Question : Qui a besoin de FricNumérique ?
Voir aussi : IntimitéRequise.
A un plus haut niveau de réflexion, ceci n'est seulement vraiment, vraiment utile que pour le blanchiment d'argent et la pornographie. Vous ne pouvez même pas l'utiliser pour du trafic d'armes parce que cela ne fonctionne que sans adresse physique. Bon nous savons tous que le porno fonctionne sur internet. Cela me semble bien. -- SunirShah, sur LimitedKnowledgePurchasing
Je devrais diverger avec Sunir, sur le sujet des micro-paiements pour ôter les bannières publicitaires, ou envoyer des pourboires aux artistes, oui la pornographie et le blanchiment d'argent peuvent être des tâches sombres de la nouvelle frontière économique, mais je pense que cela s'applique à n'importe quelle frontière et n'empêche pas de toutes les façons quelque activité de big brother (http://www.e-dinar.com/en/main_parts/9/rahn.html). Acceptez la liberté ! -- AndrewMcMeikan
Rejet : Le FricNumérique n'est pas LimitedKnowledgePurchasing.
Oui, il l'est. Ou il peut l'être. FricNumérique ! = ArgentNumérique? parce que Fric = Argent. Si je vais quelque part pour déjeuner, puis payer avec un billet de 20 €, ils le prennent. Si j'écris un chèque, ils ont mon nom, mon adresse, mon numéro de permis de conduire et probablement (aux USA) mon numéro de sécurité sociale. Le Fric implique une certaine quantité de transactions anonymes, alors que les autres monnaies (cartes de crédit, chèques, ...) ne le font pas. --DaveJacoby
Je te dirais pourquoi cela contraire les libertés civiles et les raisons des crimes si ce n'est qu'alors mon alter égo maquillera les ID des passeports et les comptes en banque devraient avoir à te tuer pour empêcher quiconque de trouver mon deal secret en items illicites pour éviter d'être pisté par des intentions de sociétés mauvaises pour me spammer (tout cela étant dit en plaisantant et pour ne pas être pris comme une admission d'accusation ou de complicité même si j'avais quelque implication dans quoi que ce soit)--AndrewMcMeikan
The statement about DigitalCash being only useful for the dregs of society was hyperbole. The point was that the concept of anonymous transactions are only useful when there's something to hide and there's nothing to ship. It matters not whether I use DigitalCash or a credit card to buy books from Chapters because they have to mail those books to me anyway. In theory I could have an anonymous postal box, but not many people do. So there's no justification in providing that infrastructure (high cost, high maintenance, high responsibility, high risk).
On the other hand, if there were digital transactions that needed to be anonymous (there's something to hide), DigitalCash will be necessary. But there aren't any, not now, except for porn. When there is enough demand from real people (not net.nerds), perhaps such a system will be created. It could be in the banks' interest to do so because they will be moving more cash through their system.
But note that people happily use credit cards and debit cards and cheques all the time without worry. So, do you think people really care? It's too much work to care about something that doesn't really harm them a lot.
The arguments about boundary cases are just that: boundary arguments. Those arguments aren't remotely useful when talking about economics, the domain of the mainstream. Still, as I said, anonymous transactions sound good to me, because I am a net.nerd. I'm also a civil libertarian, so I could appreciate the ability to purchase digital content anonymously. Question, though. Am I in the minority? -- SunirShah
Do not just think of it from the buyers end, imagine that I am selling a banned book (say a supressed religous text, or political information) to keep freedom of speech I need to be able to hide my identity yet still recieve payment without any paper trail. Put yourself in the shoes of an oppresive regime and you will see that to stop speech you must prevent anonymous payments both buying and selling. Users of this may be in the minority now but many people are begining to realise just how little privacy they have. In Australia almost everything is paid by EFTPOS. When you look at your bank statement your can trace each days activity by following the purchases date stamped to the minute. I do not particularly like the staff at my bank knowing what I buy and when. Will my life insurance premiums go up because I buy junk food too often? --AndrewMcMeikan
With respect to the dismal acceptance of digital cash, I believe most of the blame lies with the mishandled patents of David Chaum. Chaum's digicash didn't really license their patents to other folks. Money is only as good as people agree that it's money. If I recall correctly, there was only one bank (Mark Twain Bank or something like that) that viewed digicash's 'tokens' as valid. Anyway, they bankrupted. Lots of folks, I'm guessing, are waiting for his patents to expire which should be pretty soon. Others are looking at [lucre], which supposedly does blinding without stepping into Chaum's patents. -- MattBradshaw
LangueFrançaise PageTranslation DigitalCash DossierCryptographie?