert to USD/EUR immediately after my transaction.
That's what Monero is, right? It doesn't really matter how stable it is, if I'm just going to convert to USD/EUR immediately after my transaction.
No, Monero is not pegged to any other currency
>>Why couldn't we have a private crypto currency backed by dollars or euros?
Yes, you can utilize dollar backed and dollar pegged stablecoins, like USDC and DAI, respectively, in privacy-shielding protocols like https://zk.money and https://tornado.cash.
The problem at the moment is that Ethereum has very limited scalability, and privacy-shielded transactions are about five to ten times more compute-intensive than vanilla transactions, making them prohibitively expensive to conduct for most applications.
Ethereum layer 2 solutions that preserve the base layer's decentralization hold the promise to make such transactions viable at scale, but they are still quite immature in their feature set. For example, all of the general computation L2s still rely on a centralized coordinator.
Yes, you can utilize dollar backed and dollar pegged stablecoins, like USDC and DAI, respectively, in privacy-shielding protocols like https://zk.money and https://tornado.cash.
The problem at the moment is that Ethereum has very limited scalability, and privacy-shielded transactions are about five to ten times more compute-intensive than vanilla transactions, making them prohibitively expensive to conduct for most applications.
Ethereum layer 2 solutions that preserve the base layer's decentralization hold the promise to make such transactions viable at scale, but they are still quite immature in their feature set. For example, all of the general computation L2s still rely on a centralized coordinator.
> Paying in cash, in addition to being a minor inconvenience that non-the-less outweighs most people's desire for privacy, does not work in online payments
In some countries it's fairly popular and super common with kids to check out, get a barcode/receipt and pay at, for example, a 7-11 with cash for in game purchase top ups.
In some countries it's fairly popular and super common with kids to check out, get a barcode/receipt and pay at, for example, a 7-11 with cash for in game purchase top ups.
Ah, that takes me right back to adolesence. Getting a paysafecard in the morning near the school from a tobacco shop to redeem it in the evening at home.
As others are saying, it's an implicit goal by those holding the levers to eliminate cash. China has already effectively done it. US is edging closer, and it won't be stopped unless there is an explicit movement against it.
Except those are just market forces and it is more convenient to use electronic payment. I'm not sure what you mean by China, it's China's government that is forcing all merchants to accept cash [1].
> The People's Bank of China (PBOC) is looking to close the widening digital divide and has warned merchants that they must accept cash or face disciplinary action,...
[1] https://www.pymnts.com/cash/2020/china-issues-edict-warning-...
> The People's Bank of China (PBOC) is looking to close the widening digital divide and has warned merchants that they must accept cash or face disciplinary action,...
[1] https://www.pymnts.com/cash/2020/china-issues-edict-warning-...
You cannot buy a macbook pro in all cash in India. It is illegal to use cash above certain limit. There are restrictions on what a business can claim as an expense if they are paying in cash. There are onerous compliance and tax hits which come with accepting cash.
Businesses are reluctant to accept cash when government punishes them with compliance and additional paperwork + tax + tds.
Businesses are reluctant to accept cash when government punishes them with compliance and additional paperwork + tax + tds.
The US is trending this way with inflation. 10k is the numerical limit at which everyone treats you like a criminal in the US, which was roughly equivalent to 60k (in 2022 dollars) when the law went into effect. Now it's not even enough to buy a middle of the road 10 year old used car.
One of my bank accounts has been blocked for the last 6 months over this, despite hours on the phone beforehand and countless assurances that this wouldn't happen. It reminds me of traveling to Canada with a credit card in the mid 00s.
One of my bank accounts has been blocked for the last 6 months over this, despite hours on the phone beforehand and countless assurances that this wouldn't happen. It reminds me of traveling to Canada with a credit card in the mid 00s.
Are we really still beholden to such simplistic and wrong ideas such as everything being explained by "market forces"? Do they exist? Yes. Are they they only factor? No. Are they they main factor? Depends on what you are talking about. Power brokers in the US will do whatever it takes to move things a certain way if it benefits them.
I dare you to find an anonymous visa card that actually works. You won't.
I dare you to find an anonymous visa card that actually works. You won't.
I don’t disagree that there are other forces aside from market forces.
In the case of people paying via WeChat though, it is legitimately market forces. If you don’t use WeChat, people around you will urge you to use it because it is so much easier than cash. No more going to the bank. No more handling change. You just open your phone, scan, and pay. Small businesses you frequent where you get to know the proprietor will tell you they think it’s a little funny you’re paying in cash and even offer to help you set up your WeChat Pay because it is “so easy.”
I honestly don’t know anyone other than me who pays for things in cash. Everybody else is on WeChat. Nobody forced them to; it was just rapid, collective adoption, analogous to what happened when smart phones hit the market. You can still buy dumb phones that work great, but nobody does.
In the case of people paying via WeChat though, it is legitimately market forces. If you don’t use WeChat, people around you will urge you to use it because it is so much easier than cash. No more going to the bank. No more handling change. You just open your phone, scan, and pay. Small businesses you frequent where you get to know the proprietor will tell you they think it’s a little funny you’re paying in cash and even offer to help you set up your WeChat Pay because it is “so easy.”
I honestly don’t know anyone other than me who pays for things in cash. Everybody else is on WeChat. Nobody forced them to; it was just rapid, collective adoption, analogous to what happened when smart phones hit the market. You can still buy dumb phones that work great, but nobody does.
As it so happens, I lived in China for 9 years, swam in the startup tech circles, and built a startup around WeChat. I can tell you with authority that you are wrong that WeChat won through market forces. China operates by allowing many startups to flourish, and when a particular industry becomes dangerous or important to their national interests, they shut down all but one, and put state backing into that one. They play king makers. Tencent, and WeChat, while well run and built, is basically state owned software.
I saw this whole ordeal play out with Twitter clones. There were maybe ten with traction. Then the gov stepped in and there were none. And then Weibo rose from the flames as the winner.
I saw this whole ordeal play out with Twitter clones. There were maybe ten with traction. Then the gov stepped in and there were none. And then Weibo rose from the flames as the winner.
Speaking as a former weed delivery driver in California who got robbed at gun point twice... I honestly cannot wait for cashless to come. You know what's fun about dealing with cash? Nothing! It sucks! At least give me the option to opt out of having to deal with people who transact in cash and give me a badge that says "This guy doesn't carry money!" That seems fair to me since I don't want to be involved with that nonsense or the problems that come with it.
Not just market forces. Moving away from cash is encouraged by govts as it’s a really effective step against tax evasion.
Although for the local shops who are cashless around here the main motivation is reducing theft/risk of robbery.
Although for the local shops who are cashless around here the main motivation is reducing theft/risk of robbery.
Right, but the US is still (theoretically) a representative democracy that's beholden to its people. China is an autocracy. Americans have the ability to speak up about this issue in a way that the Chinese don't.
Ok, but is that stopping the slide to a cashless society?
Cash works for in person transactions. It can work for certain delayed transactions (e.g., prepaid or post-paid remote orders, will-call, layaway), though in almost all cases those are actually transacted by some other mechanism --- vouchers, credit cards, cheques, postal mail orders, or personal / direct credit.
There is an arguable need for an anonymous remote-transaction payment mechanism.
That itself introduces numerous further concerns (none of which TFA addresses):
- Black market, criminal, ransom, or blackmail transactions.
- Refund or chargebacks initiated by the payee for nonfulfillment / fraudulent transaction / substandard product or service.
- Money laundering and tax avoidance.
(That's just off the top of my head. Financial crimes isn't my strong suit. FBI list: https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes)
There is an arguable need for an anonymous remote-transaction payment mechanism.
That itself introduces numerous further concerns (none of which TFA addresses):
- Black market, criminal, ransom, or blackmail transactions.
- Refund or chargebacks initiated by the payee for nonfulfillment / fraudulent transaction / substandard product or service.
- Money laundering and tax avoidance.
(That's just off the top of my head. Financial crimes isn't my strong suit. FBI list: https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes)
If you're going to legislate monetary privacy, why not use an update-to-date form of electronic privacy and outlaw all the ways of breaking it?
A nation-state enforced "black box" is probably the only way to stop nation-states breaking open any privacy features in the marketplace. It's probably easier to conceive of a black box/black blockchain that can't be opened if you aren't trying to fight off the whole world and every conceivable adversary to keep the contents unknown.
A nation-state enforced "black box" is probably the only way to stop nation-states breaking open any privacy features in the marketplace. It's probably easier to conceive of a black box/black blockchain that can't be opened if you aren't trying to fight off the whole world and every conceivable adversary to keep the contents unknown.
I don't really understand this thinking. The government swore up and down that NSA wasn't conducting mass surveillance and it turned out that they were.
How do you trust the government enough to keep its hands out of a digital ledger system that's supposedly private when we all know how valuable that information is? The whole point of crypto to begin with was to pry control away from the government.
How do you trust the government enough to keep its hands out of a digital ledger system that's supposedly private when we all know how valuable that information is? The whole point of crypto to begin with was to pry control away from the government.
I get the rebuttal and agree with your sentiment. The government acts as if it's above the law and outside of trust, why bother trying to engage with them?
Well I've seen the completely-hidden privacy pattern tried. People tried to cut out the government and at the end of the day, they will lie, cheat and steal because they know their rule is backed up with guns and in legal grey areas, the average tech bro is remarkably vulnerable to the system they live inside. Just look at what happened to Ladar Levison for just being an unknowing facilitator of Snowden, his stuff got nuked.
If you want something to be private, there has to be a mechanism to roll back government control and the only way to do that peacefully, is legally inside the system. The government keeps a whole lot of military R&D projects, warcrimes, space projects, ect, secret from us and only to be declassified X decades later. Why couldn't they be forced to keep transactions private for X decades?
This could be a whole new gov department that has a zero trust policy of it's employees like the intelligence agencies have and aimed at keeping pandora's box closed, rather than revealing everything.
Training people to keep the lid shut and keeping the unknown, unknown is very different to the CIA/NSA method of harvesting everything it can in the world. Then pretending the same employees that can harvest everything on the planet, won't leak the NSA's database too for their own profit or moral reasons.
I don't know, the easy answer is just to roll custom stuff and go private individually and blend in with the herd. For real privacy, there's big big problems that avoiding the gov won't help.
Well I've seen the completely-hidden privacy pattern tried. People tried to cut out the government and at the end of the day, they will lie, cheat and steal because they know their rule is backed up with guns and in legal grey areas, the average tech bro is remarkably vulnerable to the system they live inside. Just look at what happened to Ladar Levison for just being an unknowing facilitator of Snowden, his stuff got nuked.
If you want something to be private, there has to be a mechanism to roll back government control and the only way to do that peacefully, is legally inside the system. The government keeps a whole lot of military R&D projects, warcrimes, space projects, ect, secret from us and only to be declassified X decades later. Why couldn't they be forced to keep transactions private for X decades?
This could be a whole new gov department that has a zero trust policy of it's employees like the intelligence agencies have and aimed at keeping pandora's box closed, rather than revealing everything.
Training people to keep the lid shut and keeping the unknown, unknown is very different to the CIA/NSA method of harvesting everything it can in the world. Then pretending the same employees that can harvest everything on the planet, won't leak the NSA's database too for their own profit or moral reasons.
I don't know, the easy answer is just to roll custom stuff and go private individually and blend in with the herd. For real privacy, there's big big problems that avoiding the gov won't help.
> The government keeps a whole lot of military R&D projects, warcrimes, space projects, ect, secret from us and only to be declassified X decades later. Why couldn't they be forced to keep transactions private for X decades?
Because unlike those secret R&D projects, they don't benefit from not being able to access the data they're storing in your scenario. There's absolutely no way you could trust with absolute certainty that a private blockchain run by the US government, one of the largest acquirers of zero-day vulns, would build such a system and not have some sort of backdoor. They've been caught so many times playing this game, thinking to the clipper chip and beyond.
It would be so much simpler and more private to just require everyone to accept cash. The more I think about it, the idea of a private government blockchain that they're not looking at is fundamentally antithetical to the existence of that institution.
Because unlike those secret R&D projects, they don't benefit from not being able to access the data they're storing in your scenario. There's absolutely no way you could trust with absolute certainty that a private blockchain run by the US government, one of the largest acquirers of zero-day vulns, would build such a system and not have some sort of backdoor. They've been caught so many times playing this game, thinking to the clipper chip and beyond.
It would be so much simpler and more private to just require everyone to accept cash. The more I think about it, the idea of a private government blockchain that they're not looking at is fundamentally antithetical to the existence of that institution.
There's absolutely no way you could trust with absolute certainty that a private blockchain run by the US government
You're right, you couldn't trust it with absolute certainty.
they don't benefit from not being able to access the data they're storing in your scenario
The government makes transactions it wishes was private all the time. A politician that could route money through a black box could perform many many patterns. Ollie North supplied guns to the 'good guys'/politically favourable team in the Iran-Contra affair with money from outside the sanctions. It's not required for the government to increase the privacy of money flow, but they could see benefit in it, for better or worse.
You're right it is simpler to accept cash in a lot of ways. In a world of mass surveillance, showing up to meet your local drug dealer in a parking lot at 2am, is no longer private and nor is cash.
Your number plate was recorded the whole way, your face hit facial recognition cameras and IR scanners at toll gates and the phone booth/mcdonalds wifi picked up your phone's IMEI as you drove past, which is linked to your passport photo you submitted to buy your phone, the cash you got from a bank or business has captured your face. A satellite captured your car moving every 5minutes(?) or so.
The cash might not be 'on the books' but nearly everything else you did was, which you need to defeat with perfect opsec to be free from a government audit that can ping the FBI/CIA/NSA/private organizations officially or unofficially, legally or not for information about you.
Absolutely Certain™ privacy isn't possible with cash either.
You're right, you couldn't trust it with absolute certainty.
they don't benefit from not being able to access the data they're storing in your scenario
The government makes transactions it wishes was private all the time. A politician that could route money through a black box could perform many many patterns. Ollie North supplied guns to the 'good guys'/politically favourable team in the Iran-Contra affair with money from outside the sanctions. It's not required for the government to increase the privacy of money flow, but they could see benefit in it, for better or worse.
You're right it is simpler to accept cash in a lot of ways. In a world of mass surveillance, showing up to meet your local drug dealer in a parking lot at 2am, is no longer private and nor is cash.
Your number plate was recorded the whole way, your face hit facial recognition cameras and IR scanners at toll gates and the phone booth/mcdonalds wifi picked up your phone's IMEI as you drove past, which is linked to your passport photo you submitted to buy your phone, the cash you got from a bank or business has captured your face. A satellite captured your car moving every 5minutes(?) or so.
The cash might not be 'on the books' but nearly everything else you did was, which you need to defeat with perfect opsec to be free from a government audit that can ping the FBI/CIA/NSA/private organizations officially or unofficially, legally or not for information about you.
Absolutely Certain™ privacy isn't possible with cash either.
> why can't we just pass a law that requires all businesses to accept cash?
Why shouldn't business owners be able to choose which forms of payments to accept?
Why shouldn't business owners be able to choose which forms of payments to accept?
Because it is a profoundly discriminatory practice. At the extreme, it amounts to "your money's no good here", in the bad sense of that phrase.
But isn't discrimination only bad when it's based on membership of protected classes? And preferred method of payment definitely isn't a protected class.
It's well established that lower income cohorts have less access to digital finance and credit. Cashless systems instantly become a proxy to exclude those cohorts.
But income isn't a protected class either (and it can't be made one, or nothing would be allowed to be expensive).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32091797
1. If the net effect is to discriminate against a protected class, legal liability may still exist.
2. Discrimination as a general concept is not identicial to discrimination against a protected class. It may be legal in a strict sense, and still morally, socially, and politically reprehensible and/or disruptive.
1. If the net effect is to discriminate against a protected class, legal liability may still exist.
2. Discrimination as a general concept is not identicial to discrimination against a protected class. It may be legal in a strict sense, and still morally, socially, and politically reprehensible and/or disruptive.
Discriminations harms extend well beyond those which are recognised legally. The law itself is very often a tool for further oppression, and should be considered on that basis.
There are two elements to that question: the legal and the moral.
Legally the premise is shaky as it's a short walk from "use a specific payment method" (a financial instrument, a device, a service, a company) to what are protected classes: age, race, national origin, religious beliefs, gender, disability, pregnancy, and veteran status in the United States.[1] As such, strictly as a business decision there's a considerable risk involved that such practices would be found to be de facto discimination against one or more protected classes.
(Keep in mind that there are religions which consider interest on money to be against their beliefs, which would then transfer to use of revolving credit instruments. I've no idea whether this has been tested in US courts.)
On a moral basis, even that which is not strictly illegal may be against principles of greater justice, and gatekeeping access to goods or services can easily work against those with limited means (unable to buy the latest mobile smartphone or desktop/laptop computer), unabile to maintain broadband comms access, owning a working but end-of-lifed device (for Android as little as 2--3 years, somewhat better for Apple), living in regions without high-speed broadband (most of the US), excluded from access to credit by low credit scores, or forced by circumstances to accept massive invasions of privacy or exposure to manipulation (propaganda, advertising, targeted manipulation) simply to participate minimally in the everyday business of life.
Note that remote-commerce can be a force for inclusion and against oppression. The Sears Roebuck Catalogue was the subject of recent commentary on that point, see for example:
"How Sears Catalog Fought White Supremacists" https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_all-about-america_how-sears-ca...
The major operative factor to me seems to be whether a technology constrains or expands opportunities. Reducing payment options quite clearly constrains them.
________________________________
Notes:
1. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/protected-cla...
There are two elements to that question: the legal and the moral.
Legally the premise is shaky as it's a short walk from "use a specific payment method" (a financial instrument, a device, a service, a company) to what are protected classes: age, race, national origin, religious beliefs, gender, disability, pregnancy, and veteran status in the United States.[1] As such, strictly as a business decision there's a considerable risk involved that such practices would be found to be de facto discimination against one or more protected classes.
(Keep in mind that there are religions which consider interest on money to be against their beliefs, which would then transfer to use of revolving credit instruments. I've no idea whether this has been tested in US courts.)
On a moral basis, even that which is not strictly illegal may be against principles of greater justice, and gatekeeping access to goods or services can easily work against those with limited means (unable to buy the latest mobile smartphone or desktop/laptop computer), unabile to maintain broadband comms access, owning a working but end-of-lifed device (for Android as little as 2--3 years, somewhat better for Apple), living in regions without high-speed broadband (most of the US), excluded from access to credit by low credit scores, or forced by circumstances to accept massive invasions of privacy or exposure to manipulation (propaganda, advertising, targeted manipulation) simply to participate minimally in the everyday business of life.
Note that remote-commerce can be a force for inclusion and against oppression. The Sears Roebuck Catalogue was the subject of recent commentary on that point, see for example:
"How Sears Catalog Fought White Supremacists" https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_all-about-america_how-sears-ca...
The major operative factor to me seems to be whether a technology constrains or expands opportunities. Reducing payment options quite clearly constrains them.
________________________________
Notes:
1. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/protected-cla...
> owning a working but end-of-lifed device
Aren't such devices major security risks, and isn't accepting them connecting to anything of your own a major liability?
Aren't such devices major security risks, and isn't accepting them connecting to anything of your own a major liability?
It really shouldn't require much reading-between-the-lines or interpretation to see that for someone who cannot afford to replace such a device, a multi-hundred-dollar expense every few years is a significant hurdle. The choice isn't between "old unsupported device" and "new, supported device", but between "old" and "none".
Most especially when the underlying hardware itself may well function for a decade or more.
Your volume and line of questioning are suggesting a lack of consideration and awareness of circumstances. You might want to think a bit more and ask a bit less.
Most especially when the underlying hardware itself may well function for a decade or more.
Your volume and line of questioning are suggesting a lack of consideration and awareness of circumstances. You might want to think a bit more and ask a bit less.
It would be great if we could make it law, but it will be difficult. It is in government's and other's interests to eliminate cash. It is not law here in California. I recently went to a bar that would not take cash. I somewhat loudly explained to the bartendenr that my bar tab is one of the last things I want public and that my friends and I would not be returning.
We could pass laws to protect cash, but in reality the opposite is happening. Harvard economists like Ken Rogoff are actively lobbying to kill cash exactly in order to remove anonymous transaction possibilities (to fight crime, purportedly), and they are playing into the hands of all the companies who profit off cashless transactions.
There is some law about being required to accept any form of legal tender. I think there are some specifics to it though.
I've seen more and more fast casual restaurants in the US starting to go cashless, so there's definitely a way for businesses to get around it. But I don't know the law at all.
[deleted]
The key word is "debts". If you owe a debt to someone, e.g., in a restaurant where you eat first and then pay, they have to accept cash. But in situations where there's no debt, e.g., restaurants where you pay before they give you your food, they can refuse cash.
When Roe V Wade was overturned, there was a lot of talk encouraging women to remove period tracking apps in case the data could be used against them in the future. But the easiest way to track women is to simply watch financial transactions for abortion bills or services at a clinic. Even if you try to obfuscate by having a friend pay, if there are no private, cash-or-crypto links, it's trivial to connect the dots.
It was a reminder to me that being able too freely and privately make financial transactions is one of the most important and fundamental rights we have.
It was a reminder to me that being able too freely and privately make financial transactions is one of the most important and fundamental rights we have.
It's also impossible to hire a defense attorney with frozen bank accounts (which happens, of course, before trial).
I spoke about how uncensorable payments are a prerequisite to a society with human rights at the CCCamp back in 2011:
https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...
I spoke about how uncensorable payments are a prerequisite to a society with human rights at the CCCamp back in 2011:
https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...
This is actually a fantastic counter-argument to the “nothing to hide — nothing to fear” people. It’s a good example of how an individual can remain unwaveringly righteous, but due to environmental changes all of a sudden they do have something to hide.
To me the question is very simple: make a digital currency that has both a completely traceable way of exchanging money and a completely anonymous one.
If you send someone money in the traceable way then the state knows exactly the motives of the transaction and can automatically calculate the taxes you ought to pay on it.
If you send someone money anonymously then you get taxed at the highest bracket possible and nobody asks questions. Are you a drug lord paying his cronies? sure, it's untraceable and safe but 40% goes to the state automatically.
If you send someone money in the traceable way then the state knows exactly the motives of the transaction and can automatically calculate the taxes you ought to pay on it.
If you send someone money anonymously then you get taxed at the highest bracket possible and nobody asks questions. Are you a drug lord paying his cronies? sure, it's untraceable and safe but 40% goes to the state automatically.
ZCash does this.
I think governments should create a digital equivalent of cash. They should put strong safeguards in place to make it as anonymous as cash. Maybe even protect access to these records even at a constitutional level.
I think having such a digital cash system could revolutionize online commerce. Right now you need a fair bit of "capital" (know-how) to start a small online business. You can't just set up a street stall or garage sale like you can with cash. I think this makes it harder for people to get a foot in the door for entrepreneurship. A government-run digital cash system would make it possible again. It might also allow a reasonable alternative to the current ad-based economy.
I think having such a digital cash system could revolutionize online commerce. Right now you need a fair bit of "capital" (know-how) to start a small online business. You can't just set up a street stall or garage sale like you can with cash. I think this makes it harder for people to get a foot in the door for entrepreneurship. A government-run digital cash system would make it possible again. It might also allow a reasonable alternative to the current ad-based economy.
Many governments are working on central bank digital currencies [0]. ERC20 tokens directly issued by the government onto crypto networks (such as Ethereum). Most assume they will be traceable and accounts will be KYC'd but there's hope that some governments will be better.
This will encourage most banks to support these same crypto rails via their apps making sending the currency as easy as cash or you could hold it in your own wallet on your phone for self-custody.
Once they are out there and on-chain it should be fairly easy for anyone to use them for payments if they don't care about privacy, or switch to another more private stablecoin if they do.
Future wallets will allow seamless conversion between any of these coins and automatic bridging between any network.
0: - UK: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/digital-currencies
- Australia: https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/central-b...
This will encourage most banks to support these same crypto rails via their apps making sending the currency as easy as cash or you could hold it in your own wallet on your phone for self-custody.
Once they are out there and on-chain it should be fairly easy for anyone to use them for payments if they don't care about privacy, or switch to another more private stablecoin if they do.
Future wallets will allow seamless conversion between any of these coins and automatic bridging between any network.
0: - UK: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/digital-currencies
- Australia: https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/central-b...
Why not use simply USDT/USDC? It provides what you are asking for now.
> You can't just set up a street stall or garage sale like you can with cash.
I noticed in Norway even the people selling cold water on hot days by the side of the road took Vipps. Electronic payment systems really can be that simple if people want. It is of course not anonymous, but that's far less important to most people.
I noticed in Norway even the people selling cold water on hot days by the side of the road took Vipps. Electronic payment systems really can be that simple if people want. It is of course not anonymous, but that's far less important to most people.
Until it is.
Many people were unconcerned about depending on Russia for energy. Until they were.
Wait til Russia takes over the breadbasket of Ukraine. Then there will be a food dependency too!
Basing these kinds of things on sunny day thinking, such as believing that government will be benevolent (against the backdrop of history where government generally isn't), is foolish.
Many people were unconcerned about depending on Russia for energy. Until they were.
Wait til Russia takes over the breadbasket of Ukraine. Then there will be a food dependency too!
Basing these kinds of things on sunny day thinking, such as believing that government will be benevolent (against the backdrop of history where government generally isn't), is foolish.
>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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
[deleted]
don't you think there would still be a problem with govt/corps tracing all the legit purchases?
Not necessarily. It is a difficult problem but people are working on it.
This was posted here before
https://taler.net/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30514122
This was posted here before
https://taler.net/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30514122
it gives you the choice.
do you think the state cares if it sees that you bought a new microwave? no, it's a very normal thing to do and there's no reason to hide it.
do you want to hide buying a house alarm system so nobody would know you have one installed, not even the state? then pay the premium and nobody will know
do you think the state cares if it sees that you bought a new microwave? no, it's a very normal thing to do and there's no reason to hide it.
do you want to hide buying a house alarm system so nobody would know you have one installed, not even the state? then pay the premium and nobody will know
Why would the state permit anonymity?
They've done everything they could in the last 20 years to detract anonymity and privacy as much as possible, in collusion with the largest companies that exist.
They've done everything they could in the last 20 years to detract anonymity and privacy as much as possible, in collusion with the largest companies that exist.
I bought something online yesterday.
They following fields were mandatory
- email - phone - address ( for delivery ) - first name - last name
They created an account for some reason, and retain payment information was prechecked.
I just want the thing you are selling, here is my address. Thanks.
Another situation, paying a government fine.
They wanted me to verify my identity to give them money.
My address, Phone number DOB, middle name...
Asked me if they could save my voice profile..
Said I could not pay the fine until I verified my identity.
The lady got noticeable bothered when I said that would not be happening and I don't need to know any PII just process a payment.
Asked if I had something to hide.
What's next a biometric scan to enter government buildings?
They following fields were mandatory
- email - phone - address ( for delivery ) - first name - last name
They created an account for some reason, and retain payment information was prechecked.
I just want the thing you are selling, here is my address. Thanks.
Another situation, paying a government fine.
They wanted me to verify my identity to give them money.
My address, Phone number DOB, middle name...
Asked me if they could save my voice profile..
Said I could not pay the fine until I verified my identity.
The lady got noticeable bothered when I said that would not be happening and I don't need to know any PII just process a payment.
Asked if I had something to hide.
What's next a biometric scan to enter government buildings?
[deleted]
If you wanted to be truly biometrically private nowadays, you'd need to wear a Darth Vader suit over a ghillie-suit and forest gump leg braces everywhere public, which includes inside your house. No face, electronic voice, no thermals or IR, no gait detection, height equalized by leg brace, gloves with fake finger prints.
Of course you'd stand out like a sore thumb and that's the point, I'm sure it's been engineered that way to capture us all in the ideal panopticon. If you ever wanted to dodge the draft to the Vietnam war 2.0 or a bill collector with access to all this information, you'd have a very hard time.
Of course you'd stand out like a sore thumb and that's the point, I'm sure it's been engineered that way to capture us all in the ideal panopticon. If you ever wanted to dodge the draft to the Vietnam war 2.0 or a bill collector with access to all this information, you'd have a very hard time.
I think we are being slowly conditioned to give up our info,
I hear people all the time saying well Facebook has been spying on you for years, so what does it matter?
Facebook is like the litmus test for normal data collection
I hear people all the time saying well Facebook has been spying on you for years, so what does it matter?
Facebook is like the litmus test for normal data collection
There were workable proposals for private, cryptographically secure digital cash way back in the early 90s. The proposals didn't require blockchains, or proof of work, integrated seamlessly with the traditional fiat banking system, and would have been easy as a credit card card or mobile payment for people to use in 2022.
Government doesn't want this. Banks don't want this. Businesses don't want this. That's why it never happened.
Here's one from presentation by the NSA from 1996
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/mone...
David Chaum and Stefan Brands are 2 names to google to look at this stuff. Chaum was posting papers on this in the 80s.
Who knows, perhaps Bitcoin will be the VHS that finally makes this happen one day.
Government doesn't want this. Banks don't want this. Businesses don't want this. That's why it never happened.
Here's one from presentation by the NSA from 1996
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/mone...
David Chaum and Stefan Brands are 2 names to google to look at this stuff. Chaum was posting papers on this in the 80s.
Who knows, perhaps Bitcoin will be the VHS that finally makes this happen one day.
I was about to say the same thing, it has been suggested long time ago. In this paper on blind signatures [1] Chaum describes in simple terms untraceable digital cash in one paragraph.
[1] https://sceweb.sce.uhcl.edu/yang/teaching/csci5234WebSecurit...
[1] https://sceweb.sce.uhcl.edu/yang/teaching/csci5234WebSecurit...
Ikr. The only win the cryptocurrencies of today have over these early digital cash proposals is that they are permissionless... Satoshi didn't need the cooperation or the permission of vested interests to get going. Now central banks and governments are being dragged kicking and screaming in to a world in which they could have had influence in 30 years ago.
Hammer/nail fallacy.
I agree with the premise / problem statement. The solution has profound issues.
I agree with the premise / problem statement. The solution has profound issues.
Sure, but what I find odd is how crypto gets a large amount of techno-pessimism (among folks like us) that most other "new tech" doesn't? Like most often, when there's a proof of concept that doesn't work exactly right, right now, it pretty much never ends with "oh, well, guess that means it's broken forever and it will never work," which appears to be a prevailing sentiment around crypto.
The issue many "folks like us" have with crypto is not that it "will never work" but precisely that it works all too well facilitating scams, asset bubbles, risky lending practices, financial hacks, ransomware, and various kinds of illicit financial activity (wash trading, money laundering, etc.). With say, I don't know, quantum computing, there is an understanding that it has its own issues but that these are improving and we will eventually find good use cases for this technology. People are upfront about the costs, the risks, and the very fact that it is developing still. In the current market froth, this is not the case with cryptocurrency which - despite several major hacks in the multimillion range, rug pulling, questionable stablecoin pegs/reserves, not to mention the rather serious technical challenges - people are insisting already is the future. People are not so pessimistic about quantum computing and other developing technologies because those are not inherently harmful as cryptocurrency has proved to be.
Cryptocurrencies have been around for almost 15 years now; it's not "new tech". In 2010 or even 2013 I would have agreed with you, but that's a long time ago.
Fax Machines invented in the 1800s, Voice Mail invented in the 1930's, etc etc. Not a compelling argument.
Both those examples were delayed principally because of 1) technical limitations and 2) network effects.
Cryptocurrency faces neither. The systems used to create, store, and transfer them are widely available. The network on which they can be transacted is ubiquitous. Cashing in/out is easy.
What's holding the concept back is its fundamental and intrinsic costs (imposed by the algorith / concept itself, rather than economic limitations), opacity, inferiority to trust-based systems (e.g., credit payments or ordinary cash currency), inherent risks (both economic and criminal), and lack of safeguards (individual / transactional, systemic / institutional).
Cryptocurrency faces neither. The systems used to create, store, and transfer them are widely available. The network on which they can be transacted is ubiquitous. Cashing in/out is easy.
What's holding the concept back is its fundamental and intrinsic costs (imposed by the algorith / concept itself, rather than economic limitations), opacity, inferiority to trust-based systems (e.g., credit payments or ordinary cash currency), inherent risks (both economic and criminal), and lack of safeguards (individual / transactional, systemic / institutional).
Propaganda. At least to some extent.
The ECASH act is so far my favorite initiative for private online payments. A government-issued open-source anonymous digital dollar, functional both online and offline, no blockchain involved, no transaction fees. I hope they can make it work technically. And I hope Americans support this. It would also pave the way for other countries.
Official site: https://ecashact.us/
Rohan Grey explaining the ECASH act: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BStXZH5PX1I
It would also be great for GNU Taler to take off.
Official site: https://ecashact.us/
Rohan Grey explaining the ECASH act: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BStXZH5PX1I
It would also be great for GNU Taler to take off.
Ultimately, this is what cash based transactions are for. Ever since Covid started it seemed like there was an extreme push toward going cashless everywhere but cash is the only place you’ll find real privacy in a transaction.
In the mean time, there’s always privacy.com.
In the mean time, there’s always privacy.com.
When "crypto enthusiasts" talk about privacy some people think they just mean the usual confidentiality expectations of conventional banking. But banks are required to keep records for accountability. The goal is to prevent money laundering and tax fraud. Cash payments are generally accepted for smaller transactions but anyone accepting large amounts of cash as payment will want to keep similar records to avoid running afoul of these same money laundering laws (unless they're intentionally trying to do a crime).
Banks offer confidentiality, these people want complete secrecy. But most of them aren't insurrectionists or revolutionaries who fear political persecution while they try to overthrow the government. They just want to conduct businesses outside the reach of the government. Or to put it simply: they want to commit money laundering and tax fraud without being caught.
Don't mistake "crypto enthusiasts" (as in cryptocurrencies) talking about privacy for actual crypto punks (as in cryptography). There's a reason the people rallying for "privacy" in crypto tech are venture capitalists and sketchy wealthy people rather than organizations like the EFF.
Banks offer confidentiality, these people want complete secrecy. But most of them aren't insurrectionists or revolutionaries who fear political persecution while they try to overthrow the government. They just want to conduct businesses outside the reach of the government. Or to put it simply: they want to commit money laundering and tax fraud without being caught.
Don't mistake "crypto enthusiasts" (as in cryptocurrencies) talking about privacy for actual crypto punks (as in cryptography). There's a reason the people rallying for "privacy" in crypto tech are venture capitalists and sketchy wealthy people rather than organizations like the EFF.
Full surveillance state sounds scary, but reliable, private, non-traceable financial transaction scares me more.
I wished all the articles promoting those schemes talk about potential risk, i.e. increased crime, and how they can be mitigated.
I wished all the articles promoting those schemes talk about potential risk, i.e. increased crime, and how they can be mitigated.
Better start by getting rid of physical currency
What is it that scares you about reliable, private, non-traceable financial transactions?
A private non-traceable transaction of £10 or £100 is obviously not a threat.
Private non-traceable transactions of £100k? Enough money to move the needle on a political campaign or bribe a public official. Suddenly every cop or judge can be untraceably on the take. Law enforcement against crimes of the powerful becomes even harder.
Private non-traceable transactions of £1bn? Suddenly international sanctions don't work any more and you can't tell who's selling weapons to the Russians or funding the next 9/11.
The thing about cash is that the larger the transaction is the harder it is to hide. Digital transactions are the opposite: a micropayment and a megacrime are equally visible.
Westerners tend to forget, but corruption is real and left unchecked will destroy your society.
Private non-traceable transactions of £100k? Enough money to move the needle on a political campaign or bribe a public official. Suddenly every cop or judge can be untraceably on the take. Law enforcement against crimes of the powerful becomes even harder.
Private non-traceable transactions of £1bn? Suddenly international sanctions don't work any more and you can't tell who's selling weapons to the Russians or funding the next 9/11.
The thing about cash is that the larger the transaction is the harder it is to hide. Digital transactions are the opposite: a micropayment and a megacrime are equally visible.
Westerners tend to forget, but corruption is real and left unchecked will destroy your society.
The ability to make large anonymous digital transactions do make corruption and tax evasion easier to get away with. As for sanctions, I imagine they can mostly be enforced by looking at the flow of goods. The money transfers can't be traced, but the weapon shipments can be.
The UK tabloid media is already riddled with outrage stories where some granny is robbed of her life savings through some crypto scam and her bank won't refund her.
With untraceable non-reversible digital transactions you're very vulnerable to being robbed and completely wiped out.
With untraceable non-reversible digital transactions you're very vulnerable to being robbed and completely wiped out.
Not the person you replied to, but I could think of something like certain countries avoiding sanctions as an example.
Or someone selling illegal weapons online. I realize that can be done in cash now, but it's easier with an untraceable digital currency.
Or someone selling illegal weapons online. I realize that can be done in cash now, but it's easier with an untraceable digital currency.
Everyone on the planet can identify an alternate political group who would have them murdered if the situation gets dicey. The rich have been murdered by communists, the communists by fascists, the fascists by liberals, minorities by majorities, this religion by that, family against family, etc.
If political opponents are moving and have provably robust infrastructure to organise it would get very, very scary. At the moment the police/authorities do make use of the ability to disrupt such things to keep the peace. In theory.
Although I personally think the trade off would be worth it. The social downs would go lower but the ups will more than offset that.
If political opponents are moving and have provably robust infrastructure to organise it would get very, very scary. At the moment the police/authorities do make use of the ability to disrupt such things to keep the peace. In theory.
Although I personally think the trade off would be worth it. The social downs would go lower but the ups will more than offset that.
This is a joke right? All crypto transactions become part of the permanent public record. If you ever want to exchange your garbage commodity for a useful currency, you’ll be easily track able and outed.
Please read about "privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies like Grin, Monero, and Zcash" and how they work.
I can assume that you already have strong opinions against cryptocurrencies, but if you're going to critique privacy-coins, it's probably a good idea to have at least some understanding of how they work.
I can assume that you already have strong opinions against cryptocurrencies, but if you're going to critique privacy-coins, it's probably a good idea to have at least some understanding of how they work.
Not all crypto transactions. Some blockchains effectively use advanced cryptography to obscure sender, recipient, & amount beyond any known methods of revealing them.
Zcash & Monero are the leaders here. Zcash, used with its fully ‘shielded’ addresses, is theoretically strongest; Monero probably enough against most realistic threats – but maybe a very-deep-pocketed nation-state could decode some flows.
But neither creates an ‘open Venmo’ or Bitcoin-like full public record of payers/payees/amounts for casual analysis by anyone.
[Disclosure: I’m a compensated advisor to the company, now a nonprofit, that initially launched Zcash.]
Zcash & Monero are the leaders here. Zcash, used with its fully ‘shielded’ addresses, is theoretically strongest; Monero probably enough against most realistic threats – but maybe a very-deep-pocketed nation-state could decode some flows.
But neither creates an ‘open Venmo’ or Bitcoin-like full public record of payers/payees/amounts for casual analysis by anyone.
[Disclosure: I’m a compensated advisor to the company, now a nonprofit, that initially launched Zcash.]
Privacy coins like Monero are not making all your transactions public and exchange to fiat gets only tracked with certain exchanges. One could as well sell it for cash on the streets.
Some other projects / resources in addition to those mentioned by the siblings …
https://railgun.ch https://aztec.network https://dark.fi
https://railgun.ch https://aztec.network https://dark.fi
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don’t disagree with the title.
I do disagree that the current system is right in almost any way. So what think I’m seeing is “the money has stopped coming in, and we are afraid of what happens next”.
But I’m wrong all the time, so could be here too.
I do disagree that the current system is right in almost any way. So what think I’m seeing is “the money has stopped coming in, and we are afraid of what happens next”.
But I’m wrong all the time, so could be here too.
I agree that cash is an important aspect of the economy that should be protected but I don't see how a couple coins that I have not heard of are going to be the panacea they purport to be.