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

Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 498 posts

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#131

Post by Exuma »

venusenvy47 wrote: post #94
thaumasiotes wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming they (or someone else) owned the notes, yes. By reducing their own holdings, they raised the value of everyone else's. If the notes were counterfeit or had otherwise managed to come into existence without being owned by anyone, then no.

Would it raise the value of the currency if the central bank didn't know this stash was destroyed? It seems like this pile of cash would still be considered to be "in circulation" until the central bank declared it to not be.

A better question is do I make everyone else’s dollar worth more for the duration that I hold and don’t spend my dollars

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#132

Post by amelius »

mypastself wrote: post #6

> [On] 23rd August 1994, the chaotic music duo and performance artists Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty burned £1m of notes behind a boathouse on the Scottish island of Jura. They are not alone in attempting to reduce money’s power… They literally increased the purchasing power of each remaining pound by doing so.

And the purchasing power of any pound still to be printed by the government.

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#133

Post by satellite2 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #112
venusenvy47 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it raise the value of the currency if the central bank didn't know this stash was destroyed? It seems like this pile of cash would still be considered to be "in circulation" until the central bank declared it to not be.

The central bank's knowledge isn't relevant in any way. The value of the currency goes up because the willingness of people to spend it went down. You can't spend money that doesn't exist, so this effect will occur regardless of anyone's knowledge of anything.

I don't really understand your comment.

Generally it's accepted that the value went up because it became more rare as the number of unit went down. Or similarly because if all the money represents the price of everything in the economy, as there is less money and assuming that everything in the economy didn't change, then everything has now a slightly lower price.

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#134

Post by coldtea »

ACS_Solver wrote: post #118
madsbuch wrote: post #11

I Denmark we are removing the 1000kr bill as of May 2025. from then on the highest bill. is 500kr which is roughly equal to 80 usd. Denmark Is the most cashless society I have yet experiences (and I have been traveling a fair bit). This comes with pros and cons. and I think the reason why it works is because of an incredibly high social trust.

I'm in Sweden, a strong contender for the most cashless country, and I don't know what the banknotes look like. They were changed some 5 or 6 years ago and I haven't paid with or even withdrawn cash since then. For illustration, cash is generally not accepted outside of grocery stores and some chains. For a typical restaurant, coffee shop or takeaway there's very little chance they take cash. Street vendors may take…

>I'm also very concerned about privacy, I'm that sort of HN person - never had a Facebook account, run self-hosted email for 20 years, use Signal for messaging as much as I can, etc. But I don't think cash is a good solution to privacy. I'd rather see laws and (better) cryptocurrencies as the privacy toolkit.

We wont see those. Instead we'll see more enchroachment of privacy - because cash was actually the solution: existing for millenia, trusted, no transaction fees, no monitoring of purchases, non remotely invalidated, not requiring fancy technology to use, works from buying a car to getting some help as a beggar on the streets.

>That at least is illegal here.

Would that ever stopped companies pulling that shit?

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#135

Post by 34679 »

hasty_pudding wrote: post #107
nonrandomstring wrote: post #102

There are two fallacies I frequently feel the need to debunk in this discussion. - Cash is anonymous - Cash is an "old" or "low" technology. When a serious crime is committed you might be surprised how much the police can do to trace cash. Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked, and frequently your face is captured by cameras in stores, ATMs and vending machines. Modern cash is high technology . Look…

> Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked Is this true? When I buy something from my local gas station is there a system in place tracking every serial number exchanged on the cash?

Not in the US. There are no laws requiring businesses to do so. Why would employers spend the resources required for such a thing?

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#136

Post by asystole »

arthur_sav wrote: post #109
asystole wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have this. It's called bitcoin. For offline payments, there's physical devices like opendime and potentially Chaumian mints like cashu.

Lets be honest, bitcoin is not usable for every day transactions.

OK, honest question, have you tried it recently? Have you used a modern lightning wallet?

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#137

Post by ghaff »

cge wrote: post #85
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can barely enjoy a full day without being required to bring my phone / debit card with me because the register does not accept cash. Buy somewhere else (if humanly possible), and tell this to the vendor who doesn't want to accept cash.

This is increasingly difficult, at least in Western Europe, without it being a significant imposition. I've had several instances where, despite absolutely no signage or indication anywhere outside the business, inside the business, or on the menu, I've waited in a queue, ordered something, and only when I'm ready to pay been told that the, eg, coffee shop won't accept cash. I've also been to several restaurants, esp…

I assume part of it is that if you accept any cash, you have most of the downsides without any of the upsides (e.g. not having to deposit cash at the bank).

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#138

Post by nonrandomstring »

coldtea wrote: post #105
nonrandomstring wrote: post #102

There are two fallacies I frequently feel the need to debunk in this discussion. - Cash is anonymous - Cash is an "old" or "low" technology. When a serious crime is committed you might be surprised how much the police can do to trace cash. Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked, and frequently your face is captured by cameras in stores, ATMs and vending machines. Modern cash is high technology . Look…

> When a serious crime is committed you might be surprised how much the police can do to trace cash. Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked, and frequently your face is captured by cameras in stores, ATMs and vending machines. Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime". Your buying something is not logged anywhere, for example.

> Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime".

Exactly. Almost all cash transactions remain anonymous because there's no criminal investigation involved.

Most people are honest and just going about their business with friends and family.

That's how it should be.

A cost bar for tracing is a desirable feature for non-authoritarian societies.

Digital currency mediated by bank apps, active cards, smartphones or whatever, makes for "convenience" but also zero cost to spy on people who are not criminals. And that's a problem.

So maybe it is here. Or there. I'm not sure where you're standing :)

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#139

Post by GeoAtreides »

ghaff wrote: post #104
rwmj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone I need to pay regularly like a cleaner I would set up a bank transfer recipient in my banking app (or website) and then payments - either one offs or regularly scheduled - are simple, instant and free.

And so is writing a check and leaving it on the counter--especially for a service that is somewhat predictable but actually isn't on a set schedule. She texts me that she's coming next week, I write a check and leave it on the counter, done.

Well, it's not really done, is it? She has to go to the bank and cash the check, right? It's not the end of the world, sure, but it's an extra trip compared with a bank transfer -- with a bank transfer she has the money ready to be used immediately.

Re: Physical cash is dying–and you don't need to be a conspiracist to worry

#140

Post by berkes »

unicornmama wrote: post #56
berkes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really really really would think that Bitcoin fills this exact need. There's a lot wrong with the cryptocurrency world and with Bitcoin specifically. So much wrong, that I'm afraid we closed the one way out of government and corporate-controlled "digital money" and all the risks that comes with. But maybe it never was a good "way out" in the first place: maybe there never was a way out at all. I keep hoping the gri…

This is preposterous. Bitcoin is more traceable, more transparent and more censorship prone than every form of currency conveyance we know of including cash, diamonds, physical gold, etc… The fact that’s 2024 and some people still believe Bitcoin enables privacy just goes to show how crypto enthusiasts are candy brained fanatics.

Why is this "preposterous"? I never mentioned privacy, and certainly never claimed bitcoin provides it.

Also, bitcoin never claimed to enable privacy (contrary to monero and zcash). All it ever claimed was to be pseudonymous. It has been crystal clear to anyone in the field that "if people can link your addresses to your person, they know all your transactions". In fact, this has often been presented as a feature (though I personally don't really think it is a good one) in which e.g. all payments to and by a politician or NGO can be transparantly tracked by the public.

Post reply on HN