The current trend of removing cash is a serious mistake

i_surge

You are awful upset that i asked a few questions you don't have the honesty to answer. I guess I'm a moron. Bye

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

You are awful upset that i asked a few questions you don't have the honesty to answer. I guess I'm a moron. Bye

Im not 'awful upset' at all - I guess one would always hope for adult discussion is all.

As regards honesty, thats a hoot. Ive shied away from nothing and the basis for my argument is intact.

At the moment, the average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is over $6.

I view currency as something I can buy a pencil with, or a coffee. You can't buy a coffee if the costs of doing so cost multiples of the coffee. And fees must rise if the number of transactions increases. Like it when they peaked at over $50.

I have a very good understanding of how the network and mining works, so save your snakeoil horseshlt for other people. It's not a currency in any standard meaning of the word. It's more like gold.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

At the moment, the average fee for a Bitcoin transaction is over $6

And what's the average transaction fee for a Lightning Network payment?

Deleted User wrote: »

I view currency as something I can buy a pencil with, or a coffee. You can't buy a coffee if the costs of doing so cost multiples of the coffee. And fees must rise if the number of transactions increases. Like it when they peaked at over $50.

I agree. That's why Lightning network is being built out. Instant payments with minimal transaction fees.

Here's the Lightning Network wiki for anyone who wants to gain a basic understanding of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a very good understanding of how the network and mining works, so save your snakeoil horseshlt for other people.

I'm not sure what you're getting upset about as I don't disagree with what you've written above. Bitcoin for day to day purchases - as in that coffee you mentioned - only become a reality through lightning network due to both transaction fees and transaction times on the bitcoin main-net.
The main-net can still be used for bigger transfers.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a currency in any standard meaning of the word. It's more like gold.

Its not a workable currency without the use of layer 2 solution, lightning network. I agree completely. However, lightning network is coming along nicely and making good progress. You can download the breez lightning wallet and verify it for yourself.
Its primary use case is as a store of value and digital gold right now. It's establishing itself in that role at the moment. Transactional use case will follow much later.

KyussB

Just don't reply to him, people have already stopped paying attention and it just gives him a platform - let the thread die, it's not even about the original topic, it's about fucking Bitcoin now.

makeorbrake

KyussB wrote: »

it's not even about the original topic, it's about ****ing Bitcoin now.

It's very much about the original post and the thrust of the thread. The topic relates to the downside of the removal of cash. People have thrown out different options ..for example, gold, silver, etc. Some have said that cash simply shouldn't be taken away. Others have speculated that one way or another, it's going.

On the back of that - and in considering privacy and personal freedom, decentralised cryptocurrency is a valid consideration regardless of how you feel about it. Discussion of it is just as valid as discussion of gold/silver or whatever else as an alternative in the event of the withdrawal of cash. I mean, what other options are there?

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

I mean, what other options are there?

Not wasting energy in the most selfish way possible.

I see some coins use staking to secure the network. I don't understand it please tell me it is better than ****coin environmentally.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

Not wasting energy in the most selfish way possible.

We've done that subject to death at this stage - people can make up their own minds.

i_surge wrote: »

I see some coins use staking to secure the network. I don't understand it please tell me it is better than ****coin environmentally.

As above. That just gets us back into the BTC energy debate and we've pretty much covered it.

I meant what other options are there other than decentralised digital currencies if cash is taken away? Or there isn't and it's a case then of which particular decentralised digital currency is most approapriate?

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

We've done that subject to death at this stage - people can make up their own minds.


As above. That just gets us back into the BTC energy debate and we've pretty much covered it.

I meant what other options are there other than decentralised digital currencies if cash is taken away? Or there isn't and it's a case then of which particular decentralised digital currency is most approapriate?

I was asking out of genuine interest but yeah leave it.

You didn't answer my question so I will assume staking is no great improvement.

Steve F

Cash?
Horrible stuff,won't have it in the house.
Used toilet paper would have less bacteria,viruses and feaces on it ☹️

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

I was asking out of genuine interest but yeah leave it. You didn't answer my question so I will assume staking is no great improvement.

I didn't as it's a continuation of the btc energy debate. I'll park it up at this - Proof of Stake (much less energy intensive) vs. Proof of Work (energy intensive) - as with everything, there are trade-offs in using one option or another.

My question was - if cash is removed tomorrow, what other options do people have beyond decentralised digital currencies that offer some of the same features in terms of privacy/personal freedom, etc.?

KyussB

The thread is predicated on removing cash being a mistake - so the simple and most efficient answer is don't remove cash.

Overheal

@makeorbrake are you trying to pretend still that bitcoin does not drive energy costs up? Are you trying to pretend it is a net-zero carbon industry?

My question was - if cash is removed tomorrow, what other options do people have beyond decentralised digital currencies that offer some of the same features in terms of privacy/personal freedom, etc.?

Barter.

Not that cash is going anywhere. The more likely scenario than the world dispensing with cash would be the collapse of society either do to political or freak natural occurrences, in which case neither cash nor bitcoin will be around. So, barter.

Mic 1972

MOH wrote: »

I had my cards stolen when I was on holidays last year. Was due to fly home the next day.

Called my bank to cancel the cards, quickest they could get me emergency cash was two days.
Called my insurance company who kept me on hold until my phone credit ran out (turned out I'd forgotten it was a bank holiday at home but they didn't bother putting up a "we're closed" recording).
Emailed a friend who called me back, they sent me cash via Western Union which I had a couple of hours later and was enough to get me home.

When I got home I went into my local branch with ID and took out enough cash over the counter to keep me going until my replacement cards turned up at the end of the week.

If there were no local branches, or cash, how was I supposed to eat for that week?Or get home?

Besides that, blind faith in electronic banking systems are your sole means of paying for something, with no fallback, is just insane. And the "think of the children" crime argument is a red herring. Criminals will easily find other alternatives, as always it's just honest, regular people who will be affected.

I've been through that too. I had to borrow 50 cash from a friend in the end.

It's only when you lose your credit card that you quickly realise what a stupid bottle next we are creating for ourselves.
We need options. Credit card payments are OK, so are cash payments

makeorbrake

Overheal wrote: »

@makeorbrake are you trying to pretend still that bitcoin does not drive energy costs up? Are you trying to pretend it is a net-zero carbon industry?

I can go onward with the btc energy debate if you guys insist. I thought that we had covered it in full. You will see that I never claimed that bitcoin mining was a net zero carbon industry. I cited a report that showed it was around 75% carbon neutral. The move towards renewables is ever increasing in that space.
As regards conventional financial services to include banks, visa, etc. - are you pretending that it is carbon neutral?

Overheal wrote: »

Barter.

That's fair enough but it seems like a retrograde step bearing in mind the evolution of trade/money, etc. It's disadvantaged in terms of divisibility and convenience.

Overheal wrote: »

Not that cash is going anywhere.

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, I think that there could still be a long enough lead time but ultimately that's the destination we're heading in. It will start with central bank digital currencies being used outside of retail/consumer circles...and then advance from there.

makeorbrake

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Credit card payments are OK, so are cash payments

Nothing like options and choice.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

are you pretending that it is carbon neutral?

If I put energy usage per dollar earned on a graph for BTC and bricks and mortar financial services it would almost look that way by comparison.

The scale of it with bitcoin is obscene. If we were to believe you and reduced the number by 75% it is still terrible.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

If I put energy usage per dollar earned on a graph for BTC and bricks and mortar financial services it would almost look that way by comparison.

The scale of it with bitcoin is obscene. If we were to believe you and reduced the number by 75% it is still terrible.

I understand that this is your opinion and that's perfectly fine. I can discuss it more but I don't think it will bring much more to the discussion. Aside from the move to renewables, if someone doesn't see what the BTC proposition brings from the get go, there's no way they're going to see themselves through a consideration of the energy use element. The development of decentralised digital money is an ongoing story - so I guess we'll see how it all pans out over the years ahead.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

I understand that this is your opinion and that's perfectly fine. I can discuss it more but I don't think it will bring much more to the discussion. Aside from the move to renewables, if someone doesn't see what the BTC proposition brings from the get go, there's no way they're going to see themselves through a consideration of the energy use element. The development of decentralised digital money is an ongoing story - so I guess we'll see how it all pans out over the years ahead.

An opinion derived directly from the numbers and reality of it. Not "just an opinion" where you perceive the conceptual value to be worthy of the waste.

You have to defend your case that the benefit outweighs the cost, which you cant, because it simply isn't.

Overheal

makeorbrake wrote: »

I can go onward with the btc energy debate if you guys insist. I thought that we had covered it in full. You will see that I never claimed that bitcoin mining was a net zero carbon industry. I cited a report that showed it was around 75% carbon neutral. The move towards renewables is ever increasing in that space.
As regards conventional financial services to include banks, visa, etc. - are you pretending that it is carbon neutral?

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

A single Bitcoin transaction costs:

251.66 kgCO2 - Equivalent to the carbon footprint of 629,151 VISA transactions or 41,943 hours of watching Youtube.

529.81 kWh - Equivalent to the power consumption of an average U.S. household over 17.91 days. [Hundreds of Thousands of times more energy than a credit card swipe]

88.30 grams of Electronic Waste - Equivalent to the weight of 1.36 'C'-size batteries or 1.92 golf balls.

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

An opinion derived directly from the numbers and reality of it. Not "just an opinion" where you perceive the conceptual value to be worthy of the waste. You have to defend your case that the benefit outweighs the cost, which you cant, because it simply isn't.

We can go back and forth if you wish but I think we've covered all the ground. The bottom line is that bitcoin mining is moving all the while to greater and greater levels of renewable use (and usually renewable energy that's not accessible for general consumption although you dispute that)...because they simply have to. It's not economic otherwise.
The conventional financial system uses much more energy - but you're not questioning that as you don't see the value proposition in bitcoin and the bitcoin network.
There are other decentralised cryptocurrencies using PoS/DPoS/etc. which are far, far less energy intensive - but they all come with their own tradeoffs.
Again, I can go on but I think we have covered it - and we're not going to agree - which is perfectly fine.
@Overheal - Be mindful of what happens to your ratio as the lightning network gets built out on top of the bitcoin blockchain network. Other than that, it remains to be seen if that calculation you're working with accounts for all the infrastructure and all that's involved in facilitating your visa transaction. According to this article its a long way short of including all costs related to a visa transaction. But no matter. I can go on - or we can park it up.

i_surge

makeorbrake wrote: »

We can go back and forth if you wish but I think we've covered all the ground. The bottom line is that bitcoin mining is moving all the while to greater and greater levels of renewable use (and usually renewable energy that's not accessible for general consumption although you dispute that)...because they simply have to. It's not economic otherwise.
The conventional financial system uses much more energy - but you're not questioning that as you don't see the value proposition in bitcoin and the bitcoin network.
There are other decentralised cryptocurrencies using PoS/DPoS/etc. which are far, far less energy intensive - but they all come with their own tradeoffs.
Again, I can go on but I think we have covered it - and we're not going to agree - which is perfectly fine.

I think overheal has robustly rubbished most of that blurb with the numbers.

Signing off from the thread, nothing productive

makeorbrake

i_surge wrote: »

I think overheal has robustly rubbished most of that blurb with the numbers.

See article I linked to above - it doesn't account for all costs related to a visa transaction.
If Bitcoin mining moves to even more stranded renewable power, it makes it a moot point in any event. That's before we consider LN transactions scaling up to boot.
Lastly, whether you like it or not, that's the way the network works and so you can choose to be disgusted by it - but that doesn't change the fact that together with lightning network, its an alternative to gold as a store of value and to cash in the transactional sense (without the ongoing stealth tax that is implicated with cash via ongoing inflation).

neutral guy

I pretty sure if bank cards will be produced from organic materials
There will be more cashless
Because it is organic baby,it is new Green trend !
The only thing things can not be produced from grass
Is microchips
For that reason cashless green energy moved to mobile phones
The Apple ones ,.
Finally I got my refund from bank.Its took only 21 day and I spent 27.60 for fags
I can not tell what damage stress did to my health system
But I will avoid be cashless !

da_miser

Get rid of cash and the tax man will want his cut of every transaction, that few quit you give to the neighbours teenager to mow your lawn, well thats just gone up by 20%, the neighbour who is a brick layer, well you getting charged full price for the wall built out the back of your house on Saturday morning.
Those who advocate for a cashless society have not thought about the consequences, the handy nixers you get done around you house will only go up in price, tax man will see to that

makeorbrake

da_miser wrote: »

Get rid of cash and the tax man will want his cut of every transaction, that few quit you give to the neighbours teenager to mow your lawn, well thats just gone up by 20%, the neighbour who is a brick layer, well you getting charged full price for the wall built out the back of your house on Saturday morning.
Those who advocate for a cashless society have not thought about the consequences, the handy nixers you get done around you house will only go up in price, tax man will see to that

There's an argument that the black economy is bad - and I get that rationale. However, black economy tends to be at heightened levels at a given time in a country when tax levels are unwieldy. Maybe .gov is working fine most of the time - but lets consider a scenario where they're not working fine - and measures inclusive of tax policy are not equitable.
If cash has been taken away in that instance, what option do people have? It's a difficult question as on the one side, you could say, good - this prevents tax cheats. On the flip side, if taxes are unwieldy...???
Furthermore, if .gov know that you no longer have another option (cash), then maybe they'll be inclined to be far more forceful/heavy handed with taxes?

Not saying what's right or wrong...just food for thought.

neutral guy

Today many companies profiting from Covid wage subsidy.Many of them does it need it at all because bussines as usual or even better ! When all this will gone next year the country will screaming from pain when taxes on everything will be up because all money lost or spent by government will has to be paid back to government .Thanks God this country will not be cashless and some people who do hard work on evenings and weekends will survive easier because dont will have spend extra to cover government expences on those who is profiting now.

KyussB

Wow, surprised I missed this...a taste of what a cashless society would be like, for your bank accounts:

Pensions to be hit as Bank of Ireland charges negative interest on cash
Bank has written to 14 investment and pension trustee firms to inform them

Many pension fund holders are likely to face a hit to their savings in the near future following a move by Bank of Ireland to impose negative interest rates on cash it holds on deposit from a number of investment and pension trustee firms.

The move by Bank of Ireland will lead to concerns that other banks may follow suit and begin to charge larger companies for deposits of cash held in pension funds.

However, Bank of Ireland insisted on Friday that it was “no longer sustainable” for it to hold such large funds without charging, pointing to European Central Bank interest rates.
...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/pensions-to-be-hit-as-bank-of-ireland-charges-negative-interest-on-cash-1.4318748

Bank of Ireland to charge negative rates on some SME deposits
Move follows bank’s decision to charge interest on pension firms’ cash desposits.

Bank of Ireland chief executive Francesca McDonagh said on Wednesday that the lender plans to charge small- to medium-sized businesses negative rates on deposits of more than €2.5 million.

The move comes almost a week after it emerged that that the bank had written to 14 large pension firms saying it will charge an interest rate of 0.65 per cent their cash deposits, which average €100 million.
...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/bank-of-ireland-to-charge-negative-rates-on-some-sme-deposits-1.4322485?mode=amp

That is like BoI playing Russian roulette with 5 out of 6 chambers loaded - risking mass loss of its customers.

i_surge

If pensions are charged interest, i assume it will go to the customer. Double whammy...stupidly high annual cut off the top from the pension cartel plus anything not invested at the peak of a bull run is deflating. Sounds like an incentive for taking too much risk.

Not likely to end well.

*Cartels...i once did the sums to find if you ran your own pension you could retire 10 years earlier.

1% and 2% fees sound innocent until they compound against you to steal 100s of 1000s long term.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

da_miser wrote: »

Get rid of cash and the tax man will want his cut of every transaction, that few quit you give to the neighbours teenager to mow your lawn, well thats just gone up by 20%, the neighbour who is a brick layer, well you getting charged full price for the wall built out the back of your house on Saturday morning.
Those who advocate for a cashless society have not thought about the consequences, the handy nixers you get done around you house will only go up in price, tax man will see to that

Not to mention you’re handing over your money to a third party. We’ve all seen how the government can flick a switch and lock you in your own home/county. It’s not beyond the realms of belief that they’ll take full control of your bank account.