Live data from Hacker News

US Digital Currency

blog.samaltman.com

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: US Digital Currency

#61

As others have already commented, existing currencies are already "digital". On my most recent trip abroad (to Copenhagen) I took some physical currency, and didn't use it at all. Every transaction was digital and instantaneous (I use a Monzo Mastercard). I got a smartphone notification within 5 seconds of having approved the transaction. The original promise of "cryptocurrencies" appeared, to me, to be decentralizat…

Having transaction data hidden from governments isn't the essential feature of decentralization in the original promise of cryptocurrencies. The essential feature is preventing a single party from tampering with transactions or account balances. This is still true for bitcoin and many others.

> The essential feature is preventing a single party from tampering with transactions or account balances.

Are there examples of this actually happening? I'd think that would be pretty damaging to any bank that engaged in such behavior.

Re: US Digital Currency

#62
One of the key properties of a decentralized cryptocurrency is the absolute control of a private key holder over his/her wallet.

My question is this: in the proposed scheme if 80-year-old Uncle Jim forgets/misplaces his private key, will the US government really just sit back and say "tough, I guess you just irrevocably lost all your USDC"? Or will they put in some kind of appeal process/back door to allow Uncle Jim to regain access to his funds?

Because if that back door exists -- and I have trouble imagining the US (or any other pragmatic) government building a meaningful system without it -- then the currency isn't actually decentralized anymore, and you might as well drop the "crypto" overhead entirely.

Re: US Digital Currency

#63
I've been thinking about the idea of USG moving to BitDollars for a while here. I think Sam touches on some of the smaller potential benefits here, particularly the potential to have built in tax system. But is completely missing some of the bigger benefits, instead tying most of it back to UBI. Which I don't think gets particularly easier or more likely with BitDollars, and also IMO provides no benefit to society. Here's what I think are some of the truly revolutionary things about BitDollars:

1. It may allow us to get rid of banks. Now this is a pie in the sky vision here, banks do a lot of things. But the most basic thing they do for individuals, storing your money for you so you can spend it later in a more convenient way, is completely obviated by Bit$s. Some of what banks do isn't going to be obviated by Bit$s, I still think there will be a market for loaning money, but it will probably looks quite different.

2. It may allow USG to tax the entire world. US dollars are already among, if not the, de facto international currency. Although this position may be waning. But if Bit$s were the first ever government backed cryptocurrency that people trusted they could wind up being the world's currency. Right now, when people use dollars outside the US, there's no way for USG to levy taxes on them. That changes if you control the entire stack including the mechanism of exchange, you could bake taxes right into the currency. It would be a new form of colonization, cryptocolonization. Now, I suspect the HN crowd pales at the idea of tech being used as a method of colonization, but consider: if this is a risk, then if USG doesn't do it someone else will. Would you rather be paying Russia taxes on your BitRubles?

The biggest political question with respect to BitDollars is whether or not USG will maintain their right of seigniorage? It seems unlikely that such a right would be given up willingly, but on the other hand it's very antithetical to what cryptocurrencies are, at least today.

Re: US Digital Currency

#64
post #14

>Ideally the initial coins would be evenly distributed to US citizens and taxpayers— [...] The government can likely create a lot of de novo wealth for its citizens in the process. This USDC proposal seems to reiterate the same themes as a previous blog post "American Equity".[1] >, but I think the network needs to be mostly in charge (e.g., the government couldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily inflate the currency when…

you can build in inflation into any crypto if you want. It is just the parameters you set when you create it. Bitcoin has fixed supply, but there are plenty of other altcoins that have inflationary aspects to the coin. Until recently, I thought inflation was bad, but it can have positive aspects to re-distribute currency to spenders and non-hodlers. Its a way for people to get access to new money that otherwise is held by a few.

Re: US Digital Currency

#65
> The current practices seem to be for governments to mostly ignore cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency enthusiasts to mostly ignore government, which seems to me to be unsustainable in both directions.

Completely untrue. To state this expresses a deep misunderstanding, or a desire to obscure the truth. Governments can damn well keep ignoring crypto, because Governments are the one with actual power here. Governments do not need crypto, crypto needs the government.

Re: US Digital Currency

#66

Why the hell is it a foregone conclusion that government-blessed money would need to surveillance built in ("USDC could require that certain [all] transaction can only happen with wallets with known owners")? I know that's clearly what the totalitarian pervs in power desire, but why would someone out in the free world just accept and advocate such a thing?! USG could have started issuing simple Chaumian-blinded token…

Chaum blind-signed tokens are vulnerable to double-spends. As far as I understand it, this is unfixable without appealing to the issuer and keeping revocations lists.

Re: US Digital Currency

#67
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that's not really cryptocurrency anymore Why not?

The "crypto" in "cryptocurrency" refers to the use of encryption primitives and digital signatures to ensure the authenticity of one's balance without needing to trust a central authority. If you're trusting a central authority anyway, then all this is unnecessary, and you can replace it all with an API over a database, as paulmd's post suggests. But then you've eliminated the whole reason why people use cryptocurren…

The FED can still be a central issuer, and a digital USD can thus still be considered a cryptocurrency.

Re: US Digital Currency

#68
> the government couldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily inflate the currency when it wanted to

Author doesn't really understand how international monetary systems work. His own country is "printing" money all the time and then using its global position to divide the cost of inflation on other countries. USA can do that because most of resources exchange (with oil included) is done in US dollar. They also do clever accounting trick using FED so theoretically they are not printing any money, they are just "lending" them.

Which problem US digital coin would solve? Privacy? This would be nightmare for AML/KYC policies, tax evasion etc.

If you consider all the rogue system players then you need to think about reverting transactions, you need to think about money laundering etc.

This coin would need to have some value, trust is not enough or this would be very volatile instrument. You could ride this new US digital coin and influence USD, so government would need to have tools to intervene and control this coin, which invalidates author point about making coin more independent from government.

There are so many problems with coins backed by countries without giving governments tools to control those coins, but if you add all those tools then what's the point? It will be so similar to current monetary system.

Re: US Digital Currency

#69
post #43

How would this be better than what we have now? If the answer is "cryptocurrency increases in value," I can assure you that's a terrible reason. Cryptocurrency is slower than card networks. It's more expensive than practically any other way of sending money. And as far as scale goes, it would need to become orders of magnitude more efficient to handle even a small percentage of consumer transactions. After all, what'…

You've only scratched the surface of cryptocurrencies and come here to make bold, completely untrue statements about their properties. Having a central actor, like a government, would solve a lot of scaling problem, as well as transaction history issues and also cost associated with making transactions.

> Having a central actor, like a government, would solve a lot of scaling problem, as well as transaction history issues and also cost associated with making transactions.

Then why Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. instead of USD? Why the need for a crypto currency if everything is already in place? In place with laws and regulations.

Re: US Digital Currency

#70
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You live in a bubble, your argument is not valid for millions of people that don’t have bank accounts, have you seen western union fees? Africa and Latin America will embrace cryptocurrencies because it will be faster and cheaper and will not require people to open a bank account, only a cell phone with data which most people already have

Payments in developing countries is already fast through the use of mobile phones, no cryptocurrency overhead required.

Which apps or companies are these? I have not heard of widespread use of mobile payments in developing countries besides China.
Post reply on HN