> However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of
ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality)
will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a
trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be
much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking
clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's
It is incredibly complex isn't it. Those are solid fears you offer.
Perhaps it's a question (formula of moral arithmetic) that extends
beyond money - that given a magic wand that offers equal gains to good
and evil, do you wave it? Do the wrongs of elite corruption cancel
out the freedoms of the working majority?
> buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the
state's attention?
That's a severe example. But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be
able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. That is
_literally_ the reality of how this affects me in real life. And if
this is just the early days of digital economics I really do not want
to see where this road leads. We already have cash, a perfectly
fungible, widely accepted and non-traceable (actually slightly
traceable) peoples' coin. Oligarchs don't trade in bags of cash. So
attacks on cash seem nothing but spite against common economic life.
> frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I
want to deal with on a daily basis).
Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud
without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even
vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Most of take
that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash.