Hacker News Reader

Comment by superuser2 | Hacker News Reader

Checking accounts. Bitcoin (not free, but close).

If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger, or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence.

>And certainly they aren't free from surveillance.

If you want a financial system free from surveillance then you need to get the public on board with ending taxation (and consequently all public services). Good luck.

And, as we saw, moving cash on an airplane is the most heavily surveilled and scrutinized way to do it.

View on HN

> Bitcoin (not free, but close).

Suggesting Bitcoin in its current state of evolution as a free and "vastly safer" alternative to carrying cash is CRAZY. Whereas having the cash on you carries the risk of being mugged (I understood the story that he had the cash directly with him when the police arrived, it wasn't in the checked luggage, therefore the airline risks you mention do not apply), using Bitcoin carries much higher risks of:

- exchange going bust,

- exchange being hacked,

- exchange rate going down violently,

- Bitcoin wallet being stolen from his computer via malware,

- exchange's banking accounts being seized.

To a layperson unskilled with Bitcoin, walking with 11,000 USD in pockets through airport, using taxi/Uber and arriving in front of your door in a non-ghetto neighbourhood compares to Bitcoin as putting that cash into transparent bag, hanging it on your neck and walking through deserted city at night yelling "look, I have cash".

And even when you are skilled or take (a lot of) your time to read about everything starting with comparing various exchanges, securing your computer, using paper wallets, etc., you are dependant on very volatile exchange rate.

I generally support Bitcoin for various purposes (e.g. e-commerce) based on various reasons. But no, it certainly is not "vastly safer" for storing or even merely transferring your life savings, especially for a non-skilled person.

To elaborate more - each and every method of moving money has its own inherent risks. For example, when my father bought a car several times decades apart, he would take the cash both from home and bank, carry it in a jacket in an envelope to a dealer, put it on the table, immediately receive keys and papers for registration and drive away.

Fast forward in time and somebody had a very "clever" idea to outlaw paying more than 5,000 EUR in cash. Now, I have to wire transfer the funds in advance, wait for the transfer to clear and then come in to get the car. I certainly don't risk being mugged on my way to the dealer (in broad daylight, without advertising everyone, e.g. on social networks, that today I am buying a car and waving the wad of cash in a selfie). But if the limited liability company with 6,000 EUR liability deposit bankrupts, I will have neither the money (wire transfer have nothing like cashback on credit cards) nor the car until a lengthy legal process hoping that they have enough funds and property to pay out all creditors... You don't risk mugging but have to do way larger due diligence, check finance health of the company, ask around for customer feedback on the company, etc.

But it wasn't a private criminal theft. The only person who stole the money was hr police. No police, no problem.

If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger, or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence.

We, as a society condemn muggers and thieves. We, as a society hold airlines responsible for safely transporting baggage without losing it or its contents. We lock muggers and thieves in cages to discourage such behavior and isolate those who perpetrate it from everyone else. We require airlines to pay compensation (up to $3000 in the US) to people whose property they lose.

We should similarly condemn the state behaving in a way that produces the same result as a mugger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com