Satire works when you hold folly up to ridicule. Central banking is possibly the greatest human invention since sanitation. The U.S. central banking system ranks among the finest of its kind.
Bitcoin handles 7 transactions a second on a good day, has no reliable institutional actors, and I can neither pay taxes nor satisfy court judgments with it. It is an impressive proof-of-concept for decentralized trust in cryptosystems, but it is hardly a currency.
> Central banking is possibly the greatest human invention since sanitation. The U.S. central banking system ranks among the finest of its kind.
How did you come to that conclusion? Is this a common viewpoint?
EDIT: I am genuinely curious. It doesn't strike me as a great invention, but I could be wrong. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, for example by reasoned arguments of how things were before central banking and why things were so much better after and compared to all other alternatives, as well as what sets U.S. central banking system apart from the rest of the central banking systems in the world. Do you have any links to this type of reasoning?
> Central banking is possibly the greatest human invention since sanitation.
The greatest human invention since sanitation is that a tiny elite can control the value of money (and money over time)?
Is that a joke? Are you joking?
Edit: Really...? Really? You know the devaluation of currency over time and the resulting increase in the cost of goods disproportionately affects the poor and middle class, as well as retirement savers who's interest rates can't keep up, right?
I think you've missed the point which is to ridicule the criticism of crypto-currencies, not cash. Also the article talks about the properties of cash in general, not central banking.
My impression is that you completely misunderstood. (I only skimmed the article.)
The folly that is being held up to ridicule are the objections to bitcoin.
The means by which it is held up is to show that bills as a medium of exchange can be attacked just as strongly. People still use it. Nobody is going to make you go to the bank to give them $5 back, they use bills. And if you only have a $10 note, they'll make change for you.
This is directly what's being compared to bitcoin (for example) - by pointing out that whatever objections anyone might have against bitcoin (theft, etc), could be made - ridiculously - against paper currency.
The reason it is ridiculous is because the benefits of paper currency far outweigh the inconvenience stemming from using it.
Likewise, bitcoin can have tons of problems - but the benefits far outweigh them. That is the point being made.
I don't think bitcoin is usable as a currency (because of the scarcity mainly) but if we had to judge every potential currency by whether institutionnal actors accept it we might never accept anythig as currency until the end of the world.
I would think of a currency as anything that has recognized value while being transferable.
Let's imagine starbucks prepaid point card get's accepted in some drugstore also, the. Some super markets, gas station, theaters, airports. It really explodes and you can start paying with them at millions of stores, and you are allowed to exchange them with other people via some procedure. The starbucks point system becomes a currency IMO. You'll never pay your taxes with it, but you can use them for exchange and commerce purpose.
Are we looking at the same article? It's satirizing paper vs digital money -- the focus is on money transfer tech, not monetary policy. The central bank stuff is about two paragraphs out of thirty.
Also, whether bitcoin is a "true" currency is orthogonal to the (satirical) point of the article, which is that paper currency would look weird if it weren't the traditional way and we were going to it from digital money. Whether Bitcoin currently handles 1, 7, or a trillion transactions per second is irrelevant here.
Really tired of central banks and banks stealing 97% of the peoples wealth through inflation of FIAT currency backed by nothing than debt out of nothing. Here is a graph of median income vs GDP(average income), note that it diverges in the 1975, when by coincidence the dollar was decoupled from the gold by Nixon.
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/09/03/slow-income-growth-for-m...
Let's not forget fractional reserve banking, and how this fuels investment. Bitcoin's current design can't do this. Maybe some other crypto-currency will win the war by having this monetary mechanism in mind.
The satire was not of money or central banking, it was of the public reaction to a new form of it.
Also, if you think that central banking is the greatest invention since sanitation, I think you may have your priorities slightly skewed, though that is only an opinion.
As to whether bitcoin is a currency. It is a currency when it is used as one. Sometimes it is and then it is a currency, mostly it is a speculative investment vehicle. This is why I think dogecoin is more of a currency than bitcoin at the moment.
Satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices".
What is being held up to ridicule are the various criticisms of bitcoin, not central banking. For example the article quotes an economist saying that paper money is evil, satirising Krugman's article about bitcoin. Quite entertaining!
You can't fault a relatively new cypto-currency for having limitations in terms of adoption rates. For now, it's still a proof of concept and improvements are constantly being made.
The article is not making fun of cash, but making fun of people who mock the concept of bitcoins.
"The U.S. central banking system ranks among the finest of its kind."
I'll take it as a fine example of satire. The Fed officials' conflict of interest, the financial crisis, using it as a tool to achieve political goals internationally, you name it.
> The U.S. central banking system ranks among the finest of its kind.
I agree...
> Central banking is possibly the greatest human invention since sanitation.
This is a most deceptive and inherently political statement. Sanitation is a great invention for everyone. Central banking not so much.
Central banking and centralised control of the money supply serve to concentrate the greatest opportunity for skimming the surplus generated by vast productive populations into the hands a very few people to direct as they wish. Whether this process is controlled democratically or not (and in the US it most certainly is not) is not the point.
The way this is done in the US is no different in principle to the way it is done by elite in more obviously "corrupt" countries. In the US, it is more sophisticated and over the last century it has attained the patina of established respectability. In the US they have managed to set this system up without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. (the surplus-producing population)
The skimming in the US is accomplished first through powerful central taxation which requires centralised record keeping and control of the banking sector. Secondly wealth and accumulated surplus is skimmed (redistributed upwards) through the control of credit extended by banks to generally expand and potentially to "contract" the money (credit) supply. Inflation generally rewards large debtors and punishes savers.
Skimming is also accomplished by helping to grow and trade in government debt (granting incredibly valuable concessions to favoured dealers), assisting in managing capital flows into and out of the country, extending vast credits to powerful interest groups (mostly bankers) thereby helping powerful private borrowers to lean on the public credit for private gain, and most importantly and tragically to make possible and in fact encourage wars of choice which are clearly to the benefit of private interests and clearly not of any benefit to the general public. Is it any wonder that the Fed was created by bankers and war financiers, for the benefit of bankers and war financiers? This goes back to Morgan and others and their intimate involvement in the financing of Britain and France and subsequent agitation for American entry into WWI.
Central banking is most convenient and necessary for anyone wishing to control or direct economic activity and hence the lives of others. That is why it appeals to statists of all persuasions who perceive it as powerful lever or tool they hope employ in their fantasies of control. Prominent early communists saw state-controlled central banking as an essential step for converting a capitalist system to a communist one. That is also why most "crazy libertarians" find their way to a stance opposing central banking. Central banking is anathema to Liberty. Jefferson killed the first Bank of the United States and exposed it as an agent of foreign interests. (The capital for the first bank was created by an early scam which had people talk down the debts of the continental congress and buy up the IOUs from the poor soldiers who fought for the revolution for a few pennies on the dollar, and then lobby successfully for the debts to be assumed and honored at face value by the new constitutional government. This was a similar scam to the way the oligarchs in Russia convinced newly enriched peasants to sell their shares in state assets for cheap.) Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States for much the same reasons as Jefferson had a generation before. Seventy years later, a true, well documented conspiracy of financiers, gave the US its third central bank.
I agree with other posters, that one must look at the actions and histories of many different central banks in different countries to understand the nature of the beast. The US is only the most competent in obfuscating its nature, purpose and origin. It has "won" at the central banking game for almost 100 years. Your praise of the US's central bank comes at the zenith of its power. I suspect over the next 10 years, it will resemble its cousins in less competent regimes and juridictions more and more.
The US central bank, aka the Fed, is a brilliant creation. It is a brilliant creation of the fevered minds of oligarchs to defend and advance their oligarchy. It has lasted 100 years. I hope it will not last another 100. With Idiocracy increasingly fast upon us, the prospects for change are not good. Bitcoin to the moon.
For example, if we post on HN an offer to do something in return for something..what currency are we using and is that said currency some sort of fiat system?
I don't think it will get popular. It needs too much infrastructure for emission and tracking. You will need to manually find a way to get to the right amount using such a restricted set of values [1]. Additionally, you cannot make backups and it is very easy for lose or destroy some of these "bills". It's a nice idea, but there is not a chance it will gain value. I don't think it's worth investing any real money in it.
The article is idiotic and disingenuous. Paper money didn't attempt to replace coin in one fell swoop. Paper money evolved from letters of credit which make perfect sense, and bitcoin fundamentally relies on similar concepts anyway.
You can't buy something online by just anonymously transmitting credits into an account -- who gave us the money? what do they want? You fill in an order form, a bunch of stuff happens, you get a receipt and a product and money gets transferred at some point. Very little of that is the currency transaction. You needed to generate a letter that said I want X and I'll pay you Y, then you paid Y and sent confirmation of the money transfer, and so on.
The bitcoin bulls think that Credit Cards are a terrible way to buy things because they charge too much for what they do (and their security sucks). This may be true, but bitcoin is only solving the easiest part of the problem. Banks can already transfer money around cheaply and securely. Indeed even market transactions are so fast and inexpensive that high speed trading is now a huge economic force.
The fact is that credit cards (a) let you buy stuff on credit, (b) provide transactional support allowing commerce to proceed smoothly, and (c) already work. A credit card is merely automated checking with overdrafts, which is a direct descendant of the letter of credit (from which cash evolved), which is in fact a more fundamental method of trading than barter. (Tracking people's accounts is the reason writing was invented.)
Ever since POS hacks on Target and other retailers I've completely switched to cash only. Not only can't you be tracked, something I'm not sure I care about, but it reduces the chances of somebody stealing your card info.
And I only use wells fargo ATMs, because they have a nice green glowing card input, so you know nobody put a malicious card scanner on the ATM.
It's a complete reversal from a few years ago where I wouldn't carry cash and wouldn't go anywhere that was cash only. Going cash only also reduces the fees for stores where you buy things.
Cash is the way to go, despite all of our technology.
This article is entertaining, interesting and relevant. Humans are exceptionally good at rationalizing their biases, especially if they involve trust, and interest is required to alter those biases in a positive way. The biggest challenge for cryptocurrencies today is raising interest and trust in the general population. We can best effect that by working hard to raise interest in cryptocurrencies in a positive way.
For example, the article claims that Cash is loved by Libertarians. As far as I'm aware, Libertarians would prefer privatized currencies, akin to the mid-1850s banking system. A centralized institution creating a centralized currency is much different from what the libertarians would like.
They miss the basics of the politics involved here. BTC (apparently) represents decentralization, freedom, etc. etc. At least according to libertarians.
The complaint about the lack of tracking and anonymity is also ironic, because BTC "marketing" has been filled with misinformation and lies. Fortunately, the article seems to take the correct stance. (BTCs are tracked, the ledger is public, it is far easier to be anonymous with Cash than it is with BTC).
Finally, there are systems in place because Cash has a 200+ year long history. It is impossible to ignore the "momentum" of cash. FBI has ways of tracking and marking bills. Secret Service actually keeps track of those Serial Numbers.
--------------------
Besides, BTC is but the first popular poof-of-work cryptocoin. I don't think BTC is perfect for many reasons... I think DOGE is going in a better direction.
The article fails to mention any of _my_ complaints. The extremely long transaction time (10 minutes minimum, if you are willing to trust a 1-block confirmation), the deflationary nature (block chain rewards halving every couple of years). The hard cap at 21 million (DOGE has no cap on coins fyi).
You know, the legitimate complaints about BTC, the ones that people are trying to solve with alt-coins.
Bitcoin is not ready to be marketed to and trusted by the general population as a general currency, since it's so unstable, while i've seen ideas on how to solve this, they kill the currency's appeal as an investment tool, which would seriously hurt adoption.
>> The biggest challenge for cryptocurrencies today is raising interest and trust in the general population.
I would actually say its getting the general public informed. 75% of the US population are aging baby boomers. They can barely work an iphone, how the heck do you think they're ever going to accept cryptocurrency? Even with a ton of marketing, this is something that is completely foreign to 85% of the general population.
My issue with fluff pieces like this is that there are plenty of established tools in our lives that would not be available if they started out today. Acetaminophen (or Tylenol by it's brand name) is often touted as a drug that would never pass modern FDA regulations if it were introduced today due to it's issues with liver toxicity and link to Reye's Syndrome.
We make products and services with what we have available at the time, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are an indefinite solution, nor does it mean that we are going to hold our archaic solutions to the same standard we do with our new and improved solutions.
[This is satyre, imagining cash introduced now, and mocking BitCoin's critics. Some ring true, some miss the two-sided market issues behind adopting new payment forms.]
To be honest, I’ve been in Nordic countries for a year (where all transaction are card-based, and there is no minimum amount for payment) and that situation rung surprisingly true — especially after yesterday, when I was facing a coat valet who was expecting a ten crown in cash.
I had amusing experiences in Denmark where I was forced to walk around with about 10,000 kroner because American banks and lending institutions are too lazy and cheap to implement Chip-and-Pin systems. Also almost nobody takes American Express (I don't blame them though).
Anyway, folks' reactions to that much cash were pretty much "are you a drug dealer?", which was pretty funny.
At least I _always_ had cash for the Pølsevogn. :)
I had similar happen to me in Iceland but they're slightly more cash and "Yankee Plastic"-friendly.
Our currently existing currencies evolved over time. Central banking and fiat currency were institutions delivered by liberal democracies by the process of public debate.
They were not hair-brained ideas established by anonymous individuals engaged in private debate outside of the forums of democracy.
Look, I know all of you are very excited about these experimental economic and political systems, but please realize that the existing world that you are "suffering" under was mainly developed as a slow process of evolution.
Most extreme revolutionary ideas take a long time to work their way in to the existing societal structures and way of life. When they're quickly forced on to people, all fucking hell breaks loose.
So for fucks sake, get some balance and control your zealotry, people!
And read some history books! The future is built from the past no matter how long or hard of a process that seems to be. Go with the flow!
Engage with other people. Engage with the existing institutions. Even if it is a better idea, there are billions of people who rely on the current system in ways that you can't predict.
"The future is built from the past no matter how long or hard of a process that seems to be."
Observation of the past does not allow one to accurately predict the future. I recommend Karl Popper's classic, "The Poverty of Historicism", which expounds on the topic.
Amazing post! I wonder why everyone is called Mike Smith in the article though ? Mike Smith - VP of this, Mike Smith - a tourist, Mike Smith - etc. ?
Something else that wasn't covered is that cash is also dirty and carries grime and infections. Ideally you should wash your hands before you eat if you handle any cash. (this is less of a problem with laminated/plastic notes like the CAD or EUR)
Imagine a super virus propagating and killing people through cash. Ouch!
This reminded me of the fact that I havent handled, or even touched, real paper money for at least a year now. Here in Iceland paper currencly is slowly being phased out, and has been for a few years.
Obviously hyperbolic and not a perfect comparison, but gets enough right to be pretty damn clever. The "hardware wallets" security flaws and anonymity facilitating criminals are particularly enjoyable.
The more policy-oriented economic points aren't nearly as strong, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Just to be clear: I like Bitcoin a lot, but I don't think it will ever replace national currencies. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a lot of bitcoin detractors.
Bitcoins (and others) aren't backed by a government. One of the major exchanges used to trade Magic the Gathering cards (You know, for kids!). Bills also have serial numbers that provide some amount of traceability, at least between Federal Reserve branches and banks.
they say that is why they sink the Titanic, on board was all the powerful people that opposed the creation of the Fed, (I personally don't think an iceberg can do that), but anyway one year later the Fed was born.
[+] [-] hapless|12 years ago|reply
Bitcoin handles 7 transactions a second on a good day, has no reliable institutional actors, and I can neither pay taxes nor satisfy court judgments with it. It is an impressive proof-of-concept for decentralized trust in cryptosystems, but it is hardly a currency.
[+] [-] oskarth|12 years ago|reply
How did you come to that conclusion? Is this a common viewpoint?
EDIT: I am genuinely curious. It doesn't strike me as a great invention, but I could be wrong. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, for example by reasoned arguments of how things were before central banking and why things were so much better after and compared to all other alternatives, as well as what sets U.S. central banking system apart from the rest of the central banking systems in the world. Do you have any links to this type of reasoning?
[+] [-] nateabele|12 years ago|reply
The greatest human invention since sanitation is that a tiny elite can control the value of money (and money over time)?
Is that a joke? Are you joking?
Edit: Really...? Really? You know the devaluation of currency over time and the resulting increase in the cost of goods disproportionately affects the poor and middle class, as well as retirement savers who's interest rates can't keep up, right?
Is that also a feature?
[+] [-] spindritf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctdonath|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martindale|12 years ago|reply
Also, the ~7 transaction per second limit is completely artificial: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L3...
Institutional actors: http://allthingsd.com/20131212/bitcoins-biggest-bet-andreess...
[+] [-] jsmcgd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agilebyte|12 years ago|reply
https://www.joinsnapcard.com/
More: http://pando.com/2014/01/15/pay-your-taxes-in-bitcoin-snapca...
[+] [-] logicallee|12 years ago|reply
The folly that is being held up to ridicule are the objections to bitcoin.
The means by which it is held up is to show that bills as a medium of exchange can be attacked just as strongly. People still use it. Nobody is going to make you go to the bank to give them $5 back, they use bills. And if you only have a $10 note, they'll make change for you.
This is directly what's being compared to bitcoin (for example) - by pointing out that whatever objections anyone might have against bitcoin (theft, etc), could be made - ridiculously - against paper currency.
The reason it is ridiculous is because the benefits of paper currency far outweigh the inconvenience stemming from using it.
Likewise, bitcoin can have tons of problems - but the benefits far outweigh them. That is the point being made.
"It is folly to criticize bitcoin".
[+] [-] hrktb|12 years ago|reply
I would think of a currency as anything that has recognized value while being transferable.
Let's imagine starbucks prepaid point card get's accepted in some drugstore also, the. Some super markets, gas station, theaters, airports. It really explodes and you can start paying with them at millions of stores, and you are allowed to exchange them with other people via some procedure. The starbucks point system becomes a currency IMO. You'll never pay your taxes with it, but you can use them for exchange and commerce purpose.
[+] [-] tbrownaw|12 years ago|reply
No, that's either packet switching, internal combustion, penicillin, or sliced bread.
[+] [-] SilasX|12 years ago|reply
Also, whether bitcoin is a "true" currency is orthogonal to the (satirical) point of the article, which is that paper currency would look weird if it weren't the traditional way and we were going to it from digital money. Whether Bitcoin currently handles 1, 7, or a trillion transactions per second is irrelevant here.
[+] [-] acd|12 years ago|reply
Really tired of central banks and banks stealing 97% of the peoples wealth through inflation of FIAT currency backed by nothing than debt out of nothing. Here is a graph of median income vs GDP(average income), note that it diverges in the 1975, when by coincidence the dollar was decoupled from the gold by Nixon. http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/09/03/slow-income-growth-for-m...
[+] [-] antr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotsofmangos|12 years ago|reply
Also, if you think that central banking is the greatest invention since sanitation, I think you may have your priorities slightly skewed, though that is only an opinion.
As to whether bitcoin is a currency. It is a currency when it is used as one. Sometimes it is and then it is a currency, mostly it is a speculative investment vehicle. This is why I think dogecoin is more of a currency than bitcoin at the moment.
[+] [-] kristianp|12 years ago|reply
What is being held up to ridicule are the various criticisms of bitcoin, not central banking. For example the article quotes an economist saying that paper money is evil, satirising Krugman's article about bitcoin. Quite entertaining!
[+] [-] cmapes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] branchan|12 years ago|reply
The article is not making fun of cash, but making fun of people who mock the concept of bitcoins.
[+] [-] igivanov|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stalcottsmith|12 years ago|reply
I agree...
> Central banking is possibly the greatest human invention since sanitation.
This is a most deceptive and inherently political statement. Sanitation is a great invention for everyone. Central banking not so much.
Central banking and centralised control of the money supply serve to concentrate the greatest opportunity for skimming the surplus generated by vast productive populations into the hands a very few people to direct as they wish. Whether this process is controlled democratically or not (and in the US it most certainly is not) is not the point.
The way this is done in the US is no different in principle to the way it is done by elite in more obviously "corrupt" countries. In the US, it is more sophisticated and over the last century it has attained the patina of established respectability. In the US they have managed to set this system up without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. (the surplus-producing population)
The skimming in the US is accomplished first through powerful central taxation which requires centralised record keeping and control of the banking sector. Secondly wealth and accumulated surplus is skimmed (redistributed upwards) through the control of credit extended by banks to generally expand and potentially to "contract" the money (credit) supply. Inflation generally rewards large debtors and punishes savers.
Skimming is also accomplished by helping to grow and trade in government debt (granting incredibly valuable concessions to favoured dealers), assisting in managing capital flows into and out of the country, extending vast credits to powerful interest groups (mostly bankers) thereby helping powerful private borrowers to lean on the public credit for private gain, and most importantly and tragically to make possible and in fact encourage wars of choice which are clearly to the benefit of private interests and clearly not of any benefit to the general public. Is it any wonder that the Fed was created by bankers and war financiers, for the benefit of bankers and war financiers? This goes back to Morgan and others and their intimate involvement in the financing of Britain and France and subsequent agitation for American entry into WWI.
Central banking is most convenient and necessary for anyone wishing to control or direct economic activity and hence the lives of others. That is why it appeals to statists of all persuasions who perceive it as powerful lever or tool they hope employ in their fantasies of control. Prominent early communists saw state-controlled central banking as an essential step for converting a capitalist system to a communist one. That is also why most "crazy libertarians" find their way to a stance opposing central banking. Central banking is anathema to Liberty. Jefferson killed the first Bank of the United States and exposed it as an agent of foreign interests. (The capital for the first bank was created by an early scam which had people talk down the debts of the continental congress and buy up the IOUs from the poor soldiers who fought for the revolution for a few pennies on the dollar, and then lobby successfully for the debts to be assumed and honored at face value by the new constitutional government. This was a similar scam to the way the oligarchs in Russia convinced newly enriched peasants to sell their shares in state assets for cheap.) Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States for much the same reasons as Jefferson had a generation before. Seventy years later, a true, well documented conspiracy of financiers, gave the US its third central bank.
I agree with other posters, that one must look at the actions and histories of many different central banks in different countries to understand the nature of the beast. The US is only the most competent in obfuscating its nature, purpose and origin. It has "won" at the central banking game for almost 100 years. Your praise of the US's central bank comes at the zenith of its power. I suspect over the next 10 years, it will resemble its cousins in less competent regimes and juridictions more and more.
The US central bank, aka the Fed, is a brilliant creation. It is a brilliant creation of the fevered minds of oligarchs to defend and advance their oligarchy. It has lasted 100 years. I hope it will not last another 100. With Idiocracy increasingly fast upon us, the prospects for change are not good. Bitcoin to the moon.
[+] [-] jamoes|12 years ago|reply
FTFY
[+] [-] fredgrott|12 years ago|reply
For example, if we post on HN an offer to do something in return for something..what currency are we using and is that said currency some sort of fiat system?
[+] [-] jsmcgd|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yoha|12 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change-making_problem
[+] [-] Tloewald|12 years ago|reply
You can't buy something online by just anonymously transmitting credits into an account -- who gave us the money? what do they want? You fill in an order form, a bunch of stuff happens, you get a receipt and a product and money gets transferred at some point. Very little of that is the currency transaction. You needed to generate a letter that said I want X and I'll pay you Y, then you paid Y and sent confirmation of the money transfer, and so on.
The bitcoin bulls think that Credit Cards are a terrible way to buy things because they charge too much for what they do (and their security sucks). This may be true, but bitcoin is only solving the easiest part of the problem. Banks can already transfer money around cheaply and securely. Indeed even market transactions are so fast and inexpensive that high speed trading is now a huge economic force.
The fact is that credit cards (a) let you buy stuff on credit, (b) provide transactional support allowing commerce to proceed smoothly, and (c) already work. A credit card is merely automated checking with overdrafts, which is a direct descendant of the letter of credit (from which cash evolved), which is in fact a more fundamental method of trading than barter. (Tracking people's accounts is the reason writing was invented.)
[+] [-] leobelle|12 years ago|reply
And I only use wells fargo ATMs, because they have a nice green glowing card input, so you know nobody put a malicious card scanner on the ATM.
It's a complete reversal from a few years ago where I wouldn't carry cash and wouldn't go anywhere that was cash only. Going cash only also reduces the fees for stores where you buy things.
Cash is the way to go, despite all of our technology.
[+] [-] kordless|12 years ago|reply
This is more commonly known as "marketing".
[+] [-] dragontamer|12 years ago|reply
For example, the article claims that Cash is loved by Libertarians. As far as I'm aware, Libertarians would prefer privatized currencies, akin to the mid-1850s banking system. A centralized institution creating a centralized currency is much different from what the libertarians would like.
They miss the basics of the politics involved here. BTC (apparently) represents decentralization, freedom, etc. etc. At least according to libertarians.
The complaint about the lack of tracking and anonymity is also ironic, because BTC "marketing" has been filled with misinformation and lies. Fortunately, the article seems to take the correct stance. (BTCs are tracked, the ledger is public, it is far easier to be anonymous with Cash than it is with BTC).
Finally, there are systems in place because Cash has a 200+ year long history. It is impossible to ignore the "momentum" of cash. FBI has ways of tracking and marking bills. Secret Service actually keeps track of those Serial Numbers.
--------------------
Besides, BTC is but the first popular poof-of-work cryptocoin. I don't think BTC is perfect for many reasons... I think DOGE is going in a better direction.
The article fails to mention any of _my_ complaints. The extremely long transaction time (10 minutes minimum, if you are willing to trust a 1-block confirmation), the deflationary nature (block chain rewards halving every couple of years). The hard cap at 21 million (DOGE has no cap on coins fyi).
You know, the legitimate complaints about BTC, the ones that people are trying to solve with alt-coins.
[+] [-] hershel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|12 years ago|reply
I would actually say its getting the general public informed. 75% of the US population are aging baby boomers. They can barely work an iphone, how the heck do you think they're ever going to accept cryptocurrency? Even with a ton of marketing, this is something that is completely foreign to 85% of the general population.
[+] [-] acconrad|12 years ago|reply
We make products and services with what we have available at the time, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are an indefinite solution, nor does it mean that we are going to hold our archaic solutions to the same standard we do with our new and improved solutions.
[+] [-] hapless|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bertil|12 years ago|reply
To be honest, I’ve been in Nordic countries for a year (where all transaction are card-based, and there is no minimum amount for payment) and that situation rung surprisingly true — especially after yesterday, when I was facing a coat valet who was expecting a ten crown in cash.
[+] [-] busterarm|12 years ago|reply
Anyway, folks' reactions to that much cash were pretty much "are you a drug dealer?", which was pretty funny.
At least I _always_ had cash for the Pølsevogn. :)
I had similar happen to me in Iceland but they're slightly more cash and "Yankee Plastic"-friendly.
[+] [-] williamcotton|12 years ago|reply
They were not hair-brained ideas established by anonymous individuals engaged in private debate outside of the forums of democracy.
Look, I know all of you are very excited about these experimental economic and political systems, but please realize that the existing world that you are "suffering" under was mainly developed as a slow process of evolution.
Most extreme revolutionary ideas take a long time to work their way in to the existing societal structures and way of life. When they're quickly forced on to people, all fucking hell breaks loose.
So for fucks sake, get some balance and control your zealotry, people!
And read some history books! The future is built from the past no matter how long or hard of a process that seems to be. Go with the flow!
Engage with other people. Engage with the existing institutions. Even if it is a better idea, there are billions of people who rely on the current system in ways that you can't predict.
[+] [-] alexmat|12 years ago|reply
Observation of the past does not allow one to accurately predict the future. I recommend Karl Popper's classic, "The Poverty of Historicism", which expounds on the topic.
[+] [-] ashray|12 years ago|reply
Something else that wasn't covered is that cash is also dirty and carries grime and infections. Ideally you should wash your hands before you eat if you handle any cash. (this is less of a problem with laminated/plastic notes like the CAD or EUR)
Imagine a super virus propagating and killing people through cash. Ouch!
[+] [-] hapless|12 years ago|reply
This is why regulation does not require food handlers to take special precautions while handling cash.
[+] [-] beobab|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keithgabryelski|12 years ago|reply
bank notes are a very simple system, so simple it has been used for over a thousand years.
[+] [-] teddyh|12 years ago|reply
http://www.icanbarelydraw.com/comic/2565
[+] [-] talmir|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|12 years ago|reply
Satire is an interesting way to analyze things, especially in this case.
[+] [-] the_watcher|12 years ago|reply
The more policy-oriented economic points aren't nearly as strong, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Just to be clear: I like Bitcoin a lot, but I don't think it will ever replace national currencies. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a lot of bitcoin detractors.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] raintrees|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alayne|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinzollars|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcslzr|12 years ago|reply