If I was running a large country, I'd want transactions to be entirely local for national security reasons. Generally, in the event of a world war, I wouldn't want it to be trivial for other countries to remotely cut off my whole economy.
> There is no bar on processing of payment transactions outside India if so desired by the PSOs. However, the data shall be stored only in India after the processing. The complete end-to-end transaction details should be part of the data.
So this only applies to the customer data, not the actual systems that do the transaction processing and verification. The systems that actually do the work could still be cut off from India, leaving them with nothing but a database of customer transactions.
As for avoiding war: sure, but how should we conduct things until utopia arrives?
Countries simply do not have the unilateral ability to avoid wars.
When a country can print itself out of debt (or more accurately, kick the can down the road for the next generation), war is inevitable. If we remove the ability to do this, a prolonged war becomes far less likely.
If a nation's neighbors have the capability to fight a years long war, but that same war would bankrupt the nation, then the
The game theory of the situation (again, from an individual nation's perspective) means no one nation will "remove the ability to do this" unless there's a massive collective action.
And I don't really see what a loose monetary policy could have anything to do with this. Before the 20th century countries rarely had the means to mobilize their economies by directing most of the output to the war effort, they had no capacity to enforce this and in any case there wasn't enough surplus produced to a wage total war without everyone starving to death and/or the central government collapsing.
When you cannot replace the capital spent on war via inflation, war is less likely to occur. I acknowledge this is a fringe philosophy, but time will tell.
Well the gold (or silver) standard had been a thing for thousands of years and I don't think there is much empirical evidence to suggest that a country's inability to control it's monetary policy somehow inherently disincentivizes it's government from waging wars.
Talking about inflation specifically, there was relatively little of it during both WW1 and WW2 since all countries implemented price controls and rationing and pretty much nationalized all the available production capacity.
I am arguing that if you remove the ability for a state to create money (or at least debase it), it removes the ability for it to wage war. Continuous war requires continuous capital to wage. If this continuity is ended, wars end.
> There was the debasement of the currency of the Roman Empire, War was the reason why Roman empire existed in the first place. In fact some argue that the Roman economy was only sustainable as long as Rome continued conquering new lands, enslaving their populations and taking away their property. As soon as the empire stopped expanding they were long able to maintain their army. Arguably, without debasement the collapse might have happened sooner they would have ran out of gold to pay their soldiers anyway.
A gun is useless against ECDSA. A government cannot stop a person holding, saving, spending or transacting in bitcoin. As long as there is a channel, anywhere in the universe that allows submission of valid, signed transactions to peers, the state cannot stop it.
"Should be sufficient" and "Will be sufficient" are different enough to cause anxiety for people who have to safeguard against those kinds of outcomes.
that's a silly remark. are you suggesting that countries can simply avoid wars and accept the consequences just because some credit cards will stop working ?
edit: formatting