The current trend of removing cash is a serious mistake

kenmm

Another aspect is security in general. Every transaction logged, so more companies have to maintain this data. Criminals may stop attacking ATM machines with JCBs, but expect cybercrime to go up (Phone scams, vishing and other social engineering, attacks on companies holding data etc).

You can't really trust large companies to do the right thing regarding security - many large companies fail at this all the time (EasyJet being a recent one, albeit a retail/travel company, but financial institutions suck at this as well).

seamus

kenmm wrote: »

Another aspect is security in general. Every transaction logged, so more companies have to maintain this data. Criminals may stop attacking ATM machines with JCBs, but expect cybercrime to go up (Phone scams, vishing and other social engineering, attacks on companies holding data etc).

You can't really trust large companies to do the right thing regarding security - many large companies fail at this all the time (EasyJet being a recent one, albeit a retail/travel company, but financial institutions suck at this as well).

This is the big one.

Companies need to become much, much, much better at handling data. The vast majority of companies do absolutely the bare minimum, 50% of Irish companies have no actual data security policies.

If you think about data as a valuable commodity, even the guy who owns a small newsagent, has a security "policy" to keep his till secure. On a busy day he'll empty the till halfway through the day to stop it getting stolen, at the end of the day he'll remove the cash drawer completely and lock it away.

Small companies who handle personal data on the other hand, save it to an unsecured location and there it remains for the next 15 years, vulnerable to theft at any point.

Data security is more complex, but it doesn't have to be. A national body with responsibility for guiding and auditing companies towards best practice is a must.
The DPC nominally has this job now, but they're too focussed at the corporate end, they produce guides that are 50 pages long and filled with technical language. Following the guides and implementing them is something that can only be properly done by a company with 1,000 people and an in-house security and legal team.

A small software company of 10 have neither the resources or the expertise to go through it, even though they could be storing personal data or card data for hundreds of thousands of people.

kenmm

seamus wrote: »

A small software company of 10 have neither the resources or the expertise to go through it, even though they could be storing personal data or card data for hundreds of thousands of people.

Actually - doing things right is getting easier and easier - but a lot of the time people (developers, business stakehoders) are lazy. Don't prioritise security over other "must have" features or too lazy to implement best practices.

But ye - its a big issue - I went to sign up for a gym, they wanted a photo of my face to save me tapping a card on entry. F-that - U have no idea who is responsible for storing my facial data. Its probably secure and at the moment an attacker can't do much with that information, but what tools are going to be available to help the attackers in the future? Can they use that data to access some other dodgy (financial) application?


Getting off topic slightly, but the point is, when it comes to technology - you need to think about future usages of data that are not possible yet.

tobefrank321

meeeeh wrote: »

So anyone who disagrees with you is either an addict or criminal. Nice.

That's not what I said. But its obvious some people don't want banks knowing what they are spending money on because they are afraid of not getting a mortgage. If you are spending large amounts of money off the books, then its probably best for everyone if you don't apply for a mortgage because you could end up having your house repossessed down the line.

As for corporations getting their hands on your data, newsflash, corporations already hold massive amounts of data on you, most of it far more personal and intrusive than what you spend your money on.

Most people already have almost every detail of their lives splashed across social media.

And applications like Alexa can and do occasionally listen in on your conversations.

https://time.com/5568815/amazon-workers-listen-to-alexa/

We all have a significant data footprint whether we like it or not, and avoiding credit cards isn't going to change that. And has been stated numerous times, even if health insurance providers could see your credit card transactions, they cannot see that you bought cigarettes for example, because credit card statements don't go into that detail.

4068ac1elhodqr

kenmm wrote: »

Another aspect is security in general. Every transaction logged, so more companies have to maintain this data. Criminals may stop attacking ATM machines with JCBs, but expect cybercrime to go up (Phone scams, vishing and other social engineering, attacks on companies holding data etc).

Agree, perhaps the folks over N'Korea have made most of their wealth of late using global harddrive lockdowns (cyber encryption). Their (only) preferred release option and means of contract fulfilment to this issue, was that of crossing their palms with Bitcoinage.

joseywhales

All of these systems are fine, if all data is fully encrypted and not recoverable. From the developers themselves to the agency that sponsors it.

tjhook

I may be an outlier, but I dislike having data recorded about my life, no matter what assurances I'm given about its security and uses. Rather than asking "what's the problem with having it stored?", I'd rather ask "Why would I want that data be stored?". GDPR became seen as a bit of a bogeyman, but I think that was its original intent.

Nobody cares (I hope) if I bought a bag of chips this afternoon. Except theoretically for the marketing companies that can use the information to target me more accurately, the health insurance companies that might like to know I'm an unhealthy slob and my employer who mightn't be delighted to see me heading out to the shops during the working day.

None of those things are allowed right now. But they could be possible in the future. Storing the data only creates a temptation for organisations to find uses for it. I don't benefit from the existence of data showing all my purchases, so why would I want this data to be generated?

kenmm

joseywhales wrote: »

All of these systems are fine, if all data is fully encrypted and not recoverable. From the developers themselves to the agency that sponsors it.

Thats like saying everything is safe if everything is kept safe.

Its a very big if and not as simple as you might imagine. If you work in IT, then its a very naive statement.

RandomViewer

El Tarangu wrote: »

This makes zero difference: if you sell €50k of anything, there will be some degree of tax due.

Why? If Revenue are that mad for the money they should gather the scrap themselves , tax is already paid on it it's illegal to take twice,

RandomViewer

RandomViewer wrote: »

Scrap metal, whatever tax would have been paid when the item was new, revenue have no entitlements to tax for scrap or second hand goods,
Funny it's cents per litre on fuel, would lose too much when price drops.

RandomViewer wrote: »

Why? If Revenue are that mad for the money they should gather the scrap themselves , tax is already paid on it it's illegal to take twice,

Very strange views............... second hand car dealers have no tax liability according to you.

Actual scrap dealers pay tax btw.

Tax is paid on income and profit except on the likes of
- "profit" on sale of PPR
- if you buy a car, use it as your car and sell it on again for a profit
etc etc
Do anything to make money and there's almost certainly a tax liability.

joseywhales

kenmm wrote: »

Thats like saying everything is safe if everything is kept safe.

Its a very big if and not as simple as you might imagine. If you work in IT, then its a very naive statement.

I am not an expert but....

I cannot see an impediment to the implementation if the motivation is to achieve total blinding.

The issue is that will not be the requirement.

4068ac1elhodqr

tjhook wrote: »

I may be an outlier, but I dislike having data recorded about my life, no matter what assurances I'm given about its security and uses. Rather than asking "what's the problem with having it stored?", I'd rather ask "Why would I want that data be stored?". GDPR became seen as a bit of a bogeyman, but I think that was its original intent.

Nobody cares (I hope) if I bought a bag of chips this afternoon. Except theoretically for the marketing companies that can use the information to target me more accurately, the health insurance companies that might like to know I'm an unhealthy slob and my employer who mightn't be delighted to see me heading out to the shops during the working day.

None of those things are allowed right now. But they could be possible in the future. Storing the data only creates a temptation for organisations to find uses for it. I don't benefit from the existence of data showing all my purchases, so why would I want this data to be generated?

Very true you only have to look at San Fran and Silicon Valley , the hub of technical or software innovation. Said they'd put an outright ban any public facial recognition cameras. Also Google (do no evil), dare not dare perform what others (Clearview^) have already done (^3bn faces already on it's digital books), and called it a red line. G'Glasses using AR overlays, would actually have been the perfect tool to realise Clearview's dream.

If your packed of crisp(s) was a daily purchase, and the precise brand had recorded elevated levels of acrylamide (they often do), insurance companies could/would circle a very specifiC risk for reduced payout.

Any cashless society is an open book to all consumer and corporate spending, very useful and efficient, but also very open.

ShooterSF

There is also another point I haven't seen mentioned but I can buy something with a card way easier than if I have to start taking notes out of my wallet. I guess it's similar to how casinos like to give you chips as they are easier to spend than cash. I remember living with an accountant, a nice chap, who would meticulously go through a budget for the week and never used cash and us laughing at each other's system as I would take out the money I had to spend for the week and what was in my wallet was my budget.

RandomViewer

Augeo wrote: »

Very strange views............... second hand car dealers have no tax liability according to you.

Actual scrap dealers pay tax btw.

Tax is paid on income and profit except on the likes of
- "profit" on sale of PPR
- if you buy a car, use it as your car and sell it on again for a profit
etc etc
Do anything to make money and there's almost certainly a tax liability.

They are registered businesses, someone gathering junk in their own time is different, they aren't making anything, just tidying up, none of anyone else's business

GazzaL

Cash is king. I've gone through phases of mostly using debit or credit cards, always paying off credit cards in full every month, but you can't beat Johnny Cash. While I don't have anything to hide, I don't like the idea of any random bank employee being able to see everything that I spend my money on. There's no risk of being unable to make a payment because of a card being blocked. There's no risk of being unable to make a large payment due to some banks limitations on card transaction values. There's also no risk of being unable to access funds as a result of IT updates and IT failures.

Many people find cash easier to use to control spending as it is much more "real" than electronic payments.

Geuze

tjhook wrote: »

I may be an outlier, but I dislike having data recorded about my life, no matter what assurances I'm given about its security and uses. Rather than asking "what's the problem with having it stored?", I'd rather ask "Why would I want that data be stored?". GDPR became seen as a bit of a bogeyman, but I think that was its original intent.

Off-topic, but I want my health data recorded in my GP, and linked to the hosp.

If I collapse in Clonakilty, and a paramedic arrives, I want them, or a doctor in nearest hosp, to be able to pull up my records.

Geuze

I will try to look up cash in circulation stats:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/money_credit_banking/monetary_aggregates/html/index.en.html


April 2020 money supply data:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/stats/md/html/ecb.md2004~42820d7c46.en.html


This may be better:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/banknotes+coins/circulation/html/index.en.html


Value of cash in circulation is rising, not falling.

4068ac1elhodqr

Geuze wrote: »

Off-topic, but I want my health data recorded in my GP, and linked to the hosp.

If I collapse in Clonakilty, and a paramedic arrives, I want them, or a doctor in nearest hosp, to be able to pull up my records.

Likely this is already the case.

But would you also like them to know what you had for breakfast last week, what magazines are on your coffee table, and if you got a bus all last week instead of walking, when (e.g.) agreeing to do more exercise, reduce BMI and reduce co2 emissions, perhaps at a prior meeting, now subject to penalty.

JJJackal

Mavis Panicky Easel wrote: »

Likely this is already the case.

But would you also like them to know what you had for breakfast last week, what magazines are on your coffee table, and if you got a bus all last week instead of walking, when (e.g.) agreeing to do more exercise, reduce BMI and reduce co2 emissions, perhaps at a prior meeting, now subject to penalty.

This is definitely not the case. If your in Clonakility its unlikely someone in CUH knows your history. Assuming your brought to CUH

RandomViewer

Geuze wrote: »

Off-topic, but I want my health data recorded in my GP, and linked to the hosp.

If I collapse in Clonakilty, and a paramedic arrives, I want them, or a doctor in nearest hosp, to be able to pull up my records.

Don't think it is, heard someone on the other day saying that lots of hospital records are still only on paper

Sarcozies

I abhor the "well if you have nothing to hide" argument with regards to privacy. Do ye live in glass houses? **** with the toilet door open? I doubt it. At least I hope you don't. Also, just because you are in agreement with the powers that be currently, political or corporate, doesn't mean that future entities won't use these for nefarious manners. It's the same reason stipulations on speech are dangerous. If anyone can point me to evidence that the majority of people wanting privacy be it at home, online, or with the current example of cash over plastic are doing so to protect criminal enterprises or participate in illegal activities I would read them.
Guilty before innocent should never be on the table.

ShatterAlan

McGaggs wrote: »

Don't forget the ATM tax you'll be paying to get your money out.

Is that tax?


And when I go to a machine that doesn't have any charges...what's that?

ShatterAlan

Geuze wrote: »

A slow movement away from cash and towards card/online payments has no direct link to tax. I don't get what you mean?

If a haircut is 10 + 13.5% VAT = 11.35, the amount of tax does not depend on the payment method.

If I pay by cash or card in Tesco, the VAT is the same.

Perhaps you might elaborate?

Every transaction you make is recorded.


Now back in the good old days of the Warsaw Pact your letters could be opened and read. Correct?


In the digital age your correspondence can be read unbeknownst to the recipient. A torn envelope back in the 80's was a signal. An email that arrives is no drama.


To summarise....if I want to give you money and the ONLY way to do that is via an eletcronic, recordable transfer, does it not beg the question that the business between you and I is nobody else's "business".?


And I'm not talking about not paying tax.....I'm talking about privacy. Who's business is it if my daughter walks your dogs or your son washes my car?

tobefrank321

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Every transaction you make is recorded.


Now back in the good old days of the Warsaw Pact your letters could be opened and read. Correct?


In the digital age your correspondence can be read unbeknownst to the recipient. A torn envelope back in the 80's was a signal. An email that arrives is no drama.


To summarise....if I want to give you money and the ONLY way to do that is via an eletcronic, recordable transfer, does it not beg the question that the business between you and I is nobody else's "business".?


And I'm not talking about not paying tax.....I'm talking about privacy. Who's business is it if my daughter walks your dogs or your son washes my car?

No one cares what money you give your daughter or son.

What people do care about is if your daughter or son sets up as a business, takes large amounts of cash and does not pay tax, while competing against a company that does pay tax. And these cash in hand businesses certainly do exist and should be brought to book. Most of their transactions are untraceable and with no records of them taking place.

double jobbing

double jobbing wrote: »

I'd say 50 percent of small purchases I make, I have the exact amount ready.

Can you complete a tap and go transaction in under 2 seconds? vs a minimum of 12 for tap and go?

For every person like you, there is another one who fumbles in handbag / arse pocket, spills coins over the till, is 2c short, and takes ages. Or someone who counts out 200 coins to pay for a €10 item. Tap and go is fast.

I agree though that cash shouldn't disappear completely.

Mavis Panicky Easel

Mavis Panicky Easel wrote: »

Likely this is already the case.

But would you also like them to know what you had for breakfast last week, what magazines are on your coffee table, and if you got a bus all last week instead of walking, when (e.g.) agreeing to do more exercise, reduce BMI and reduce co2 emissions, perhaps at a prior meeting, now subject to penalty.

Under GDPR, it shouldn't be, unless you gave your express consent, which you can withdraw at any time. Medical data has even stricter laws than standard personal data.

Mavis Panicky Easel

Mavis Panicky Easel wrote: »

.......................

If your packed of crisp(s) was a daily purchase, and the precise brand had recorded elevated levels of acrylamide (they often do), insurance companies could/would circle a very specifiC risk for reduced payout.

Any cashless society is an open book to all consumer and corporate spending, very useful and efficient, but also very open.

that level of detail isn't on credit card / debit card statements, the receipts aren't attached. The bank has no notion what you actually bought in that particular transaction.

RandomViewer wrote: »

They are registered businesses, someone gathering junk in their own time is different, they aren't making anything, just tidying up, none of anyone else's business

That's called a sideline, if there's profit to be made there's tax to be paid.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/additional-incomes/is-your-extra-income-taxable/index.aspx

How do I declare this extra income?
If you receive payments under €5,000, use myAccount to declare this income on your Income Tax Return. If you receive payments over €5,000 a year, you will need to register for self-assessment. Once you register, file your tax return form on Revenue Online Services (ROS).

4068ac1elhodqr

Augeo wrote: »

that level of detail isn't on credit card / debit card statements, the receipts aren't attached. The bank has no notion what you actually bought in that particular transaction.

Perhaps (not that a retail's ePOS db hasn't got it stored somewhere if some digging was really required, to cross reference bar codes, time stamps etc).


Most likely it refers to online shopping e.g. Amazon where itemised lists are easier to find per customer.

ohnonotgmail

Mavis Panicky Easel wrote: »

Likely this is already the case.

But would you also like them to know what you had for breakfast last week, what magazines are on your coffee table, and if you got a bus all last week instead of walking, when (e.g.) agreeing to do more exercise, reduce BMI and reduce co2 emissions, perhaps at a prior meeting, now subject to penalty.

not even close to being a reality.

4068ac1elhodqr

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not even close to being a reality.

Access to medical data between registered medical practitioners would be the perfect environment for sharing data, if this is not the case.
Every GP, and hosiptal ward, has a computer on desk, a database click away.

Whereas the face scans across many modern cities, across retail, and travel hubs (often announced),
nevermind Clearview's 3BN records, both really require better discussion.

For a moderate fee, you can buy a Clearview licence, and with standard camera, identify (with immense contextual detail), the majority of folks a busy populated high street, almost anywhere in the world.

But an ambulance crew can't access your blood group type, just after suffering Audi R8 generated femoral artery damage upon crossing the road.

El Tarangu

RandomViewer wrote: »

Why? If Revenue are that mad for the money they should gather the scrap themselves , tax is already paid on it it's illegal to take twice,

I don't know where you are getting your ideas from; if you are a PAYE worker, your salary has already been taxed the first time, and yet if you used some of that money to buy a bottle of wine, you will be taxed a second and a third time (VAT and excise duties).

Getting €50k of income, except arising from some instances of inheritance, will have a tax liability attached, regardless of how you acquired it.

ohnonotgmail

Mavis Panicky Easel wrote: »

Access to medical data between registered medical practitioners would be the perfect environment for sharing data, if this is not the case.
Every GP, and hosiptal ward, has a computer on desk, a database click away.

it would be ideal if they did but they dont. any updates between my gp and the hospital and vice versa are via letter. all data transfers are point to point

Feisar

I don't spend money on anything that I need to hide and I would be willing to sacrifice my privacy if there was a greater good to be had from going cashless.

However I like the ability to have something on my person that I can trade with.

While working abroad one time I went to an ATM one Friday evening only for the machine to swallow my card. At the time I didn't have a second bank card/credit card. Only for the €300 I kept in the house for emergencies I'd have been screwed.

Dodge

Feisar wrote: »

I don't spend money on anything that I need to hide and I would be willing to sacrifice my privacy if there was a greater good to be had from going cashless.

However I like the ability to have something on my person that I can trade with.

While working abroad one time I went to an ATM one Friday evening only for the machine to swallow my card. At the time I didn't have a second bank card/credit card. Only for the €300 I kept in the house for emergencies I'd have been screwed.

That’s an argument for a cashless society. Card can’t be swallowed if you’re not getting cash...

Not directed at you but some of the arguments put forward here are absolutely mental. Insurance companies checking your receipts to see if you’ve been eating crisps. Ahahaha

Feisar

Dodge wrote: »

That’s an argument for a cashless society. Card can’t be swallowed if you’re not getting cash...

Not directed at you but some of the arguments put forward here are absolutely mental. Insurance companies checking your receipts to see if you’ve been eating crisps. Ahahaha

Dunno why I didn't think of that!

Naos

double jobbing wrote: »

Tap and go is the preserve of the moron. Takes twice, three times as long to complete payment.

It takes about 5 seconds.

If you handed over 5 euro in coins, it's going to take at least 5 seconds for the person to count it and then you have the

"it's all there"
"oh yeah looks good"...
"it's all there isn't it?"
"yeah, just, no you're grand. Thanks"

type exchange.

makeorbrake

Removing cash is an inevitability - but not necessarily a good one. The powers that be will delight in having every single transaction you've ever made on record. The state could simply cut you off - and freeze your wealth at the push of a button.

Step outside of the system and support decentralised currencies such as Bitcoin - the people's money. We prised apart church and state (almost). We need to do the same with currency and state.

scilover

As much as I find it troublesome, I think in the near future it will be inevitable. The mall near my area has already implemented this because of covid.

ILoveYourVibes

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Privacy for what? To dodge paying tax?
Removing it will be one of the best things to happen.

Removing cash won't stop that.

Overheal

scilover wrote: »

As much as I find it troublesome, I think in the near future it will be inevitable. The mall near my area has already implemented this because of covid.

If we went back to silver it wouldn’t be an issue

Far more practically though we need to devise better ways to sterilize our cash, like having UV tills or something.

The contactless cards are really handy right now though.

Re: privacy not just black market stuff but also your bank. Try to get a mortgage and everything you do being cataloged... gross. Every $0.99 app, every random small purchase from a corner shop, just hooking you up through actuarial tables and **** and using big data to decide your fate.

El Tarangu

makeorbrake wrote: »

Step outside of the system and support decentralised currencies such as Bitcoin - the people's money. We prised apart church and state (almost). We need to do the same with currency and state.

Bitcoin is certainly an interesting vehicle for speculation, but I don't think that there are many people interested in holding a portion of their wealth in a commodity that dropped 80% of its value over the course of a year.

makeorbrake

El Tarangu wrote: »

Bitcoin is certainly an interesting vehicle for speculation, but I don't think that there are many people interested in holding a portion of their wealth in a commodity that dropped 80% of its value over the course of a year.

There's no suggestion that you should hold all your wealth in bitcoin today - so that's not an issue. Hold 5% of your wealth in bitcoin as a hedge against the rampant currency printing that's going on right now. When you size that allocation correctly, it provides for an asymmetric bet against the current system. Use gold alongside it.

Its use as a 'speculative vehicle' is not its raison d'etre. It's just a phase in its development. The very same with the volatility you mention. Volatility has already been proven to be reducing - but it's a process that's going to play out over a longer timeframe as its market capitalisation expands. People tend to focus on its drop from its 2017 high - zoom out and look at the higher lows it has put in year on year instead and it presents a completely different picture. Also, have a look at the performance of gold in the 1970s. Over the course of 20 months, it corrected by 50%. Over the course of that decade, it had increased by 2,300%. Curiously, that gold run coincided with the doing away of the gold standard at the beginning of that decade.

Otherwise, although psuedo-anonymous, bitcoin can be used anonymously or swapped out for another digital currency to guarantee anonymity. It's also peer to peer cash - nobody can prevent its transfer from party A to party B. Nor can they confiscate it. These are also very relevant factors in terms of replacing cash.

KyussB

The poster didn't say holding all wealth, they said a portion. Holding a portion of your wealth in a speculative vehicle that regularly drops ~80% in value, is a stupid idea.

The primary uses of bitcoin are for criminality/fraud and speculation - the average person has no use for it, other than to participate in one of those.

Nobody believes gold-bugs/Austrian-economists/Bitcoin-enthusiasts permanent predictions of hyperinflation just around the corner. Austrian Economics has almost nothing of value to say about macroeconomics - it has a terrible track record - and persistent hyperinflation scaremongering discredits it routinely.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

......... The state could simply cut you off - and freeze your wealth at the push of a button............

CAB struggle doing that every day so I don't see the state doing it anytime soon to any individual without very good reason

El Tarangu

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's no suggestion that you should hold all your wealth in bitcoin today - so that's not an issue.

Indeed, and I know that's not what you were suggesting. But the advantages of bitcoin are likely only to appeal to people who are into investing or particularly interested in privacy; for the average person, cash (liquid or in digital form) is still a lot more secure, less volatile option - regardless of how often the ECB fire up the printing presses.

paw patrol

El Tarangu wrote: »

Bitcoin is certainly an interesting vehicle for speculation, but I don't think that there are many people interested in holding a portion of their wealth in a commodity that dropped 80% of its value over the course of a year.

while you are correct , if more people used bitcoin it would be more stable. I can see this happening in the future.


Currently it's handy to use to trade (the transaction) and an immediate conversion to FIAT upon receipt.

El Tarangu

paw patrol wrote: »

while you are correct , if more people used bitcoin it would be more stable.

In the long term, probably yes - in the short-term, it would cause a spike in the price, and probably cause more volatility.

Currently it's handy to use to trade (the transaction) and an immediate conversion to FIAT upon receipt.

Still sounds less handy than buying something with euros (or whatever) using Maestro or Revolut or Bancontact, or equivalent.

4068ac1elhodqr

G4S removes 1,000 of it's cash handling jobs in the uk, due to reduced demand for cash.

makeorbrake

KyussB wrote: »

The poster didn't say holding all wealth, they said a portion. Holding a portion of your wealth in a speculative vehicle that regularly drops ~80% in value, is a stupid idea.

Firstly, it's purpose is not to be a 'speculative vehicle' - that's just a bi-product of its ongoing development.
Secondly, what lacks intelligence is the suggestion that it's stupid to hold 5% of your wealth in bitcoin - when you're exposing your overall portfolio to asymmetric risk - with asymmetric upside, whilst sizing that investment correctly to account for risk.

KyussB wrote: »

The primary uses of bitcoin are for criminality/fraud and speculation - the average person has no use for it, other than to participate in one of those.

That's inaccurate and incorrect. According to data published earlier this year, just one percent of crypto transactions were found to be illicit.
As regards its utility for ordinary people, as its availability to ordinary people continues to grow through more and more robust on/off ramps and as the UX improves, people will use it. What's not to like about being able to transact value directly from Person A to Person B - without the need for any intermediary - whether that be a government authority or a bank. It also strips out their fees, counterparty risk and delays - of which there is plenty when it comes to international remittance.

KyussB wrote: »

Nobody believes gold-bugs/Austrian-economists/Bitcoin-enthusiasts permanent predictions of hyperinflation just around the corner.

So the people that participate in the $10 trillion gold market are all deluded in your view? You would never recommend to anyone to buy gold according to that statement.
As regards rampant inflation and hyperinflation - and general state and central bank mismanagement, in any given year, there are a list of countries whose citizens are exposed to precisely that. Ask anyone from Lebanon right now about that. Or Venezuela, Iran, Turkey, Zimbabwe and Argentina. Every single year there is a list of countries with mismanaged currencies - so it's wrong to dismiss that.
It's also wrong in the context of what are considered to be the better managed currencies like the euro and dollar. This experiment that we have going on right now is exactly that (the rampant money printing) - an experiment. Nobody actually knows the outcome as we've never been here before - to say otherwise is misguided.

KyussB wrote: »

Austrian Economics has almost nothing of value to say about macroeconomics

That's your opinion - or the opinion of Keynesian economists who are diametrically opposed to it. It's not fact.

KyussB wrote: »

and persistent hyperinflation scaremongering discredits it routinely.

The very statement discredits you - rampant inflation, hyperinflation and general central bank mismanagement are in effect in this world with a list of examples at any given time.

El Tarangu wrote: »

Indeed, and I know that's not what you were suggesting. But the advantages of bitcoin are likely only to appeal to people who are into investing or particularly interested in privacy; for the average person, cash (liquid or in digital form) is still a lot more secure, less volatile option - regardless of how often the ECB fire up the printing presses.

I would have thought the average person should have an interest in privacy. As regards volatility - its a temporary phase in the development of bitcoin. See my example re. gold in the '70s in my previous post.
Bitcoin is highly secure - it has never been broken. However, people do have to take responsibility for the storage of their private key - that requires a shift in thinking as we've become accustomed to having a third party custody our wealth.
Other than that, from millenials down, digital transactions like this will become second nature - and at the same time, the UX is being improved upon. Here's an example of a seamless bitcoin payment for a coffee.

Augeo wrote: »

CAB struggle doing that every day so I don't see the state doing it anytime soon to any individual without very good reason

Well, that means that you wish to put full faith in the state at all times - on the assumption that they will always do the right thing. That's not something I wish to do - but everyone takes their own view on that. Certainly, things are more stable in Ireland than many other places but the past is not indicative of the future. There are many examples abroad where you certainly can't and shouldn't trust the state.

paw patrol wrote: »

while you are correct , if more people used bitcoin it would be more stable. I can see this happening in the future.

Exactly. As its market capitalisation grows, volatility will continually dissipate. We've already seen that over the course of its short existence thus far. There is speculative interest in bitcoin right now - but over the fullness of time, it will be as boring as gold, with little in the way of volatility comparatively.

nofiller69

LOL at the boomers here arguing about Bitcoin.

Everyone has moved on to DeFi and ERC-20 tokens. Thats where the money is right now, people are creating pools leveraged by other ERC 20 tokens (Ethereum, Chainlink, SNX, wrappedBTC, etc etc etc).

You're all arguing about the oldest, most outdated cryptocurrency. It all seems incongruent and out of touch with reality.