Debate in Austria over enshrining use of cash in the constitution

Dispute handling and chargebacks are also very disputable for wire transfers. I have to give my ID to the bank every few years, yet people get scammed with wire transfers all the time and get a "sorry can't do anything about your lost money" from the bank.

Cash does not provide dispute handling, chargebacks or any of those other things either.

I'll look into that. At first glance some of the privacy claims seem a bit strange, but I haven't looked at the proofs enough to be sure.

> That’s still fairly public and you might not want that. But unlike a bank there is nothing linking those addresses to any individual, no name, address and phone number is associated. Plus you can receive funds to a different address every time, so you don’t have to use the same one for each transaction.

Okay, but trivially this allows you to trace transactions back to institutions (i.e. Coinbase) which are tied into the traditional banking system just like banks--unless you put your coins through a tumbler, coins purchased from an exchange are exactly as private as traditional currency at a bank. Arguably less private, since coin exchanges are under more scrutiny right now than banks.

And unlike banks, if you expose a receiving address for transactions tied to your name, you're exposing every transaction you receive. You're depending on pseudonymity for anonymity, which doesn't work if the only reason you're receiving coins in the first place is a reputation tied to your name. And if a pseudonym can build up enough reputation to receive coins (i.e. Dread Pirate Roberts) then all you have to do to break the anonymity is to tie the pseudonym to the person (we know all the transactions received by Ross Ulbricht because they were received pseudonymously not anonymously, so knowing Dread Pirate Roberts = Ross Ulbricht tells us all the transactions Ross Ulbricht received). In short, pseudonymity is not anonymity.

> The main issue with crypto is the confirmation time, but 0-conf is probably acceptable in the same way contactless is for small things.

There isn't a single "main issue" with crypto--it just has properties, and people only have issues with it if they use crypto for purposes where those properties are unsuitable. If you use Bitcoin for anonymity, your main issue is that Bitcoin isn't anonymous, but that's your main issue, not the main issue with Bitcoin.

I personally have never used cryptocurrency for anything where I cared about waiting for 6 confirmations.

The merchant is not going to have any access to that money whatsoever until/unless connectivity is restored. They can't pay their suppliers or employees with that money while they're offline.

It's pretty much the digital equivalent of scribbling "Bob authorised to pay me $12.34" on a notebook that you're going to bring to the bank afterwards.

Being legally required to hold a bank account use cashless transactions is just as much of a violation of one's rights as being barred from opening a bank account and being forced to use cash for all transactions. Two sides of the same coin, so to speak. It's not about allowing people to transact in cash, but allowing them alternative choices, all of which should be legal.

If you can't hold a bank account (because the banks have decided you're not allowed one for whatever reason), you need to use cash for everything. This means you always have a relatively large amount of cash on you. Not only are you now at greater risk of burglary or robbery, the consequences of being a victim are now even greater. You also can't put money in a savings account, or pay for things online.

I've had my house burgled and had large amounts of cash stolen from me before. There was nothing the police could do. Even if they caught the burglar, the money wasn't coming back to me. It was a significant hit to my personal finances at the time.

Bank accounts and cashless transactions aren't just a way for the government to keep tabs on the population, they're also a form of security for the general population.

If someone needs banking services (or, really, any services from anyone) but don't have a proper gov't ID document then would be considered normal to require that the very first thing they'd need to do is to get/replace that ID. And if you have that, then that's all you need for basic banking services.

Requirements basically boil down to acceptable ID

You haven't actually proposed a solution. Who should control the supply of money? Private companies? Because they have an even worse track record to governments.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip

Of course, we are not talking about hyperinflation in Austria. Something that forced Zimbabwe to take a momentous decision. Why would the US Federal Reserve consider the interest of Austrians - in this fantasy scenario where they go cashless, and people start using USD - when valuing their currency?

I mean, if cash transactions are in different currency than that of your local jurisdiction, then - for a lot of people - it would start to make sense to simply keep their bank accounts in the same currency (and private banks would surely offer this). This could have an effect on people who doesn't use cash at all, since they would at times deal with people who do sometimes. And then having their money in that foreign currency too is an advantage.

Of course, I am only speculating. Since we have no experience with what happens if a society abandons cash, it will be hard to tell what the broader effects of that will be. Could be a total loss of monetary control for the government, or merely an inconvenience for foreign tourists.

On the other hand everybody here has a bank account for free, and free instant transactions between individuals.

1. We talk about nominal values, not real purchase power. You should not care what is the number on your bank account but how many apples you can buy it. And with that measure, banks have been "stealing" your purchase power almost always. (Actually I think it is impossible in the long term to have banks pay more than inflation rate)

2. Assuming you save 100 dollars and expect to have 101 dollars in one year's time, central bank can decide to lower the interest rates so that you have less than 101 dollars one year later. Why would central bank "taking" from your 101 to 100 be any less stealing than from 100 to 99?

3. Finally, you agreeing to lend your money to the bank with whatever interest rate bank offers is completely voluntary action from your side. Not only you can choose to consume the money immediately, there are also practically limitless other opportunities to invest (or "invest"...) your money. Corporate debt, real estate, equity, cryptocurrency, gold, commodities etc. Now, of course, you can argue that these other options are somehow less practical or more risky in certain ways, and that society needs to keep your hand and guarantee you a risk-free and practical way to move your consumption decisions over time. And that society needs to make this guarantee to you completely regardless of the welfare cost (unemployment, recessions etc) delivering this guarantee has. At this point, my nose is starting to detect the repulsive smell of socialism, totalitarianism or something like that...