Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government United States

America's Central Bank Seeks Public Comments on Issuing Its Own Digital Currency (federalreserve.gov) 115

Posted by EditorDavid from the meeting-of-mints dept.
"Technological advances are driving rapid change in the global payments landscape," says the U.S. federal reserve, the country's central banking system. They announced this week that they're "studying these developments" and exploring ways that the central bank "might refine its role as a core payment services provider and as the issuing authority for U.S. currency."

Slashdot reader clubalien shares Engadget's argument that the Reserve "took a step toward developing a digital currency as it announced plans to publish a research paper on the subject," seeking public comment on its pros and cons for payments, financial inclusion, data privacy, and information security. But the Federal Reserve emphasizes that "before making any decision on whether and how to move forward with a U.S. central bank digital currency," their paper "represents the beginning of what will be a thoughtful and deliberative process" that has more than one possible outcome. "Irrespective of the conclusion we ultimately reach, we expect to play a leading role in developing international standards for central bank digital currencies, engaging actively with central banks in other jurisdictions as well as regulators and supervisors here in the United States throughout that process."

Their announcement notes America's central bank has already been exploring the benefits and risks of issuing a digital currency "for the past several years," but emphasizes they're exploring it "as a complement to, and not a replacement of" current systems. And the Reserve also state pointedly that "To date, cryptocurrencies have not served as a convenient way to make payments, given, among other factors, their swings in value," before the announcement switches its attention to stablecoins pegged to the value of a non-virtual currency. But even there, the interest seems to be as much regulatory as it is monetary. "As stablecoins' use increases, so must our attention to the appropriate regulatory and oversight framework.

"This includes paying attention to private-sector payments innovators who are currently not within the traditional regulatory arrangements applied to banks, investment firms, and other financial intermediaries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America's Central Bank Seeks Public Comments on Issuing Its Own Digital Currency More

America's Central Bank Seeks Public Comments on Issuing Its Own Digital Currency

Comments Filter:

  • Power goes out, and whaddya got?

    • If the power goes out for all of the nodes maintaining the blockchain ledger, then you have a bigger problem than being broke. i.e. probably you've been vaporized by a large asteroid impact.
      • Or a bunch of hackers just took down the world's power grid ironically looking to be paid in cryptocurrency.

      • With a digital currency the USA can
        - Outlaw all other digital currencies being held in a bank/brokerage/trust in the USA
        - Track each and every transaction for everyone in the entire country
        - Track your digital device location each and every time it is used for a digital currency transaction
        - Use said tracking and purchase data to adversely affect you via a social credit score (like China)
        - Make digital currency EXPIRE after 30 days - China is already on the path to do this - to force economic activity
        - Repl

        • So... a bit like the existing banking system then?

        • Yeah, that's a whole new level of privacy invasion that would literally never happen, because if it is to be enforced, it would require Congressional action, and there is not 60 votes in the Senate for such draconian nonsense.

          To be fair, there aren't 60 votes in the Senate to affirm that the Sun rises in the east either, if a Democrat was to raise the question.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        It's just fiat crypto so they can track every cent where and when, well, at least for us nobodies, the rich will have anonymising services, only one server, with backup energy, they control it down to the last bit, which the corporations will demand be contracted out to them. So then they will have full financial control over you.

        You can not transfer any funds without their express approval and payment of corporate taxes, in USA the corporations tax you.

    • Digital currency is extremely dangerous
      Power goes out, and whaddya got?

      I would like to point out that the vast majority of money only exists in computers. Seriously, it's like 90% numbers in machines.

      • Yeah, well, still, if you can't prove you own something without electricity (and especially on a device made by a potential adversary), you don't own it. The IOU might be worthless, but at least you have it in your hot little hands all by itself

        • Go live in the woods, ya' coot.

        • So you have every asset you own, including every penny stuffed in a mattress somewhere? And always pay with cash for literally everything?

          • :-) As much as you like to delve into the absurd, I do keep adequate reserves. Cash, or anything else that's real, is still the safest bet. Digital only works while the machines are running, and even then, it's too easy to fake.

            And furthermore, some of us are grateful that Slashdot does not do unicode.

    • Considering that many people currently rely on debit and credit cards or mobile payment apps, how is it different?

      This being Slashdot, someone will surely come along and say, "that's why I have a suitcase full of twenty dollar bills under my bed", to which I say, what if you lose power and your house burns down?

    • Another day older, and deeper in dot.

  • just back USDC

  • ...to "in bit we trust".

  • Will cause bank runs, so will never happen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:02PM (#61413790)

    A central bank digital currency is essentially a full reserve zero fee bank ... and the safest bank there is for the given currency.

    This would create massive problems for traditional banks. All their checking accounts are already zero interest and even if you don't have enough money to have to worry about FDIC insurance why would you want to deal with the hassle of a bank bankruptcy? Just get your money out and park it with the Fed.

    Never ever.

    • Seems to me that you still need a relationship with a bank.

      Do you imagine that federal crypto transactions will be cost-free? Who is footing the bill? Why should they foot it? The government may still ban private crypto, so seems like a conflict of interest? What happens when federal coin gets lost forever as sometimes crypto keys become unrecoverable unless they are insecure by design?

      • Do you imagine that federal crypto transactions will be cost-free? Who is footing the bill? Why should they foot it?

        It would make tax collection a whole lot easier/cheaper.

      • Well, the cost of running some blockchain can't possibly be more than the offset reduced spending on printing paper money and stamping out billions of coins. There may be some up-front costs, but there would be an ROI sometime soon after adoption - and it would be a big one. And, as far as fees go, if they implement it in the same manner as ACH (fee per submitted batch) then the costs would be dramatically less than the current exchanges.

        And since when does the government care about conflicts of interest?

    • Re:Will cause bank runs, so will never happen (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Sunday May 23, 2021 @05:45PM (#61414054) Homepage

      Traditional banking still has advantages over storing your money as "federal crypto". Banks typically provide some degree of protection against fraudulent transactions, and allow you to file chargebacks against unscrupulous merchants. Additionally, banks support ACH debits, which would be difficult to implement in a safe and secure manner using blockchain technology.

      • They are only at the requesting comments stage. But you already know what advantages traditional banking will have over the final product?
        What's stopping them fixing all those things before implementation?
        It doesn't even mention blockchain. They are proposing a digital currency. They aren't even the same thing.

        Are you scared your bitcoins will be worth less?

    • A central bank digital currency is essentially a full reserve zero fee bank ... and the safest bank there is for the given currency.

      Why are you sure it would be zero fee? A central bank digital currency can charge whatever it likes in fees, changing at any moment, or per person depending on any criteria the government decides makes sense... Remember the Demolition Man scenes where people are fined for swearing in public for example.

      People might well prefer to keep money at arms length from government, giv

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      They could directly back the crypto by energy supplies, energy types, energy storage and energy generation, and energy exchange to back the value of the crypto currency.

      • They could directly back the crypto by energy supplies, energy types, energy storage and energy generation, and energy exchange to back the value of the crypto currency.

        Or they could just back it by saying "We are the Fed, and this is money now". Same as they do for cash money.
        It's not like you will be able to mine it or speculate on it.
        The Fed will create it. It will be worth exactly what a non digital dollar is worth 1:1.

  • It won't have enough miners and will get 51% attacked. The end. Trust me, that IS what will happen. You can't start a brand new crypto in 2021.

    • Mining is a non-starter for a *currency* (Score:5, Interesting)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:15PM (#61413826) Journal

      The currency is the thing people use to a) store value and b) set prices, such as the rent on your apartment.

      For a functioning currency, you need to be able to save back &250 of your paycheck so that three weeks later you can pay your rent, which &750/month. That means the value has to be *stable*. You need to know that &100 will be enough to cover your grocery bill next month.

      Specifically, it needs to be stable with a predictable inflation rate between 0% and about 10%, in order to function effectivity as a currency.

      The value, which needs to be stable, is based on the balance between demand and supply. In order to keep the value of the US dollar stable, the fed increased the supply by about 30% over the last year. Had they not done that, your $1,000 debt would have effectively become $1,300 or more just due to the increasing value of the dollar.

      You can't have a stable value for a crypto coin that's based on mining. Therefore, whatever else you might use Bitcoin etc for, it can never be the currency, because the value can never be predictably stable. The fed knows this. They will not introduce another coin that based on hashing.

      Further, you can't have a national economy that's based on wasting resources running hashes. The fed knows this too.

      Any digital money they come out with will be largely a rebranding of essentially what we already have - money that's digital in that it's numbers in a computer somewhere, known as your "account", with the value stabilized by the fed controlling the supply.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Rockoon ( 1252108 )

        In order to keep the value of the US dollar stable, the fed increased the supply by about 30% over the last year. Had they not done that, your $1,000 debt would have effectively become $1,300 or more just due to the increasing value of the dollar.

        Just because inflation is good for people with debt in no way justifies calling inflation good.
        Just because deflation is bad for people with debt in no way justifies calling deflation bad.

        Has the deflationary cost of the transistor over the past many decades been a bad thing? Might be evidence that deflation may in fact be a good thing, yes, just as there is evidence that inflation is good in some ways?

        So who is saying deflation is intolerable? Is it people involved with debts? Interesting.

        • ...your $1,000 debt would have effectively become $1,300 or more just due to the increasing value of the dollar.

          Whenever there's a danger of that happening, we elect Democrats. The dollar then plunges, making debts cheaper.

        • It's a matter of perspective. If you have a fixed interest home mortgage, inflation is a great thing. If you rent, no, it's not good.

        • If your money is going to be worth 10% more tomorrow, you'd be stupid to spend it today.

          If nobody spends it (buy stuff) this week, nobody sells stuff this week, nobody gets paid.

          If nobody gets paid this week, there isn't much money available (low supply), while everyone wants this money that is increasing in value (high demand).

          Low supply and high demand = higher price.

          Higher price takes us back to step 1, you'd be dumb to spend today when they value is going up.

          The cycle is that as people don't spend (buy)

      • Because currency is not longer tied to a physical thing, like gold, it has no value. That is why governments can manipulate it all the time. They print more of it, even if there is nothing backing it. They pull it out of circulation at will, as well. They should re-implement the gold standard and take away the ability of economists etc. to manipulate it.

        • The point of currency is as a means of facilitating trade. It is not supposed to be something you stash in a vault Scrooge McDuck style and hope it one day goes to the moon. If you want to make money with your money, you're forced to invest it and that drives the economy.

          • The economy is supposed to be based on making things of value and selling it. And there is still some of that left. That's why people are finally realizing that what happens on Wall Street is not the economy. What happens on Main Street, is. Businesses that actually make things and employ workers is the economy. Manipulating money leads to the destruction of the real economy as we saw in 2008. And the fact the Wall Street speculators are driving good paying real econcomy overseas by forcing an investment me

        • They should re-implement the gold standard and take away the ability of economists etc. to manipulate it.

          If we went back to the gold standard, the economy would grind to a halt fairly quickly. There is only about 190,000 metric tons of gold world wide, with maybe another 60,000 metric tons still in the ground. That is not nearly as much gold as you think it is.

          • Then the value of gold would increase, profoundly. Though I'd actually encourage the use of the kilowatt-hour for basing modern currencies: increases in energy sources tie very directly to industries in the modern world.

        • Because currency is not longer tied to a physical thing, like gold, it has no value.

          So you wouldn't mind giving all your currency to me?
          Let me know how much you have and I'll see if it's worth coming to collect.

        • > They should re-implement the gold standard and take away the ability of economists etc. to manipulate it.

          I *like* knowing how much my mortgage payment is going to be next month. Would YOU sign a mortgage saying you'll pay 0.03BTC per month for the next 30 years? Yeah, me neither.

          I'm *glad* the fed stabilized the value of the dollar by printing 30% more dollars last year. I don't want the value of my paycheck bouncing up and down like crazy, as Bitcoin does.

          The value of the dollar is demand / supply. In

          • The value of the dollar shouldn't change. The value of what you can buy with money should be the only thing that changes.

            • I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps it's just not something you've thought about much.

              Normally we measure the relative value of things based on what people would trade for them. So this *is* the value of a dollar:

              https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/e... [mcdonalds.com]

              That is, the value of the currency *is* whatever you can trade that currency for. $1 is worth a mini hamburger, or a Coke.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by xvan ( 2935999 )

        You can't have a stable value for a crypto coin that's based on mining.

        Why you can't? You just need to adjust the complexity of the mining to produce an expected emission rate.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ddd4n4 ( 6219084 )
        Money should also have weight; ethereal money streamlines & amplifies corruption outcomes. Imagine how difficult it would be to be a billionaire and stay that way if you had to be nice enough that people would help you transport and protect it.

    • Is "digital currency" the same as "crypto currency"? I had assumed not, ie that the former does not require "mining"... but I know very little on this (perhaps obviously).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by xvan ( 2935999 )
        crypto doesn't require mining. Mining is just one way of handing decentralized emission and transactions. A govenment digital currency doesn't require to be decentralized. If you trust the government not to do uncontrollable emission, you can trust them to handle the transactions.

    • It won't have enough miners and will get 51% attacked. The end. Trust me, that IS what will happen.

      I'm pretty sure a federal implementation of crypto would have no mining (coins would simply be issued as needed), and the blockchain on federal servers would be hardcoded to be taken as gospel. So yeah, it would be completely centralized. That's kind of the point.

      The advantage is that your money can be safely stored, and you won't need to put a price ticker on your desk [amazon.com] to let you know when it's time to jump out a window.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It won't have enough miners and will get 51% attacked. The end. Trust me, that IS what will happen. You can't start a brand new crypto in 2021.

      It's digital currency. No need for it to be crypto or blockchain. The Fed won't have to mine it or let anyone else have any control over it if they don't want.

  • Some thoughts on comments to submit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:09PM (#61413806)

    I read they had opened comments on this federal digital currency. I've been trying to think about what kinds of concerns I want to bring up in comments...

    I was hoping other people might have ideas for what to put in comments, but here are a few kernels of ideas I have had:

    1) Given the rise in concern about consumer privacy we have seen, will the federal digital currency maintain privacy both at a commercial and a governmental level? Especially given that it is meant to replace physical currency which is anonymous today.

    2) I have read much speculation that the reason to move to a digital currency is to allow the government to control aspect of currency people hold, such as expiration of digital currency in order to force people to spend it, and furthermore the rate of expiration may be tied to some system akin to China's social credit. What guarantees can we have around a digital currency that government manipulation cannot occur beyond what occurs with government issued fiat currency today?

    3) I would seek assurance that any digital currency be backed by something physical, such as gold.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      1) Given the rise in concern about consumer privacy we have seen, will the federal digital currency maintain privacy both at a commercial and a governmental level? Especially given that it is meant to replace physical currency which is anonymous today.

      2) I have read much speculation that the reason to move to a digital currency is to allow the government to control aspect of currency people hold, such as expiration of digital currency in order to force people to spend it, and furthermore the rate of expiration may be tied to some system akin to China's social credit. What guarantees can we have around a digital currency that government manipulation cannot occur beyond what occurs with government issued fiat currency today?

      There are no guarantees that gov

      • Government digital currencies will be just another instrument to control the public and increase taxation revenue.

        Hang on a sec ... so you are upset that it will not allow people to avoid taxation?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      legal tender, this is what concerns me. With cash, I can keep some squirreled away for an emergency. A lot of people I know keep some cash in a fire protected zipper bag in their gun safe. When I travel by car for vacation, I will often bring a bunch of 20s to buy gas. After all the debacle of cards getting cloned from those pump readers, I came up with a system where I just threw $20 in the tank every time it fell below half a tank. The last thing I need on vacation is to have to cancel my cards which I mi
    • Transaction fees below 0.25%. But, I kind of doubt MC & Visa would permit the Federal Government to do that.

  • The entire point of cryptocurrency... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whispered_Name ( 5844340 ) on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:19PM (#61413838)
    ...is decentralization and lack of control by govt.s.
    • Not the *entire* point, but definitely a big part of it. For the entities behind any centralized digital currency to compare it to cryptocurrency is just spin meant to attempt to leverage the hype to support their digital fiat. For me, the sad part is that this will likely work well on the average layperson who doesn't know or care about how cryptocurrencies work and what problems they are intended to address. In my experience, the "average laypeople" drastically outnumber those who are in the know.

      • For me, the sad part is that this will likely work well on the average layperson who doesn't know or care about how cryptocurrencies work and what problems they are intended to address.

        From where I sit, the only problems current iterations of cryptocurrencies seem to solve are "how to separate fools from their money", and "how criminals can get paid". The average layperson doesn't see how using cryptocurrency improves on the situation of paying a merchant by putting their credit/debit card into the reader, or sending money using PayPal/Zelle/Apple Cash/etc.

        • From where I sit, the only problems current iterations of cryptocurrencies seem to solve are "how to separate fools from their money", and "how criminals can get paid".

          This is a popular opinion among people I know who seem to have an anti-crypto attitude and want to sound like they understand cryptocurrency enough to justify it. Add in statements about the power-hungry, eco-unfriendliness of many gen 1 coins, too.

          I'm not saying you have the same attitude or even that you're wrong, but I know of actually interesting and socially beneficial problems that cryptocurrency attempts to address, other than just the oft-cited (and not irrelevant) problems and abuses of fiat cu

          • The ability to conduct transactions and have something resembling a bank account when one is otherwise excluded from the banking system due to socioeconomic factors.

            Presently though, traditional banking is required to get any money in or out of crypto. It's also not FDIC insured or regulated in any way, and folks who are excluded from traditional banking systems typically are those who will be impacted the most by a loss of their savings.

            It's also entirely up in the air whether a specific cryptocurrency will remain a reliable long-term store of value. As they say in all investments, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results".

            Transaction anonymity is something beneficial to more than criminal organizations.

            Any transaction involving a ship

    • Tying currency back to a gold standard would take away government control.
  • decentralized cryptocurrencies.
  • Right now, US speculators are left with buying junk cryptos that even China doesn't want and has outlawed. When a US backed digital currency is issued, the US speculators will have a choice and money will certainly flow into US backed rather than right now with cryptos based on a joke and a prayer. All the cryptos right now have no earnings therefore no value while a US backed digital currency will have both and could issue interest payments and rates based on the US economy and backed by several thousand

    • Right now, US speculators are left with buying junk cryptos that even China doesn't want and has outlawed. When a US backed digital currency is issued, the US speculators will have a choice and money will certainly flow into US backed rather than right now with cryptos based on a joke and a prayer. All the cryptos right now have no earnings therefore no value while a US backed digital currency will have both and could issue interest payments and rates based on the US economy and backed by several thousand nuclear warheads - something the cryptos will never have.

      You do realise this digital US dollar will be worth exactly one regular US dollar don't you?
      You won't be able to mine it or speculate on it any more than you could a regular US dollar.

      America is probably hoping it will take the steam out of China's digital currency. [cnbc.com] And not let it become dominant in third countries.
      Increasing China's currency use in international trade will only be a bad thing for American dominance.
      China’s PBOC joins cross-border digital currency project with other central banks [cnbc.com]

  • They already have currency, and most of the time that is moved around electronically anyway. This doesn't make any sense. What would make sense is to move all currency back onto a gold standard so that it is actually worth something in a physical sense. Get the fucking economists and accountants out of the picture and stop the manipulation.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It's going to be particularly interesting to see how far-right, neo-con legislators try to get their heads around this, or not. Many have signed up & committed to the idea of "fiscal conservatism" which conflates macro- with micro-economics. Understanding that the Fed makes money "appear out of thin air" & disappear just as easily will seem like some kind of voodoo black magic to them. Then again, we can't underestimate their capacity for denial, deliberate ignorance, & cognitive dissonance.

    • You know what galls me about those far-right neo-con legislators? Is how they flip-flop on their positions almost instantly. I remember in the 80's their argument was that the economy is not zero-sum, and a rising tide lifts all boats. But when you mention any sort of social programs that would actually benefit everyone, all of a sudden the economy is zero-sum, and a rising tide is only supposed to lift the worthy. (As opposed to the Calvinist BS about "undeserving poor").

      These same asshats promote the idea

  • If it's going to be a currency - be traded for Stuff - the money supply has to be managed by a central bank. We already have one of those, and we can already make easy digital transfers in dollars. We won't want transactions to be anonymous or overpriced, so no blockchain.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tomhath ( 637240 )

      and we can already make easy digital transfers in dollars

      Well, that depends on what the meaning of "easy" is. A true digital currency would be exchanged like cash, without banks or other agents like paypal getting involved and skimming some of the money off for themselves and/or locking you into their system.

      • Well, that depends on what the meaning of "easy" is. A true digital currency would be exchanged like cash, without banks or other agents like paypal getting involved and skimming some of the money off for themselves and/or locking you into their system.

        And that is exactly what the US government wouldn't want to facilitate - a digital currency that could be exchanged anonymously for ransoms and child porn. Small-time illegal transactions can already be made in cash.

      • Seems like every digital currency transaction charges a fee, when I pay / transfer with bitcoin it seems I pay the fee, with dollars, the receiver pays. So, I am the FED. I already have dollars, a faith based currency, both physical and digital. What's the advantage of adding crypto-dollars? How does the FED win? This seem like a solution without a problem. The private market seems to be doing fine with crypto, lots of competition and so forth.

        • What's the advantage of adding crypto-dollars? How does the FED win? This seem like a solution without a problem.

          The Chinese are already getting one. [cnbc.com] America can't allow a digital currency gap.

        • How does the FED win?

          a) More control over money.
          b) A whole lot of things become cheaper/easier (eg. tax collection, bank note printing).

  • FDIC insured bank accounts that allow electronic transfer via ACH already exist. (chime.com comes mind, I'm sure there are plenty of others)

    Bitcoin is worse than that in almost every way but one; It isn't controlled by the US (or any other) government.

    This proposed digital currency would presumably be controlled by the US government. I fail to see any advantage it might have over ACH style checking.

    • Bitcoin is worse than [ACH transactable FDIC insured bank accounts denominated in dollars] in almost every way but one; It isn't controlled by the US (or any other) government.

      And its ability to inflate is severely limited - which is both the original point and something else you can expect to NOT be a characteristic of a government sound-alike.

  • in USD. What possible value would there be in this? You wouldn't be able to use it to launder money or buy drugs. I can't imagine it would even be as anonymous as Bitcoin. Why would I use this instead of just the existing banking system?

    I guess it would be vulnerable to currency manipulation, so there is that.

    If you want to fix banking bring Postal Banking to the US. But I suspect that's not what this is about. Hell, I'm not even sure what this is about.

    • Hell, I'm not even sure what this is about.

      It's about government control.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sbaker ( 47485 )

      MYTH: Bitcoin is anonymous.

      It certainly isn't - it's fairly easy to watch the IP addresses in the block chain - and you can (by design) follow the long chain of transactions leading to any particular money transfer.

      Anyone with enough computer resources and the right software can determine who is paying who what.

  • If you take away decentralization, what would differentiate crypto from a state sponsored paypal?
    If you don't take away decentralization, how do you implement a gov-coin?

  • Possibly a good idea (Score:3)

    by vix86 ( 592763 ) on Sunday May 23, 2021 @10:24PM (#61414726)

    My initial gut reaction was "Why?" but after seeing this line, emphasis added:

    They announced this week that they're "studying these developments" and exploring ways that the central bank "might refine its role as a core payment services provider and as the issuing authority for U.S. currency."

    Now a days cash isn't king, but digital cash is. Everyone uses digital currency via processors like Visa or Mastercard, to do everything. Also as a result, we've seen what happens when you lose access to these processors, such as in the case of Alex Jones. You don't have any recourse.

    The "Fed" becoming a digital processor means that you would have a means to do digital payments now and also have protections of the constitution. If they tried to bar your ability to accept payments for something you said, you could take them to court for 1A violations and get your payments reinstated. This isn't something you can do when dealing with Visa or Mastercard.

    • With decentralized digital payments you don't need to pay a lawyer and beg a corrupted court for help because you already have complete freedom. The central bank proposing this now probably means that they see that Constitutional protections are on the way out and they have a path for complete control.

  • Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

  • This FED crypto is just one among others competing....

  • We're pretty much a "cashless society" now - I haven't had actual cash in my wallet for more than two years. This is all very convenient - and drives online sales and so forth. But the GIGANTIC problem is that we're now (though higher prices) paying those credit card companies at least a few percent of everything we earn.

    For doing what? Moving some numbers around inside a computer. That's an egregious amount of the economy - for doing something that's ridiculously easy.

    So it makes sense to have the i

Slashdot Top Deals

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Close