I agree that bad things would happen if everyone was forced to use a currency they don't want to use, but that's kind of axiomatic. The stop to lending is the actual balance of assets is also regulated. I was about to write "cannot" but then remembered Civil Forfeiture in the US.
Banks already arbitrarily shut down bank accounts with no recourse. Right now they don't they at least need a court order (i. e. they'd have to prove probably cause) to compel a bank to give them people's data? In this light crypto was always doomed to fail in this way. Records are maintained at the edge. That form of money will simply never be widely used in the US. If the digital currency is so restricted that people would rather use cash, it will death spiral to zero as merchants who accept it can't trade it for full value to others. But the bank becomes insolvent only when it is forced to fire sell assets or recognize their dubious value. It could still potentially turn bad, but it looks to my (admittedly not highly experienced eye) that the BoE is trying to design a system that is reasonably resilient to the type of tampering and control that many people fear. Enabling a behavior en masse with little to no friction is not at all the same as something targeted that requires noticeable resource expenditure to carry it out in each individual instance. The lords coins aren t decreasing. The main feedback they are looking for is: - 64-bit: Are you able to log in and run around with the 64-bit client (easy) – FEEDBACK THREAD. Banks lend at certain multiples of assets, 10:1.
Sir Jon Cunliffe, a deputy Governor at the Bank, said digital currencies could be programmed for commercial or social purposes... "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn't be used for sweets. I think the assumption here is that money is like a physical commodity. Its implementation would be the most dystopian possible development. It isn't a new idea [1][2]. ) I can't possibly see how this could go wrong. 1] There are a couple of chaumian mint systems in development in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The reserve ratio back in his day was more like 20-25%, these days it is down to about 1-2% in most countries, and being replaced with terms like "required liquidity ratios". The lord s coins aren t decreasing novel. We learned in world wars that "territorially divided" is a very important part. So, I get your point, and I don't necessarily disagree. Filling a tax form every year and paying what you calculated under the threat of arrest (while telling yourself you are voluntarily contributing to society and less fortunate) or being raided by a warband with guns on random intervals taking whatever they please and leaving you only what they at the time believe will let you bounce back so they can raid you again sometime in the future? Money that is programmed to only be spent on certain goods or services.
Most concern is about how mundane transactions are tracked. Each month your work unit issued a new ration book for the month that is based on your families' allotment of grains, cooking oil, clothing, soap, etc. If our aforementioned bank's customer "transfers" their $20 to another bank, the message would go across SWIFT or CHIPS or whatever, and then the sender's bank would credit the recipient bank's account at the sender's bank. The lord coins aren't decreasing. If you know anything about it, you probably are aware it's accounting related rather than technology related. So my main point is, I trust the government's inertia and inefficiency much more than its good intentions. Every fractional-reserve bank is insolvent in the short run. If you don't think cigarettes should be banned, fine. You aren't seriously trying to imply that it would be feasible for a government to decide to seize 5% of everyone's bank accounts at present?
How quickly could you undermine other currency's like the Dollar or Euro if a population were to suddenly adopt this change of behaviour? By putting it into the programming of the money, you make the control more precise - you can only buy 1 sugary drink a day, for example. In the US this is not actually part of any regulatory regime limiting the amount a bank can loan*. In a system where deposits are loaned out, this cannot happen. For example, cities' anti-camping laws basically only apply to the homeless, because no-one chooses on a whim to camp in downtown Los Angeles. To be clear, this would be a nightmare, I think! What kind of opression do you prefer? The centralization of information is going to happen one way or another (the powers that be wouldn't have it any other way), and we've already been on this trajectory. If all a CBDC is is digital cash, then we already have that system (Visa, e-payments, etc) and things won't change much but if a CBDC is a programmable form of money that can be disabled, inflated at will, turned off, or only allowed to buy certain goods - then there is no limit to the amount of tyranny that will be on hand. The fact that account holders would withdraw if rates on savings became negative is why central banks presently are unable to reduce the interest rate (significantly) below zero.
There's already a much more streamlined legal mechanism for this: taxes. Imagine going back to 1999, before clickbait journalism, when newspapers were incredibly well staffed with fact checkers and when long form journalists could easily spend months upon months on a single article. Those balance of assets are scored both against market risk and credit risk. Edit: I realize now that I forgot to specify that I meant a single $101 loan in my original comment. That's not how consolidation of power by a government works. It's just exorbitantly levered. The US police seizure system does this; I submit that if this happens you have a serious rule-of-law problem and already, or are about to, have bigger problems. If the customer asks for their $20 in cash or to be transferred via Fedwire, on the other hand, the latter being both a messaging and settlement system, run risk emerges. The good thing about digital currencies is that'll actually take power away from commercial banks. If the PTS is open and your account has access to it, the lower left corner of the launcher will now have two buttons. Governments re-issue all the money quite often. An authoritarian government takes whatever powers it wants and wipes its arse with any rules that have been written to supposedly prevent it.
I guess the horrible bureucratic solution would be to get a 'sugar license' or similar. Your causality is backwards. The whole point of money is that it's the common means of exchange, it's not very useful as money if only some people use it. When a bank "lends" you $100 it just creates two entries: one in your current account that says +$100 and one in your loan account that says -$100. The problem is that particular law, every single word of it. However, by the "rule-of-law" it is the law. Everything was rationed not just food, but bolts of clothes, consumer goods of any type, electronics (if you were fortunate enough to be able to afford it). The quiet power grab is this being, with virtually zero debate, a central bank's digital currency versus e. g. an independent public bank's. Once it's downloaded, sign in as usual to play. You can do with it as you will once you receive it. But I don't think it's worth the longer-term risk. 1] Essentially with respect to the banking system, economics has built on a false understanding of how it works (fundamentally the incorrect claim that banks lend out their depositors funds), and never gone back to fix that with a correct understanding. The traditional answer when people go down this path is "what ever the producer and consumer agree the price is based on a currency denominated in joules that can be extracted from an atom".
I am actually for digital currencies, but I personally think we need to make them like digital cash. No, it isn't, though misunderstanding it isn't even fundamental to the flaw in your thinking. So it borrows $2 in the interbank markets and winds up with $12 of reserves against $120 of assets. This is the _least_ important limit on bank balance sheets for loans. In this way the regime controlled scarcity and ensured loyalty and favoritism by awarding special rations and coupons for those who uphold the correct ideology and "meritorious labor". This is the amount of reservable (read deposited) cash that is required to be held by the bank in cash equivalents compared to the amount of deposits on their books. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. I don't know how much we still had, but with full digital money everywhere it's dead and buried. Is "a weak" using an encryption random number generator that was designed by "a weak" or "a strong"? Can't they do this already by increasing money supply or QE? I have never spent money on Reddit, despite being a registered user for 12+ years.
Including any accountants or financial or legal professionals you interact with - all of whom are required by law to report any activity they consider suspicious. If we were talking about apples then of course your statement would be correct. We'll be hopping onto the PTS to help test out the new PvP changes tomorrow, February 10th, around 1:30pm CT! Banks don't legally have that capability. It will certainly reducing muggings and thefts if this activity took place. Centralized, programmable digital currency gives the government complete control over how, when and where you are allowed to spend your own money. Beware that commercial banks are obviously opposed to this and will be very vocal about it. Right now you need to go through someone like Barclays, HSBC, etc, to get your money. The only thing that gives private individuals a direct claim on CB currency is cash, which is increasingly less a part of society. I collect deposits because it's a cheap source of liquidity. When you make a payment from your wallet to some other wallet the PIP just sends a request to the BoE to transfer a sum from one GUID to another and the BoE never receives any information on the payer and payee. This is A) a correct, valid worry and B) isomorphic to the "surveillance" thing, in the sense that the surveillance is just a means to an end.
This is not meant to be mean to people who work on such projects, I'm sure there are many talented and dedicated people there but I think this is the environment they contend with. Of course, the Fed has recently been pushing for this threshold to come down to $600[0] with an explanation that this targets the rich who have multiple bank accounts that are amassing millions of untaxed income.