• nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    To be fair, apart from the privacy aspects, they’ve chosen some of the worst arguments against a full cashless society. Seriously, piggy banks and birthday cards?

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I use my paypal card reader! Both when holding garage sales and when visiting, it’s pretty normal and a lot of people use it without blinking.

      If you pearl-clutching Christians fearful of change don’t want a cashless society, maybe stop pouring all your support behind the political powers that want to see giant megacorporations flourish and crush out small businesses. The people who want to control your rmoney are not the banks nearly as much as the Walmart down the street that can now take credit card payments simply by glancing at the store as you pass.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Some restaurants deliberately stopped accepting cash to exempt homeless people from patronage. Imagine being so gross that you change your policies to bar people from getting food.

  • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    False dichotomy. Many, even most, of the examples given here could be accomplished in a cashless society (not that I’m actually advocating for one, but this is just factually incorrect).

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Grandma slipped me a secret credit chip connected to an illegal bank account in Panama, with $5 in it. You want a soda or something?

      How would you accomplish these things without cash?

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well you can’t give someone cash if there is no cash.

        Obviously nanna can transfer money to the kids.

        The real question is what is the difference?

        My kids have an account with an index fund. When I log in there’s a qr code you can scan which takes you to a payment gateway.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well one happens while grandma is hugging the kid. It involves perceiving and interacting with a physical object, which uses parts of the brain that are hundreds of millions of years older than the parts you’re using when you see a notification on your phone.

          Also there’s the fact of the secrecy, which isn’t there when all transfers are recorded for possible analysis later.

          Quite a bit is different actually.

  • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    For people who think that Crypto will solve these issues, it won’t. In a mass-adoption scenario, a few coins will be accepted as currency while the rest remain mostly useless for commerce. Those orgs behind those coins and their exchange platforms will then become just like the banks of old. Any attempt at democratizing Crypto is illusory, it’s a fantasy.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      For people who think that Crypto will solve these issues, it won’t. In a mass-adoption scenario, a few coins will be accepted as currency while the rest remain mostly useless for commerce.

      That argument is entirely dependent on what the “few coins” hypothetically turn out to be. For example, regarding privacy, Monero is private by design.


      Those orgs behind those coins and their exchange platforms will then become just like the banks of old. Any attempt at democratizing Crypto is illusory, it’s a fantasy.

      Are you arguing that it is inevitable that exchanges, or some other entity, will inevitably gain majority control of the networks of decentralized currencies?

      • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        No government would ever allow coins like Monero to become main forms of currency. The potential for abuse and tax evasion is just too high. They would sooner ban them outright. No legitimate business would accept them then.

        Accepting random alt coins would also come with the expense of having to track them and their wallets separately, exchange costs, volatility, etc, so over time just a few will become generally accepted by businesses.

        And yes, the most likely consequence of long-term crypto usage is that users will centralize into a few trusted platforms who will get the Lion’s share of tokens and power.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          No government would ever allow coins like Monero to become main forms of currency.

          It depends on what you mean by “allow” and “main form of currency”. Afaik, in the US (and the rest of the west), at least, there are no laws regarding what form the medium of exchange should take for the exchange of goods and services. The dollar is simply the standard currency to make payments to the government. For example:

          United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. [31 U.S. Code § 5103 (archive)]


          Accepting random alt coins would also come with the expense of having to track them and their wallets separately, exchange costs, volatility, etc, so over time just a few will become generally accepted by businesses.

          Is that just a statement of fact, or is that supposed to be an argument against Monero? I’m not sure what the point of that statement is. In any case, I don’t see any issue with that outcome — it would simply be a market decision.


          And yes, the most likely consequence of long-term crypto usage is that users will centralize into a few trusted platforms who will get the Lion’s share of tokens and power.

          I’d say that this is still TBD, but yes centralized control is a concern, as it would break the current designs of cryptocurrencies (as far as I currently understand their designs, that is). Though, note that there is a difference between central ownership of coins in circulation, and central ownership of the network (of course depending on the design of the network — I feel that proof of stake would be vulnerable to this).