101–110 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could argue it's inherent in a right to privacy.
I'm just not sure you can construct a coherent argument around that though. Obviously a seller isn't obligated to accept cash; is there a suggestion that we should legally require sellers to do so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is still much more of a hassle to manage than credit or debit cards are I don't really get this. I use credit cards (almost entirely online), but I've never used a debit card. Not out of any deep-seated aversion, I just don't see the point.
The appeal is largely that credit cards let you spend money you don't have, and debit cards, by definition, don't. For people who have a hard time operating within their budget with credit cards, this is a huge difference.
My tinfoil-hatted side does wonder whether this is half the motivation of these new "convenient" debit mechanisms - like those fake "points" currencies used by various stores and in-app purchase schemes, I'm sure people spend more money when it doesn't feel like spending money.
Agree re credit cards, but I never carry a balance, they're just a payment mechanism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is still much more of a hassle to manage than credit or debit cards are I don't really get this. I use credit cards (almost entirely online), but I've never used a debit card. Not out of any deep-seated aversion, I just don't see the point.
I am exactly the opposite. I use a debit card, but I've never used a credit card. Why would I want to borrow money (and risk owing interest), if I already have money readily accessible via my debit card?
- Free perks like rental car insurance and extended warranties
- You never have to worry about your bank account being cleared out
If you pay your bill this all comes for free. It's a pretty amazing deal actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is still much more of a hassle to manage than credit or debit cards are I don't really get this. I use credit cards (almost entirely online), but I've never used a debit card. Not out of any deep-seated aversion, I just don't see the point.
I am exactly the opposite. I use a debit card, but I've never used a credit card. Why would I want to borrow money (and risk owing interest), if I already have money readily accessible via my debit card?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very complicated to articulate exactly who can block Bitcoin transactions. The traditional simple answer is that "a majority of mining power" can block an individual transaction by refusing to include it in blocks. However, they have to be pretty committed to this, because if someone outside of the group does eventually mine a block that contains the censored transaction, the group members also have to be willin…
The economics of bitcoin and all alt coins mean some company will have the most efficient solution long term and thus mine far more than 51%. And once someone can mine 80+% of a block chain they can do what they want with it. PS: Add up the Chinese pools and one country effectively already controls bitcoin.
Looking at the chart, you can see that the top 5 mining pools can collude in being a single entity to "control" the blockchain (I believe this is called a Sybil attack [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack]). Now keeping incentives in mind, the idea is that people using bitcoin have faith in the system. That gives bitcoins value. Miners get paid in bitcoin. If they were to manipulate the blockchain, that would most likely cause bitcoin's userbase to lose faith in the system and thus what the miners would be stealing would suddenly have little to no value.
I'm not positive, but I recall hearing that pools have been intentionally been made smaller to keep users' faith in the system. Perhaps the goal of these majority mining power is not to steal bitcoin but censor certain users? That may be a bit more complicated depending on the users' opinions on a case-by-case basis. Fun stuff :)
In my experience as a college student, it is exceedingly rare to use cash, especially cash in amounts greater than $5, for anything other than crime. While you can argue that one should be able to reasonably break laws and not get caught - anything else is a surveillance state and there is value to discretionary enforcement - I wouldn't characterize criticism of cash as just manipulative. For example, on my campus, t…
In my experience as a college student, it is exceedingly rare to use cash, especially cash in amounts greater than $5, for anything other than crime. While you can argue that one should be able to reasonably break laws and not get caught - anything else is a surveillance state and there is value to discretionary enforcement - I wouldn't characterize criticism of cash as just manipulative. For example, on my campus, t…
You must live in a bubble then. I live in a beach town where there are many small restaurants, souvenir stores etc. that only take cash. (It's not a problem for the tourists because there are many ATMs). Once you leave your bubble there are also farm stands, yard sales and so on.
The core concept to remember I think is that there are two ways to pay for things: * Ways that involve cash or cash equivalents * Ways where a purchase requires the permission of someone else Just think of the word authorization, which is a required element of essentially all non-cash transactions. It has the word authority embedded right in it. If you're OK with that concept, you are necessarily OK with the idea tha…
I get it, but think of what you're getting in return. The example in the article, about the Coke vending machine. Imagine in the past, before vending machines - the only way you would be able to buy a Coke in that particular area would be if there was enough foot traffic to justify a full time real human being to sit there all day, with inventory of soft drinks, and exchange your cash for them. The opportunity cost a…
(BTW not downvoting you, but your comment does inexplicably ignore coin op machines which are an existent, good solution.)
The core concept to remember I think is that there are two ways to pay for things: * Ways that involve cash or cash equivalents * Ways where a purchase requires the permission of someone else Just think of the word authorization, which is a required element of essentially all non-cash transactions. It has the word authority embedded right in it. If you're OK with that concept, you are necessarily OK with the idea tha…
A cashless society would be an attempt to create a society that lacks basic economic freedom, but it would also fail. People will simply return to barter, and the use of whatever precious metals/stones/etc are hot that year.
In what societies have humans used barter?
I suspect we would instead use something like tobacco, laundry detergent, or startup t-shirts as cash or we would keep a mental register of who owes whom a favor.
The only other instance is pharmaceuticals, that industry being "for profit" is nothing but bad news.