Hacker News Reader

Comment by sofixa | Hacker News Reader

This is the main reason why card/phone payments are taking over. It isn't some grand conspiracy by banks/shadowy cabals/governments - it's just much more practical than to pay with cash. Also the fact that it costs less to accept card payments only than deal with cash for small places (coffe shops and the like).

The correct course of action here is government regulations ensuring an even playing field for payment providers, transaction fees caps, and strong privacy protections around them. Not luddite nonsense like forcing cash to be accepted everywhere.

View on HN

How is an even playing field going to help with the fact that you need permission to spend your money?

If there's a guarantee that, within reason (by that I mean, if you're literally trafficking people or something of the like, that's not reasonable), you can spend your money, what's the issue?

The issue is that there's no such guarantee.

That's what I'm saying. Those are the things that need to be fixed, not cash mandates.

But there can't be any such guarantee, because a centralized system is too easy to take control of. If a government at some point wants to freeze your assets, you're done. With cash, at least you have some options.

By the same logic, if the government wants to murder you, it can, so why live?

Just to go with this weird analogy, yes, I'll prefer to be immortal rather than to trust that the government won't try to murder me.

Don't complain to me if this doesn't make sense, you started it.

What happened in Canada strongly indicates that a cashless society is as bad as it sounds. China did it and, well, we don't have to guess what happened next. Canada, a Western country with lots of "freedoms", did what it did because those truckers, etc... were a "threat" to "democracy".

I advocate for every form of payment to be conducted without restrictions: cash, deposits, debit, credit, crypto, etc... That's true freedom, not eliminate all options but credit/debit.

> Canada, a Western country with lots of "freedoms", did what it did because those truckers, etc... were a "threat" to "democracy".

Can you stop exaggerating for dramatic effect? You can agree with them all you want, but occupying public places for weeks in a highly disruptive normal is a threat, yes. Anywhere on the planet, try pulling the shit those people did (half of what they were protesting about didn't exist, and the other half was obviously misinformed nonsense fundamentally misunderstanding a pandemic; they were obviously fed, and quite publicly sponsored by, the American far-right nonsense politics), and you'll see what happens.

As members of society, we cannot condone a violent and disruptive occupation of public places for weeks on end. Even if we agree with the cause (and to be clear - nobody sane could agree with their cause).

"...forest for the trees" my friend. "...Forest for the trees...".

You’re gonna end up with a shitty society then. I’m one sane person who could agree which invalidates your conclusion

Anarchy might be fine for you, but it isn't for most. Hell, many people can barely tolerate a regular protest, let alone a multi week aggressively disruptive one occupying a public space.

I would only trust Monero-like tech for that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com