Full surveillance state sounds scary, but reliable, private, non-traceable financial transaction scares me more.
I wished all the articles promoting those schemes talk about potential risk, i.e. increased crime, and how they can be mitigated.
I wished all the articles promoting those schemes talk about potential risk, i.e. increased crime, and how they can be mitigated.
Or someone selling illegal weapons online. I realize that can be done in cash now, but it's easier with an untraceable digital currency.
If political opponents are moving and have provably robust infrastructure to organise it would get very, very scary. At the moment the police/authorities do make use of the ability to disrupt such things to keep the peace. In theory.
Although I personally think the trade off would be worth it. The social downs would go lower but the ups will more than offset that.
With untraceable non-reversible digital transactions you're very vulnerable to being robbed and completely wiped out.
Private non-traceable transactions of £100k? Enough money to move the needle on a political campaign or bribe a public official. Suddenly every cop or judge can be untraceably on the take. Law enforcement against crimes of the powerful becomes even harder.
Private non-traceable transactions of £1bn? Suddenly international sanctions don't work any more and you can't tell who's selling weapons to the Russians or funding the next 9/11.
The thing about cash is that the larger the transaction is the harder it is to hide. Digital transactions are the opposite: a micropayment and a megacrime are equally visible.
Westerners tend to forget, but corruption is real and left unchecked will destroy your society.