where's simonw's blog post about this
I'm not for it, don't want it, but I can't help myself but to see that as the future, as fraud ramps up even more, gets cheaper and businesses feel they have no other way to combat it except adding more tracking everywhere, something blockchains and cryptocurrencies excel at, for better or worse.
I'm not sure either, it's mostly a guess I guess, more than a prediction. But if companies/governments can get more tracking, usually that's the way they move.
So if the companies that are complaining in the article implements your simple measures, does that mean the fraud problem they're talking about have been solved already? That begs the question, why aren't they just doing that then?
Traditional banking already does this very well in most countries, through centralized systems with multiple redundant tracking and audit methods. Furthermore, crypto transaction fees are ludicrously high by comparision, and rarely offer the combination of "fast transactions" and "undo button" that traditional banking can provide.
So how does traditional banking solve the very problem the submission article is about? Companies seem to say this is an issue today, some seeing 15% fraudulent receipts, if traditional banking did these things well, why are these companies still seeing these issue?
Again, I'm not arguing that things will be better with cryptocurrencies, just that if we suddenly see companies and governments urging people to adopt cryptocurrencies, I'd totally understand why, although I'd push against it as much as I could.
Once it happens in the future, probably because the already rich politicians have loaded up on some specific cryptocurrency they then try to pitch as the official currency for their country. Already happened once, and I'm sure we'll see more of it in the future as the overton window moves when the population gets older.
I don't think it's a good idea, I'm not eager to reach that future, but it's hard not to have the most negative view of the future considering what's happening in the moment around the world. I guess I'm too pessimistic not to see that as the eventual outcome.
In Estonia, the government offers public key infrastructure, so any party needing to prove legitimacy of documents from a 3rd party can get it digitally signed by the originator. For example, when you need a bank statement, you can just download a signed PDF (technically it's a zip, but whatever) that proves the legal entity (or person) that ensures it's legitimate.
Agreed! But if I've learned anything in my years on earth so far, is that anything that can be misused, will be misused, and if companies and government can do something that adds more abilities for tracking people, they'll go that way. If it can work cross-border, give people the impression it's "the future" and let companies/governments get more power, then they'll continuously push for that future.
I have had to occasionally expense something on a personal card and I had to get multiple levels of manager approval afterwards (not difficult, just explained the circumstance to them.)
Your reply is a good example. I said "I'm not arguing that things will be better with cryptocurrencies" and you say "because you are promoting cryptocurrency". I'm sure some people like this way of conversing, but for me it's exhausting, like what's the point?
And yeah they are already pushing for this for a long time already
Are those "digital currencies" not using cryptography? If so, they're a cryptocurrency, regardless how centralized or not they are. See Tether for an example of a centralized "cryptocurrency" (not "digital currency").
