Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

itworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#21

Post by Malcx »

arethuza wrote: post #19
jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if it literally means they were thinking of duplicating the (world's first) digital peer-to-peer currency: http://www.bitcoin.org I think you forgot about digicash's product 'ecash'. Claiming a 'first' in any field is difficult, to claim a 'first' in payment systems is a very tricky affair. It may be that bitcoin is the first practical digital peer-to-peer currency but even that is up to interpretation, no…

Although not itself a currency, Mondex provided peer-to-peer cash transfers in the mid 90s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondex As far as I recall, you could various devices to transfer cash from one card to another - including over telephone lines, but I think it died before anyone thought of doing Mondex over the Internet.

I was part of the trial in Exeter from 96-99. This was only sort of p2p, it was used basically as a method of carrying "cash" without notes or coins. Everything still went through the central bank (Natwest I believe ran it?) That including records of every transaction.

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#22

Post by arethuza »

Malcx wrote: post #21
arethuza wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although not itself a currency, Mondex provided peer-to-peer cash transfers in the mid 90s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondex As far as I recall, you could various devices to transfer cash from one card to another - including over telephone lines, but I think it died before anyone thought of doing Mondex over the Internet.

I was part of the trial in Exeter from 96-99. This was only sort of p2p, it was used basically as a method of carrying "cash" without notes or coins. Everything still went through the central bank (Natwest I believe ran it?) That including records of every transaction.

We used to share an office with a company doing Mondex development - there certainly were devices produced (e.g. based on the Philips P100 'screenphone') that could do peer-to-peer transfers, don't know if that functionality ever went live though.

NB The P100 was an ADSI "desktop" phone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Display_Services_Interfa...

Edit: I'm pretty sure I remember them having two P100s in a test environment sending cash back and foreward between them - presumably to ensure that no money was magically created or lost.

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#23

Post by [deleted] »

arethuza wrote: post #22
Malcx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was part of the trial in Exeter from 96-99. This was only sort of p2p, it was used basically as a method of carrying "cash" without notes or coins. Everything still went through the central bank (Natwest I believe ran it?) That including records of every transaction.

We used to share an office with a company doing Mondex development - there certainly were devices produced (e.g. based on the Philips P100 'screenphone') that could do peer-to-peer transfers, don't know if that functionality ever went live though. NB The P100 was an ADSI "desktop" phone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Display_Services_Interfa... Edit: I'm pretty sure I remember them having two P100s in a test en…

[deleted]

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#25

Post by ljf »

samstave wrote: post #4
mrb wrote: post #2

> The idea was to implement a "peer-to-peer money" system. Wow. I wonder if it literally means they were thinking of duplicating the (world's first) digital peer-to-peer currency: http://www.bitcoin.org Or is Schmidt using the term "peer-to-peer" liberally? Edit: looks like I am right, a CNN article specifically mentions Bitcoin: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/28/technology/google_future_of_...

I lived on a hippy commune from 1974 to 1979 - we had our own currency then, called 'trash' in which we could buy anything we wanted. It was a peer-to-peer currency which was printed on the packs of cigarettes. When I was 4 years old, I bought my first vehicle with Trash, a golf cart which I drove around the property. Bit-coin may be digital, but it is not the first peer-to-peer currency. We also had our own TV stati…

Really interesting - is there anywhere documenting this commune or the currency - I'd love to read more about it, or just your personal experiences.

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#26

Post by ced »

samstave wrote: post #4
mrb wrote: post #2

> The idea was to implement a "peer-to-peer money" system. Wow. I wonder if it literally means they were thinking of duplicating the (world's first) digital peer-to-peer currency: http://www.bitcoin.org Or is Schmidt using the term "peer-to-peer" liberally? Edit: looks like I am right, a CNN article specifically mentions Bitcoin: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/28/technology/google_future_of_...

I lived on a hippy commune from 1974 to 1979 - we had our own currency then, called 'trash' in which we could buy anything we wanted. It was a peer-to-peer currency which was printed on the packs of cigarettes. When I was 4 years old, I bought my first vehicle with Trash, a golf cart which I drove around the property. Bit-coin may be digital, but it is not the first peer-to-peer currency. We also had our own TV stati…

How is the hippy currency peer-to-peer? Isn't it just like any other fiat currency?

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#27

Post by jandrewrogers »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8
jandrewrogers wrote: post #7

Interestingly, the relative weakness of reserve currencies has made this plausible in a real way. As the debt risk of countries becomes closer to the strongest multinationals it creates the possibility for the debt of multinationals to be lower risk than any currency it can be denominated in, which happened briefly a couple years ago for the first time ever. In effect, the debt instruments are currency. Right now, go…

Companies do have "currencies" that can hold value independent of FX - secured bonds. Otherwise, commodities take the role of liquid non-fiat value holders. Substituting a government-backed currency with a corporate-backed one is a terrible idea given that a corporate is subjugated to a sovereign (and pays its debt in sovereign currency [ignoring the marginal role in-kind bond payments play]). Thus, one is accepting…

The above is why this only applies to truly global multinationals that have their assets liberally distributed around the world. The risk exposure of a single government going rogue is mitigated by any particular government only having access to a fraction of the assets. If several governments go rogue at once then you have bigger problems to worry about.

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#28

Post by Drbble »

jacquesm wrote: post #17
mrb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do understand that the transfers were peer-to-peer. I could hand you eCash in an offline way, from my device to yours, as if I was handing you a bill, without going through a bank/clearing house network to authorize and validate the transfer. But the issuance of eCash was still done by the bank. This is what makes eCash not 100% decentralized... I would compare eCash to the "pseudo p2p" Napster file sharing network…

"Real" cash is also issued centrally but nobody doubts that it can be used in a 'peer to peer' fashion for payments. Anyway, I think we're well into 'no true Scotsman' territory here.

Real cash isn't peer to peer, is the point. Anyone can create bitcoin, without going to a bank. You can prefer a different term to p2p if you like, but parent's point was about the complete decentralization, not the word "p2p".

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#29

Post by Drbble »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #7

Interestingly, the relative weakness of reserve currencies has made this plausible in a real way. As the debt risk of countries becomes closer to the strongest multinationals it creates the possibility for the debt of multinationals to be lower risk than any currency it can be denominated in, which happened briefly a couple years ago for the first time ever. In effect, the debt instruments are currency. Right now, go…

How is that debt denominated in non-national-currency? In shares of stock?

Re: Google once considered issuing currency - Eric Schmidt

#30

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies do have "currencies" that can hold value independent of FX - secured bonds. Otherwise, commodities take the role of liquid non-fiat value holders. Substituting a government-backed currency with a corporate-backed one is a terrible idea given that a corporate is subjugated to a sovereign (and pays its debt in sovereign currency [ignoring the marginal role in-kind bond payments play]). Thus, one is accepting…

The above is why this only applies to truly global multinationals that have their assets liberally distributed around the world. The risk exposure of a single government going rogue is mitigated by any particular government only having access to a fraction of the assets. If several governments go rogue at once then you have bigger problems to worry about.

True - I just assumed multinationals given that the discussion is on sponsoring units of account to compete with sovereign currencies. I should have been clearer about that.
Post reply on HN