Reasons to fight cashless contagion
brettscott.substack.com
brettscott.substack.com
I prefer to keep a bit of cash on me for many reasons, and I don't think it's appropriate for any organization to tell me 1. that I can't; and/or 2. that they have the right to know what I'm using it for (or that they have the ability to deny my ability to use my capital in whatever ways I desire).
We're not China. As someone who worked with Chinese nationals, even some of them who were complete simps for The Party had no desire to have all their finances completely digitized and tracked.
Modern economies have a need for cash, no matter what big banks or credit card companies or FinTech companies think.
HA! Reminds me of Bertolt Brecht's postwar life when he returned to East Germany. In public, good socialist playwright who wrote laudatory letters to the SED, in private, critic of Stalinism... the great firewall between the two? The East German authorities let him keep a Swiss bank account and Austrian citizenship, so he could hold the earnings from his plays out of their reach.
I have everything to hide from corporations. If they want my data they have to pay me. Why are governments forcing me to feed a database owned by some corporation for free? Every product you buy and pay for collects data about you. Now they want to know everything i buy from other people and corporations too. Guaranteed transaction data will be made available to the highest bider. Crazy times.
Heck, even if I/they were ok with the government tracking them, our current big private payment networks (Visa/Mastercard) actively track you and sell your transaction data to buyers - I really don't want that.
Unless and until Visa/Mastercard/et al are legally forbidden from selling or sharing your transaction data, there will always be a legitimate use for cash, and it's immoral to not take cash payments.
But having worked at a cash register at for a period in my life theres a lot of good reasons businesses do this.
Stores dealing in cash need a float at the register. Where I was that was 500 euro. That's 500 euro in coins and lower value notes that has to be at every register so that anyone that pays in cash can be given the correct change.
A large store near me has about 20 registers, that during very busy periods could all be open. So to guarantee they can accept cash on a busy day like that means having 10 grand to just park in these registers.
That's 10k that's vulnerable to theft either from employees or robbers.
Security vans have to be hired to take the days takings to a bank and bring lower denominations to the store to fill these floats.
When someone finishes a shift they have to spend time what they have, that doesn't take long but it's another cost for the company.
It also means insurance costs are higher.
The guy only accepting card payments from his horsebox converted to a coffee shop doesn't worry about any of this.
At least where i am *living cash is more expensive than electronic
A small coffee shop can get by with a $129 cash drawer hooked up to an iPad and a manager spending a few hours per week counting money and visiting the bank. A large store like Walmart can easily spend $100k+ on all of the equipment for cash handling in addition to having to contract with an armored car company.
Over a year, it's perhaps 4 hours/week x $30/hour x 52 weeks/year, which comes to over $6,000. That's real money for a small coffee shop.
With digital payments you see exactly how much the payments cost. Swipe fee + processing fee, and it isn't fun as a business owner to see ~3% of your money going to a bank.
With cash, it takes some effort to tally the costs. Cash handling equipment: POS, safes, bill counters for larger merchants, etc... Then you have to add the amount of time your employees spend on cash: counting drawers at the start, counting drawers at the end, managers counting money into and out of the safe, managers taking cash to the bank, or hiring a service to do that, cash goes missing through malice and negligence, etc...
You often have to watch out for people insisting they handed you a 50 so they can scam you into more change. Or get chewed out by someone for the wrong change when really they just dropped the note on the way back to their car. None of that can happen with a card.
The card payments are nearly atomic, you paid or you didn't. In a year doing the work I only once had someone claim a card payment took the wrong amount and it was a very dubious claim.
For cash i'd often I'd have to call a manager to request more cash for the float. Because the older customer base would spend their morning queueing outside at an ATM the buy the smallest cheapest thing to get change, which they only needed to pay another businesses that only dealt in cash.
It goes without saying my views are biased from dealing with cash paying people.
Then powerful trade organizations should lobby for introducing a system of digital payments that offers at least the same level of anonymity as cash.
Merchants don't particularly care about the anonymity of cash. Most merchants are rather fond of collecting data about their customers.
For instance employers underpay employees because the cost of paying your employees more is easy to calculate but the cost of not doing so (turnover, etc.) is real but hard to determine.
1. Like I said, there are a lot of indirect costs with cash, and a lot of businesses are just bad at calculating these things (a surprising number of business owners are REALLY bad with money and valuing time). For example, an owner managed business might not value or care about the owner having to count and make trips to the bank.
2. Something in the nature of the business favors cash. For example, if your average transaction value is < $5 and you are running 100+ swipes per day, the fixed swipe fees of $.10-$.30 are going to HURT (think convenience store). Another example might be low/no margin stuff like gasoline, gas is the loss leader for stations hoping you'll buy a snack with a huge margin, so they offer a cash discount since it is cheaper for them AND you have to go into the store, which increases the chance of an impulse buy.
Someone with average transaction value of > $100 who only runs ten transactions a day isn't that worried about losing a dollar to swipe fees in exchange for not having to keep thousands on premise at the end of the day (think car mechanic).
If the expense is that big of a problem, then stores could put in a surcharge for using cash. I'd pay it. It would be well worth it to avoid having to use cards.
The problem is that if enough businesses stop accepting cash, then it becomes nigh impossible to participate in society if you can only pay in cash. Which can be a big problem in the US, where not everyone has access to credit cards or free checking accounts.
This is why I support regulation that requires businesses to accept cash. Yes, it adds overhead. But it also means the most vulnerable in our society are actually able to buy things.
Forcing banks and digital wallet providers to provide users a prepaid card/digital balance in exchange for cash is a good alternative. This should be a part of the charter/license under which such organisations operate.
I've seen several shops (including small coffee and ice cream places) telling people more or less openly that they prefer cash. Because card companies take a margin on every transaction, and don't allow them to charge more to compensate. Some try to go around the other way (offering e.g. a 5% discount to people paying cash - I had this at a restaurant). The problem is that the big ones can negotiate lower transaction fees with the card companies...
hypocrisy on my part but I have probably benefitted from paying cash for handiwork done that was only cheap because the person might not have paid tax.
I was hearing that all the time before card payments were a common thing (i.e. in the '80s, writing from Europe), "didn't get a receipt... they want to avoid taxes"
At the same time, we often hear of ludicrous ways to try and beat the tax authority. I'm sure people try often enough.
It's not small change though.
Shop lifters are an issue but weight limits the value of what they could steal. The shop doesn't have to pay for an armored truck to deliver the milk, a regular truck works fine because we don't have armed milk robbers.
You could, if there were just more uptake of digital payments by individuals. In China, beggars asking to be paid via app has been a thing for years now. There are beggars in parts of sub-Saharan Africa who use the local very developed mobile-payments infrastructure.
This is true -- street beggars in China typically have printed and laminated QR codes to make contributions easier.
The locale I've most encountered the cashless shift has been Santa Monica, not at the grocery stores with tons of cashiers, but at small restaurants and such where they've embraced cashless and in many cases menu-less as well. It's outright hostile to find yourself socializing there without a phone and just a wad of cash. And it should be made illegal IMNSHO, as these are public spaces operating with a business license discriminating against those without credit cards and/or smartphones. This is private members-only club levels of B.S.
Portland is another locale I've been affected by this BTW.
Different stores can have different options in terms of how they handle cash. Costco only has one kind of toilet paper. Target has 10. There are pluses and minuses that they can weigh themselves.
I was thinking it's one argument for the store that has the OPTION to go cashless and might not - just so as to serve more customers.
But the store is not deciding on its own. For example if costs are pushed by outside forces too far one way or the other. Say, if the tax authority makes it hell to accept cash. Well then the store does not really have the option. The decision has been made for them.
The Level 3 data isn't sent from all merchants, but I have a feeling that larger ones pass along the info.
I also was incorrect above, only Mastercard and Visa support level 3 data. However, level 2 data is widely supported and can contain some purchase info (Clover lists the SKU of an item for example).
And some of these are, themselves, falling for the odd invisible nature of how expensive some things are. Take your bike. How much does it cost to keep the roadways maintained so that you can use said bike? That isn't a balance. That is you ignoring some costs.
Data surveillance? Even if you are sending in checks for your ISP or using cash on delivery for items, they are still just as trackable. Modern computation is just too advanced to think going back to older payment styles will make a difference.
Exclusion? You can look at our history to see that you fight exclusion by fighting exclusion. Luddite holding on to older technologies is almost certainly going to be weaponized more to exclude folks than moving to cards.
Same for economic censorship. You fight that by building stronger protections for people. Not requiring older payment styles. I'm also not clear on how "cash" helps here. It can be confiscated just as easily. And nobody is going around with enough cash on hand that they can ignore literal government level sanctions.
Resiliency has a bit of a point. Is amusing when a store can't let you buy things because the register is down. I'd love to see that explored more.
The rest of the bullets seem to be the same. Advocating for old payment styles is largely less effective than advocating for stronger consumer protections. To the point that even things I agree are bad, I just don't see "cash" as a good answer there.
This is because 100% of the electronic payment players currently block it; and they block it because the federal government blocks it.
The only path to legalized cannabis there would have been at the federal level; it would have blocked 20+ states with their experiments.
I should note that the only path to legalized cannabis is still, strictly speaking, at the federal level. It is a federally illegal thing. To pretend otherwise is a dangerous risk a lot of places are willing to take.
It may have been at first. But, in my state, you can pay by debit card these days, albeit for a small surcharge.
And more importantly, in 2014 when the regulated cannabis industry started -- electronic only would have blocked it -- or created an additional huge hurdle. It's taken eight years to get to this crap-tastick hack of workarounds and outright lies.
Until an integrated facial recognition POS system becomes standard, in-person transactions using cash are largely anonymous and ephemeral--versus card transactions which produce personally identifiable, long-lived data joined at scale with any other other data an entity has about you. For the first time in history it is economical to surveil an entire population, and a large part of that is because of digital payments databases.
> Exclusion
Right now anyone who can't get a bank account (a significant number of people, including anyone without a permanent address or lacking personal documentation) is excluded from the digital economy. You have brought up a vague hypothetical that some future group will be excluded from the cash economy, but this is not meaningful until you explain specifically who will be impacted and how this compares with who is currently excluded from the cashless economy.
> Censorship
Hard cash is certainly not confiscated as easily as a line in a database (for better or worse), and importantly cannot occur with negligible cost at scale. But the censorship does not have to be governmental: card companies and payment processors have crafted their own rules on acceptable behavior and transactions and enforce these rules on the population. See any of the long list of stories about PayPal blocking transactions to a business that was automatically flagged as violating their ToS.
And I'm sympathetic to the exclusion and censorship concerns. I just don't think cash really solves much there. We had plenty of both well before electronic payments were a thing.
Consider, you are worried about people that can't get bank accounts being excluded. But... they aren't really allowed in a cash environment, either. Without a permanent address, it is getting harder to get a license. Without a license or other personal documentation, it is nigh impossible to get a job. These are very real problems. Cash does basically nothing to help there.
Note, I'm emphatically not claiming that cashless helps, either. I'm saying it is a completely separate problem that payment systems don't really enter into.
Tracing cash money back to a specific person requires the time and resources of dedicated forensic experts and is fraught with uncertainty. There is not just a big but an astronomical difference in the ease of tracking electronic transactions vs. cash. The difference is so huge that surveillance and policing are now being automated at scale for the first time in history.
> Consider, you are worried about people that can't get bank accounts being excluded... Cash does basically nothing to help there.
Sure it does. I see homeless people paying for street food in cash. I am aware of battered women who save cash in secret because their bank accounts and phones are controlled by abusive partners. There are subcultures of nomadic people who don't have a permanent address and rely on cash jobs and payments. There are entire microeconomies in many cities that run on cash because their precariat members work under the table and don't have bank accounts.
Homeless people should be offered homes and food. Not given petty cash to try and get these things. I'm open to the idea that cash is the best we can do today for that. But... that is a pretty weak reason. Housing and food stability are not won with petty cash.
Are you serious? Okay, how would you figure out what a person purchased at a store 3 years ago on a given date? Can you do that just as well for 1000 people? for 10 million people?
> But... they aren't really allowed in a cash environment, either.
With cash, anyone can walk into a store and buy food. Without cash, people would be completely at the mercy of others to help them.
> Without a license or other personal documentation, it is nigh impossible to get a job.
With cash, it's absolutely possible to offer labor in exchange for money without any ID.
Big ticket purchases are absolutely traceable back to people. Pretty much always have been.
It would be a real problem to do that without cash.
I don't want cash to disappear. I just want dumb grubby pieces of paper and heavy grimy coins to go the way of the dodo. With all of the logistical and security costs they entail.
Just give me digital cash that can be stored on a card, that doesn't require a bank account and isn't tied to anyone's identity, and where any cell phone is capable of transferring value between cards (and between bank accounts and cards).
Digital cash needs to be implemented by the government with zero transaction fees.
This needs to be something run by the government, in the same way the government runs printing physical cash.
This has nothing whosoever to do with MC/Visa/etc.
Does this enable completely anonymous payments, or is this another step towards more surveillance?
Surveillance most definitely will be a feature. We are talking about the UK government here.
Might be MC, might be a bank, might be a startup backed by investors.
It doesn't really matter at all. But the point is that it doesn't matter if existing card providers like it or not.
Mind you, I am not sure I am right and you're wrong. I am just pointing some concerns I have. And on the other side, your proposal makes sense also in the point that the government always financed the cost of the whole coins and banknotes stuff from the general budget.
But who are we fooling here? The lobbying power from the payments industry is mind-boggling, maybe bigger than the one from the Defense Industry. They would never allow a government payments program that eliminated their role as middleman.
You don't get charged $0.05 per paper bill by the government every time you go to the ATM. Similarly, you don't get charged by the fire department if it puts out a blaze in your home. So:
> Wouldn't it be better to have this program directly funded by its users? wouldn't it be more transparent?
Absolutely not. This goes against the entire ethos of government, which is that we collectively pay taxes, progressively, for the services that benefit society as a whole.
And if supplying and managing cash isn't a core government service, then I don't know what is. Even the most extreme libertarians and anarchists are going to agree on that one.
Was there ever any attempt to do something similar in the US?
In theory correlating the card purchase with location or camera data would be possible, but even that's a win as it moves transaction surveillance from dragnet to bespoke.
This is a flaw of implementation, not of banknotes in and of themselves. Some countries moved to plastic banknotes[0] already many years ago: Australia, Romania, Vietnam, just to name a few. They don’t get grotty like e.g. American dollar notes. A cool feature is that if you are at the beach and have nowhere to leave your valuables, you can just go swimming with them inside your pocket.
Certainly, that cash isn’t going to get you sick. It also is unlikely to be covered in dirt/mud/some other substance that will visibly rub off onto you.
What ritual must it undergo to purge it of its ungodliness?
Cash is anonymous and (largely) untrackable by its fundamental nature. Once you introduce anything digital into the system, it becomes easy enough to add a tracking layer that I think it very unlikely any such system would remain free of one for long, no matter how it started out.
It's not like physical cash is untrackable either -- every bill has a unique serial number. Just like Bitcoin keeps a record of every transaction.
If you want it to be private and anonymous, that's up to you to make sure you don't tie anything about your identity when you acquire a particular physical card for use/storage. The exact same way you have to be careful when acquiring Bitcoin, for example.
It's not at all far-fetched to imagine a particular bill passing through dozens of hands in multiple states without any unique record of it being recorded anywhere.
A cash card, on the other hand, requires some kind of connection to a central authority to verify what it has on it—otherwise counterfeiting on a grand scale becomes all too easy. So every single transaction at least can be logged, whether or not it is by default—and there's no way for us as regular users of the technology to tell that it's not if the government says it's not. And given that it is a cash card, it will need to be loaded periodically if it is to remain useful—either that, or you'll just have to keep buying new ones with physical cash, which drastically decreases the convenience factor compared to either physical cash or a debit/credit card. It also drastically increases your risk footprint if you are attempting to remain below the radar.
So while anonymity is theoretically possible, untrackability is not—and the moment your identity is associated with even one use of the card (whether by a security camera, or correlation with cell phone location data, or loading it from a debit or credit card, or whatever else), the entire history of that card is at least potentially linkable to you.
You'd be surprised. The ATM knows the serial number of every bill it dispenses, and all those 20's spent at a retailer tend to go straight to the bank where serials are again scanned in.
But yeah, if you're trying to hide your activity from the government, you're going to need a complicated strategy of cards and transfers. This is no different from Bitcoin, or trying to spend cash you stole from a bank.
Digital cash is perfectly fine if you don't want to be tracked by algorithms trying to build profiles of everyone.
If you're trying to hide yourself from the police when they're trying to catch you personally... I mean, good luck. Even with paper currency.
I mean...frankly, I agree with you there. But there's a significant contingent—including around here—that seem to think that this is not only possible, but highly desirable. (Perhaps not necessarily "hide from the police when they're trying to catch you", but "avoid letting the government have even one iota more information on you than is strictly legally necessary", at the very least.)
There are situations where cash cannot be used; hopefully this changes in a way that is safe.
Openly call such shops something like "denunciation shops" since they only offer a kind of transaction that leaks (denounces) data to the involved banks.
The paying in cash and not being traced part is directly connected to a criminal act. Wonder why governments aren't liking cash transactions.
This fee is avoided with cash.
[not to mention fees on the other end - a huge percentage on most ATM withdrawals].
So I doubt the transaction fee is relevant at all in my garage's consideration to offer me a 'discount'. This nearly doubles his net income and saves me 21% in VAT, just because it's off the books.
When using a debit card, holds placed for funds (i.e. hotel incidentals) impact real cash in your account.
When using a credit card, these holds impact your credit line, not your actual funds.
I avoid using my debit card whenever possible, because it protects my assets more securely.
"In a credit card dispute, the credit card issuer may issue a chargeback, which means that the disputed funds are taken from your merchant account and returned to the cardholder. With debit card disputes, the disputed funds are typically frozen in the cardholder's account until the dispute is resolved. This means that you may experience a cash flow impact with credit card disputes, while debit card disputes may have a more immediate impact on the customer's access to their funds."
https://www.chargeflow.io/blog/credit-card-dispute-vs-debit-...
Like I said, it's a very different world when it comes to payments over here. Apps like Cash App of Venmo are also don't really exist, for example, because banks already provide similar functionality in their apps without transaction fees.
Here's some core-fee details: https://gravitypayments.com/support-library/card-brand-fees/
And Gravity's general fee range here: https://www.cardpaymentoptions.com/credit-card-processors/gr...
Well, sure, sometimes. But criminals definitely use other methods to mask transactions to one another. For example: It used to be somewhat common for a restaurant to steal workers tips if the customer paid the tip by card, and I'd be surprised if they paid taxes on the tips they stole.
On the other hand: Do you want others to know how much your tipped each stripper?
Privacy matters to a point. In general, you should have the same sort of privacy you can get when using the toilet: A closed door to keep the specific details to yourself, even though everyone knows in general the sorts of things that happen in there. A few exceptions apply - most folks will come to your aid if they think you need help in there, for example.
It won't help him much if he gets audited, though.
I am not an expert at this by any means, but one idea I've had is for smartphones / a "credit chip" to have preloaded cash on to it, which is then used to make purchases without sending that information back to your bank account.
So, for example: you make a $100 deposit from your bank account to your smartphone. You can then make purchases from your smartphone, not from your card. The purchasing data stays local to your device.
I bought a day pass for the Brussels city transport system at a ticket machine last month, and the machine simply loaded and dispensed a smart card for me to use immediately on any bus, tram or train. This shows that smart cards are not only cheap, they can be literally disposable!
Therefore I would say that is 100% a policy issue: all it would take is one country or large city to implement digital cash with the legal and functional constructs to ensure anonymous transactions and your dream would come true.
You can also get a regular plastic IC card, and load it with cash or card. Works the same way, except you can only load it at a machine rather than just on the Wallet app on your phone.
The writer is starting with the wrong premise: that people who prefer a cashless system don't understand these things. They do. They just don't care enough to do much about it.
It's not about a lack of understanding, it's about convenience. A cashless system tends to be more convenient, and that's why people like it.
Cashless is definitely more convenient (I'll give you that all day, because it absolutely is), and it's great, but there are a bunch of economic actors that would prefer to be able to pay in cash or accept cash payments, and not all of those actors are illicit actors - there are plenty of legitimate businesses that would prefer to deal in cash whenever possible. Plenty of service people such as waiters, barbers, drivers, etc...benefit from cash. I think the lower on the economic rung you go, the more useful cash is.
I'm a small biz owner myself, and I accept digital payments with no problem, but those same digital payment platforms take a nice cut of my margins. I can offer better prices if I don't have to fork over 2-5% to a 3rd party that provides little value outside of someone being able to pay me by tapping our phones together.
The combination of XMR for saving and something like BCH for spending is such a dead simple solution to 99% of the world's money issues it boggles my mind that it's taken 10 years for us to get to where we are now, I thought it would have been 2-3 years at most.
And still, 10 years in, a near perfect tract record, people are still unsure about Bitcoin. What's the issue exactly, people are just scared?
I will never understand it. Ive said since 2012, I will either be proven to be the biggest idiot in the world if/when crypto get regulated or hacked and comes tumbling down, or people will be begging to know how I saw it coming when Bitcoin swallows up the worlds financial system black hole style. Either way, I'm enjoying the show immensely.
Over the course of 20 minutes, the maximum number of people who can engage in transactions is somewhat under 50,000. This is obviously unworkable as a global currency; if the user base and transaction volumes rise, you might be waiting hours or days for a transaction to complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem
The blockchain also records details of your transactions forever, and unless you carefully obfuscate your activity, every bitcoin user will have the entire blockchain and your entire history on it. Forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_blockchain
This certainly gives me pause.
Do. Your. Own. Research.
You already have did it, so that’s just bad faith.
"The maximum throughput is the maximum rate at which the blockchain can confirm transactions. Today, bitcoin's maximum throughput is 3.3–7 transactions/sec. This number is constrained by the maximum block size and the inter-block time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem#%2...
"The Lightning Network requires putting a funding transaction on the blockchain to open a payment channel."
Now, if we put the whole world on Bitcoin, how long does it take to open that channel? Days?
But of course LN makes no sense if you just did what Satoshi said and incrementally increase the block size as needed, but then of course Blockstream cant sell you their SideChain(tm) products.
The whole thing became really convoluted and dumb once Adam Back got involved.
Bitcoin and Lightning solve many of the issues in the article and will improve.
As a society we should encourage both the use of physical cash and decentralized cryptocurrency as alternatives to the centralized banking "cashless" system.
Satoshi had the simple solution from day one, it is just to incrementally increase the block size as needed, like the BCH fork is doing, its really no big deal.
Do the server providers take Bitcoin and Monero?
A currency is only as good as the stuff that can be bought with it, which is why most petroleum is sold in dollars, not in gold, bitcoin, or whatever.
Does your local shopkeeper take Bitcoin for goods?
Do you know how long it takes a Bitcoin transaction to be confirmed and completed?
Most local shops do not take Bitcoin, although there are some places where it's more recognised. Some specialist online-order retailers now take Bitcoin, such as Pimonori for hobby electronics materials.
Bitcoin transactions are typically confirmed within a minute, compared to hours or days in traditional banking. However, Bitcoin does not have credit like traditional banks do, so can't provide 'instant' payments.
Lol'd BCH will hit the same scaling issues as actual bitcoin if it becomes as popular as bitcoin and increasing the blocksizes will lead to the very centralization it purports to be against while only marginally fixing the scalability.
- Stories about transaction fees that are more than the cost of something you would buy with it ($25 at on point)
- Stories about Bitcoin exchanges (if I have that term right) where the person in charge just... took everything and ran; and anyone with money in it just flat out lost it
- No way to reverse a transaction if you are scammed (vs a credit card where you can almost infallibly get a transaction reversed)
- Stories of exchanges failing and everyone losing out... whereas in a bank, the FDIC handles it for you and you get your money back
Now, I may be wrong about some of that... but those are the stories I hear. And, given them, why would I even bother to try Bitcoin?
Why aren't banks subject to taking the money and running? Banks could handle crypto.
Reversable transactions could probably be programmed in certain conditions.
Banks/laws/policy/etc.
I wouldn't try Bitcoin either. Monero is a lot better, but even then it's just a stepping stone of what could come if enough people cared.
Even forgoing all the (very many) other arguments for why someone might not be interested in crytpo, it's not a very stable currency.
If bitcoin weren't so stupid I'd gladly use that instead of highly centralized corporate payment systems.
Here in Canada, the servers often will bring the card reader at the same time as they bring over the bill, because the assumption is you're likely paying with a card, either credit or debit, so why not save the extra trips entirely?
No, if we're talking only about convenience, a card wins every single time.
I don't wait for the change to come back. The change is part of (or the entirety of, depending) the tip.
What do you do when the bill+tax is 19? And with a normal tip would be 22 or 23?
And you don't have anything less than a 20 at the moment? Because, you know, that happens?
I guess in those cases I'd wait for change.
Maybe different strategies for managing cash? Which it's never even occurred to me until now that could be a thing.
Did you consider Monero or Etherium?
Well, having to check the correctness of the electronic transactions (are the correct? Were some of them fraudulent? - yes, both happens) all the time, and having to get along with the "anti-fraud systems" often involved in electronic transactions is in my experience very inconvenient. Cash is much more convenient in this regard.
P.S. Of course every hacker ("Hacker News") would also correctly say that paying electronically without leaking lots of private data is hard, and thus very inconvenient. Another argument why cash is more convenient.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66354476.amp
In fact is should put the need for centralized entities for controlling all transactions into perspective.
This record is subject to subpoenas in legal actions against you.
This record can also be sold for marketing purposes to generate personalized advertising for you.
Be aware of this movement of your personal information.
You can pass all the laws that you want, but that will not change unless you redesign it.
This assumes that the government can be trusted to care about the citizen's privacy. This is an assumption that at least cypherpunks explicitly do not share. Just find some case involving terrorism or child abuse (depending on the political climate), and new surveillance laws will become passed.
The existence of the record is inevitably linked to the ability for it to be used in legal actions or criminal investigations.
However, the ability to use that record for literally every other purpose, and especially for it to be sold for marketing purposes, can be and should be made totally illegal by appropriate banking secrecy regulations. If that's not the case in USA, well, that should be fixable - there are countries in which anyone in the bank doing that would be literally a felony.
> This record is subject to subpoenas in legal actions against you.
Don’t worry, if I plan on committing any crimes I’ll use cash to fund them.
0 of these points gave me second thoughts.
As a merchant, cash sucks. It’s slow AF to make change. I have to trust my employees not to steal it in a way that I don’t with credit card. (They can just not ring something up and pocket the cash, that’s not a thing right credit.)
I have to deal with handling it which in my line means sometimes even hiring private security and at least two trips to a bank. (None of the bankless or anti-financial stuff applies to legitimate businesses.)
It’s well worth 2.5% of my sales to never have to handle it again. So I don’t, and at every big event I do, there are a small percentage of people mad about it and one guy who thinks I’m violating his constitutional rights and damnit he’s going to do something about it. (He never does.)
As a consumer it’s fragile, easy to lose, easy to not have when I need it, and takes up a lot of pocket space. I’m so annoyed when I’m required to have cash for something and thank God for square and the raft of competitors it inspired for not making me do it ever again.
I personally think that Bitcoin and the Lightning Network (with forthcoming and as-of-yet-undiscovered improvements) is our best long-term alternative to the "unbalanced cashless" society that he rightly fears. I admit I could be wrong about Bitcoin, but the larger point should be that we, as a society, need to allow for options other than what the "banking sector using big tech devices" is offering.
Freedom and the market system are about giving people options. Cash, Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies should all be available to consumers. Our right to use cash should be protected and it makes sense for individuals to "vote with their [paper] dollars" to help preserve that option and that right. The same applies to Bitcoin and other "digital cash" systems.
I've noticed something interesting though. Rural areas (like where I live) almost never have cashless storefronts, in fact often they have cash only storefronts. The merchants almost always have some indicator of conservative bent. Whereas in cities, you'll see cashless places all over, and it's often some business owned or staffed by people with an obvious left of center ideology, which IMO are the last people I'd expect to want a big finance company to get a piece of every person to person transaction they do.
You can move it around fast and peer-to-peer, without asking any authority.
No one can take it from you without your error or consent.
You can find a peer to exchange it to any cash currency in every part of the world.
Most people who don't understand crypto don't understand any of this.
You claim to understand crypto, yet this is blatantly false.
With cash you are exposed only to your local crime, with crypto you are exposed to a global crime network, implementation bugs (both network & wallet/device)..
Selfish behaviour (criminality, when taken to the extreme) seems to be an inherent characteristic of humans, you cannot claim that "criminal state" creates that.
And this has nothing to do with your initial claims, which I refuted.
Selfish behaviour is indeed a characteristic of all living beings, but I won't fully agree that it is always criminality when taken to extreme – in my opinion, there are multiple dimensions to that. This behaviour can be developed into a symbiotic one too, and the environment here is one of the drivers for evolution.
Our current environment leads to selfishness turning into parasitic behaviour almost every time, and our current environment is the state, whatever you got lucky to get. Based on that I claim that state creates criminal, by creating the environment he needs, and by judging him in this same environment, no matter how disharmonic it is in the current point in time.
Decentralised finance is a great example of the paradigm shift in the right direction. It is above the state and it lets people globally interact more harmonically, because you need rules universally interpretable by all parties in order to harmonise. I don't say it is a perfect tool, but it is far better than anything we could come up with for thousands of years, and it will eventually lead us into a bit more harmonic world. Tool is misused by the criminals, created by states around them over time, but I don't care as long as they play by the same rules as me.
Ideally yeah, but you now see some blockchains such a ethereum moving to a centralised organizational scheme with their relays and private mempool aggregators.
But, we are forgetting the unbanked, underbanked, the day laborers and migrant farm workers paid cash, the LexisNexis tracking leading to unbanked.
Check cashing places are slimming, buts that's more due to entry level jobs offering prepaid debit cards as payment of salary. Yum Brands I believe does this. But of course, prepaid debit cards cant be used everywhere. (Hotels, deposits, some gas pumps, etc)
This preserves privacy but lets you pay fully digitally.