Live data from Hacker News

What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

economist.com

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#81
post #14

Important note: central bank digital currencies are not crypto currrencies. They are not block chains. They are not decentralized. They are not permissionless. I cannot find a record of any CBDC which clearly states that it want's to use any of these technologies. I'd be interested to be proven wrong. Central bank digital currencies are essentially a new hybrid monetary/fiscal policy tool. Historically the Federal re…

The BIS released a paper where they argue for permissioned ledgers for central bank digital currencies because you can tie that to identity, government benefits, and things like money laundering.

But centralized also means "subject to control by dictatorships" which is not nice.

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#82
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea of these new CBDCs is to setup a similar system but where the digital currency could be distributed to individual citizens. I don't think this is the point of CBDC at all. Individual citizens gain nothing with the ability to sell financial assets to the CB, and neither does the CB.

The idea here is about security of money: the money stored in the CB ledger does not lose i ts contractual value in difficult times, as it is garanteed by the central bank. Compare that to your money in your bank, which is backed at 10% with fiat reserves. If crisis happens and people want to pull their cash out the bank goes bankrupt. Central banks do not go bankrupt, hence your money is always safe.

Sure, but bank deposits are very secure anyway. They are protected by insurance and by central banks which provide liquidity to commercial banks that are experiencing financial distress.

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#83
post #20
post #14

Important note: central bank digital currencies are not crypto currrencies. They are not block chains. They are not decentralized. They are not permissionless. I cannot find a record of any CBDC which clearly states that it want's to use any of these technologies. I'd be interested to be proven wrong. Central bank digital currencies are essentially a new hybrid monetary/fiscal policy tool. Historically the Federal re…

If you really just want everyone to have access to banking, create post banking. [1] Then, if you really just want everyone to get monthly checks from the government, deposit them electronically. That’s all you need to do. This already works in many countries. It can even work in the US with a bit of spit and polish (we used to have a post banking service and it’s been proposed to be reinstated). [1] https://en.m.wik…

As a german I don't see it. We had the "Postbarscheck", which is now gone. Since maybe about 20 years? That is not the direction they/them/the Reptiloids want to march the human cattle in. There need to be more efficient 'dig it all' threadmills. Anyways. Don't care. Am banked. Multiple times. Even have Alipay, Yay!

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Bitcoin is not a Ponzi. A Ponzi scheme has a very particular set of characteristics. Bitcoin is not even a pyramid scheme. It does not require new buyers for its value to increase. It currently is highly speculative and manic market, possibly a bubble. The quality of your link speaks for itself, it reads like schizoid scribbles.

Uhh.. Where do you think this number that you call "value" comes from? It comes from the crypto exchanges. The value. Is the latest settled sale. So when someone sets a sell price and someone buys at that btc, is when the value is set. So yeh. You absolutely need new buyers for its value to increase.

Needing new buyers for price to increase is not the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Because that is true for any speculative asset due to the price setting mechanism. Your argument entails that the price of Bitcoin is highly inflated over its fundamental value, i.e. that it is a speculative bubble. Speculative bubbles are very different from Ponzi schemes. A Ponzi scheme has the following definition according to the SEC:

>“A Ponzi scheme is an invest­ment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraud­sters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves."

Ponzi schemes require a central fraudster to pass on money directly from old to new investors with the underlying asset obfuscatedly held on promise by the fraudster.

With cryptocurrency the buyer has control of the commodity, you actually have control of the crypto, there is no promise of a consistent return with little risk, there is no central entity defrauding targets with promises that hold the asset in reserve passing on money directly from new to old investors.

What we do have is a speculative bubble which will no doubt be devastating for new investors when it collapses. But the definition of a Ponzi scheme is not met.

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#85
post #43
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that digital currency is a fancy term for a direct deposit? Basically yes, but specifically only for the case of a direct deposit between the Federal reserve and an individual. That doesn't currently exist. But that's also basically my point. CBDCs are nothing new from an operational or technological perspective which I think is something many people are getting confused about. They are a new thing i…

Fair enough. I guess it feels almost unbelievable that all this fuss is over something so mundane. I guess i dont really understand why though. It sounds like the central bank is thinking about becoming, well, a normal bank. We already have normal banks. Governments can already transfer cash to accounts in normal banks. Governments can already sell bonds to people who want some sort of very stable investment backed b…

Eliminating the man in the middle(What you call normal banks). Saving costs(Fuck them all!). Tracking(Harr Harr!). Control(Control!). Whatever(Yes. Really.)

Btw. from my point of view the central bank thing would be the normal, what we have now is an inversion, IMO. We're just used to it because that's how it was and is until now.

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important note: bitcoin is a ponzi [1] and not digital gold. Learn how the investment fraud works. [1] https://github.com/openblockchains/bitcoin-ponzi

I thought the real value of Bitcoin is hiding shady deals: drugs, money laundering, etc. Needless to say, there is plenty of that to drive Bitcoin value up.

Hiding by making a permanent and public record of every shady deal? ;)

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#87
Here's what I'm most interested in here: right now, if I'm using an alternative mobile OS (besides iOS or Android), it's basically impossible for me to implement digital payments through existing payment networks. On the other hand, because cryptocurrencies are FOSS and very well-standardized, it's very possible to implement a cryptocurrency wallet.

If central-bank digital currencies are closer to cryptocurrencies in this regard, and the protocol is standardized enough that mobile Linux OSes can have wallets... that'll be very much appreciated. I'd love to have mobile payments but not depend on Apple or Google.

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#88
CBDCs are not cryptocurrencies. Central banks are simply running their money transfer servers 24/7. It’s insane they haven’t done this before. Major economies will not offer central bank accounts to individuals because it would raise funding costs for banks. And the central bank doesn’t want to deal with customers directly.

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#89

Digital currencies allow for full tracking of every transactions and are a privacy nightmare. They allow applying negative interest rate on everybody and they would facilitate neverending hyperinflation (no need to print new bills at great expense). Hence they can't coexist with cash so say goodbye to cash. I don't like where we're going.

> Digital currencies allow for full tracking of every transaction

This is an implementation detail. Merely adding “digital currency” in the sense of “personal accounts at the treasury” isn’t proper cash replacement.

It is however possible to make a more anonymous kind of e-cash in which your transactions are not tracked. Chaum E-cash and similar ideas are useful cash-replacements. They aren’t without their on problems so e.g the Swedish central bank appears to be eyeing a double system where you have both types of system: a centralized/non-anonymous store and a token based type which provides anonymity. The latter could be used with a cap on transactions because if it’s properties wrt double spending.

Re: What is the fuss over central-bank digital currencies?

#90

Here's what I'm most interested in here: right now, if I'm using an alternative mobile OS (besides iOS or Android), it's basically impossible for me to implement digital payments through existing payment networks. On the other hand, because cryptocurrencies are FOSS and very well-standardized, it's very possible to implement a cryptocurrency wallet. If central-bank digital currencies are closer to cryptocurrencies in…

I’d wager that only very progressive and liberal countries would have this degree of openness. Think Switzerland and Holland. Most countries will distribute their own apps (which may also spy on you) and/or use preferred technology partners.
Post reply on HN