Blockchain technology

Add to that, South Korea rumours of banned ICOs:

https://www.ft.com/content/eb981cd8-9923-37c3-9ec3-e5276b65ee8e

Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/eb981cd8-9923-37c3-9ec3-e5276b65ee8e

South Korea has become the latest country to ban initial coin offerings, an increasingly popular but unregulated form of capital raising.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission said on Friday all ICOs would be banned and the financial watchdog added that virtual currency trading needed to be tightly controlled.

ICOs have become a popular mechanism used by companies to raise cash as an alternative to the typical venture capital model. Start-ups issue coins that can be later used to buy its products. Investors pay for the coins using cryptocurrency.

However, the unregulated nature of the process has sparked concern among regulators.

China declared ICOs illegal earlier this month, and on Thursday the Australian Securities and Investments Commission issued new guidance for ICO issuers, warning consumers that they must understand potential risks and be wary of scams.

The UK financial watchdog issued a similar warning on September 12.

Governments around the world are cracking down on ICOs and cryptocurrency trading. It seems like eventually they want to have this stuff only open to 'accredited investors', in other words people who are already rich will be the only ones able to invest and become richer. Sort of defeating the entire purpose of an ICO - but you can't really blame them, we all knew it was coming.

If countries around the world do get proper regulatory frameworks for ICOs and Crypto trading, that could definitely lead to one crazy bubble.
 
LQB said:
Here is a very good high-altitude look/analysis of blockchain motivations by Lynette Zang. I think she does a pretty good job:


She makes some good points on the NSA origins of the cryptocurrency vocabular (wallets, smart contracts) and the fact that Bitcoin was released anonymously in 2009, right when the financial system went into "life support mode" until they can figure out a replacement for the current system.

And it's pretty obvious that central banks want to issue their own, controlled cryptocurrencies - this has been observed by many and the central banks are pretty open about it actually. The main attraction for them is that this way they could trace every transaction and even institute negative interest rates on all money "to stimulate" spending and the economy.

However, we have to keep in mind that this video is done by a gold and silver selling company, with the obvious agenda to sell. It has been actually somewhat of a "war" between people who believe in buying gold versus those who believe in cryptocurrencies as the best antidote to the fiat currency problems. As as a sidenote, it's probably best to have both.

With that in mind, she obviously leaves out a few things that speak in favor of the current non-official cryptocurrencies:

1. Bitcoin and the rest are all decentralized by design, so banning them completely is impossible. People will find ways to work around bans and it's highly doubtful that all 200 countries will agree on a universal ban as well. Those who don't will experience the economic benefits of this new technology, even more so if they get customers from banned countries.

This has just happened with China, where a lot of people started trading in Japan or South Korea instead, which are now the biggest cryptocurrency markets in the world, wheres just at the beginning og this year, China accounted for nearly 90% of the cryptocurrency market.

A ban by major economies like the US or the EU would certainly slow down the mass adoption of decentralized cryptocurrencies, but for the reasons outlined above it would probably be only a temporary delay. In Japan, Bitcoin is already completely legal, while Russia reversed its initial ban and is now looking to take advantage of this technology. Putin met with the Ethereum founder, they want to use Russia's cheap electricity for cryptocurrency mining, etc.

2. She also downplays the fact that Bitcoin and most other cryptocurrencies have only limited amounts of currency units. In other words, it's the same advantage gold has - it cannot be printed at will.

3. The price of gold and silver has been held down artificially for 5 years now, while those of the cryptocurrencies are not. So at least in the short term, it makes sense to take advantage of that.

4. As peoples' experience in countries with hyperinflation show (Venezuela, Zimbabwe), cryptocurrencies are a good way to keep one's savings and even conduct business in such an environment. For example, car dealerships in Venezuela prefer cryptocurrency payments instead of the local currency. And that's despite the government bans there.

In this case, cryptocurrencies even have advantage over gold and silver, because gold and silver can be faked and need to be checked, while cryptocurreny payments cannot be faked.
 
LQB said:
Here is a very good high-altitude look/analysis of blockchain motivations by Lynette Zang. I think she does a pretty good job:

That people voluntarily start implanting microchips into their hands to store Bitcoin keys is indeed problematical. And certainly there are sinister plots by interested parties to lay the groundwork for widespread acceptance of this 'mark of the beast'.

But one wouldn't need blockchain technology for microchipping. Also, even if I had an implanted Bitcoin wallet right now, I could not do anything useful with it, because governments and banks obviously are fighting the adoption of Bitcoin and other open source cryptocurrencies. So, something does not fit with this picture.

It is a bit of a stretch to say that Bitcoin (or other open source blockchain apps) are government created and controlled just because governments researched their theoretical foundations early and use the same buzzwords like "smart contracts" or "public key cryptography", or just because Satoshi is a mystical figure. Remember that the foundation of today's internet was laid by a US DOD project. NIST, as another example, is an US government agency publishing encryption specifications widely used in the internet. But that doesn't mean that governments have full control over the communications in the internet. For example, it is not possible to decode the end-to-end encryption offered by some mobile apps, instead 'they' have to siphon off the messages while they are typed on the screen, before they are encrypted and sent on to the wire ("sidechannel attacks").

In short, technology (or origin of technology) is not inherently good or evil, only its use determines this.

Now that banks and governments are prompted (almost forced) to launch their own blockchain applications, I expect that there will be a similar landscape as we see with computer software in general: We will see a divide like we have with Linux (open source) and Windows (closed source), all with different strategies, commitments and properties. There will be a mixture of things, and one will need a lot of discernment to figure out which is which. One can no longer lump everything together.
 
I have moved the general discussion about quantum computing to a separate thread Quantum Computing, so as to not clutter this thread.

axj said:
In this case, cryptocurrencies even have advantage over gold and silver, because gold and silver can be faked and need to be checked, while cryptocurreny payments cannot be faked.

Indeed (I guess you mean the 'salting' of Gold with Tungsten). All assets have advantages and disadvantages.

The realization that cryptography is practically impossible to break (when applied properly) requires some technical understanding, and is hard for laypeople to grasp. In this sense, cryptography (and anything connected with it) may seem like black magic. I think it would be good to start a new thread about cryptography in general, to explain a few basic principles.

Many know that the global banking system is pretty much broken, many have already resigned and are just waiting for the final and total crash, but when some promising alternative comes along, which could have positive results if utilized properly, only its negatives are seen and the baby is tossed out with the bathwater.
 
Data said:
The realization that cryptography is practically impossible to break (when applied properly) requires some technical understanding, and is hard for laypeople to grasp. In this sense, cryptography (and anything connected with it) may seem like black magic. I think it would be good to start a new thread about cryptography in general, to explain a few basic principles.

Many know that the global banking system is pretty much broken, many have already resigned and are just waiting for the final and total crash, but when some promising alternative comes along, which could have positive results if utilized properly, only its negatives are seen and the baby is tossed out with the bathwater.

Yes Data, and you (and others) have much greater knowledge than I of the blockchain technology and what can/can't be done - so thanks for your assessment (and thanks to axj). Some of the cryptos may turn out to be a very good way to carry wealth through the coming worldwide economic reset.

Two developments at the ends of the spectrum are interesting:

1) IMF plans to make bitcoin tradeable for SDRs
2) GoldMoney's plan to trade bitcoin for allocated gold in their vaults

#2 provides an avenue directly back into physical gold, so the possibilities are growing.

From Goldmoney:

Cryptocurrency users are able to utilize the cryptocurrency in their online wallets to make a purchase of gold and contribute to their gold savings! Purchases made using cryptocurrency can be redeemed using a bank wire transfer to a linked bank account!

PLEASE NOTE that purchases made using cryptocurrency cannot be redeemed to your GoldMoney Prepaid MasterCard.

Being an online platform with many different and diverse moving parts we are constantly optimizing our services to ensure user experience is the top priority. In an attempt to maintain all of the complicated, regulated processes on the back end of the technology and not burden our users, we have restricted cryptocurrency deposits to our Dubai Vault. By making this restriction all other processes on the platform can become simple and more streamlined.
 
SAO said:
One thing that was mentioned briefly in this thread that has me concerned about cryptocurrency prospects, is quantum computers. Without quantum-safe encryption, all cryptocurrencies are vulnerable to being decrypted extremely fast by one such machine, which would tank the entire market, given that it's driven by artificial scarcity derived from a classical computer taking a long time to run the algorithm that finds the coins. Given the recent mainstream progress in developing such a device, it is pretty likely that the PTB already have one secretly, and if so, would be able to crash the market at their whim. On the other hand, they would have to "show their hand" by doing so, and probably wouldn't do it lightly. <snip>

China Builds World’s First Space-Ground Integrated Quantum Communication Network Sept. 30, 2017
http://www.eurasiareview.com/30092017-china-builds-worlds-first-space-ground-integrated-quantum-communication-network/

The first quantum-safe video conference was held between President Chunli Bai of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and President Anton Zeilinger of the Austria Academy of Sciences in Vienna, as the first real-world demonstration of intercontinental quantum communication on September 29th.

Private and secure communications are fundamental human needs. In particular, with the exponential growth of Internet use and e-commerce, it is of paramount importance to establish a secure network with global protection of data. Traditional public key cryptography usually relies on the perceived computational intractability of certain mathematical functions. In contrast, quantum key distribution (QKD) uses individual light quanta (single photon) in quantum superposition states to guarantee unconditional security between distant parties. Previously, the quantum communication distance had been limited to a few hundred kilometers, due to the channel loss of fibers or terrestrial free space. A promising solution to this problem is exploiting satellite and space-based link, which can conveniently connect two remote points on the Earth with greatly reduced channel loss because most of the photons’ propagation path is in empty space with negligible loss and decoherence.

A cross-disciplinary multi-institutional team of scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, led by Professor Jian-Wei Pan, has spent more than ten years in developing a sophisticated satellite, named Micius, dedicated for quantum science experiments (for the project timeline, see Appendix), which was successfully launched on 16th August 2016, from Jiuquan, China, orbiting at an altitude of ~500 km . The satellite is equipped with three payloads: a decoy-state QKD transmitter, an entangled-photon source, and a quantum teleportation receiver and analyzer. Five ground stations are built in China to cooperate with the Micius satellite, located in Xinglong (near Beijing, 40°23’45.12”N, 117°34’38.85”E, altitude 890m), Nanshan (near Urumqi, 43°28’31.66”N, 87°10’36.07”E, altitude 2028m), Delingha (37°22’44.43”N, 97°43’37.01″E, altitude 3153m), Lijiang (26°41’38.15”N, 100°1’45.55”E, altitude 3233m), and Ngari in Tibet (32°19’30.07”N, 80°1’34.18”E, altitude 5047m).

Within a year after the launch, three key milestones that will be central to a global-scale quantum internet have been achieved: satellite-to-ground decoy-state QKD with kHz rate over a distance of ~1200 km (Liao et al. 2017, Nature 549, 43); satellite-based entanglement distribution to two locations on the Earth separated by ~1200 km and Bell test (Yin et al. 2017, Science 356, 1140), and ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation (Ren et al. 2017, Nature 549, 70). The effective link efficiencies in the satellite-based QKD were measured to be ~20 orders of magnitudes larger than direct transmission through optical fibers at the same length at 1200 km.

The satellite-based QKD has now been combined with metropolitan quantum networks, in which fibers are used to efficiently and conveniently to connect many users inside a city with a distance scale of ~100 km. For example, the Xinglong station has now been connected to the metropolitan multi-node quantum network in Beijing via optical fibers. Very recently, the largest fiber-based quantum communication backbone has been built in China by Professor Pan’s team, linking Beijing to Shanghai (going through Jinan and Hefei, and 32 trustful relays) with a fiber length of 2000 km. The backbone uses decoy-state protocol QKD and achieves an all-pass secure key rate of 20 kbps. It is on trial for real-world applications by government, banks, securities and insurance companies.

The Micius satellite can be further exploited as a trustful relay to conveniently connect any two points on the earth for high-security key exchange. Early this year, the Chinese team has implemented satellite-to-ground QKD in Xinglong. After that, the secure keys were stored in the satellite for 2 hours until it reached Nanshan station near Urumqi, by a distance of ~2500 km from Beijing. By performing another QKD between the satellite and Nanshan station, and using one-time-pad encoding, secure key between Xinglong and Nanshan were then established. To test the robustness and versatility of the Micius, QKD from the satellite to Graz ground station near Vienna has also been carried out successfully this June, as a collaboration between Professor Pan and Professor Anton Zeilinger’s group. Upon request, future similar experiments are also planned between China and Singapore, Italy, Germany, and Russia.
 
Philly Fed Chief: Bitcoin Has Little Chance of Thwarting Monetary Policy - Sep 30, 2017
https://www.coindesk.com/philadelphia-fed-chief-bitcoin-yet-tested/

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are unlikely to weaken the Fed Reserve's influence on the U.S. economy.

That's according to the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Patrick Harker, who issued the new remarks on the second day of a fintech event hosted by his organization, one of 12 regional institutions that today comprise the U.S. central banking system.

But while some have worried that the rise of a cryptocurrency would make it harder for the Fed to manage the rate of inflation, Harker showed that he isn't concerned about the prospect.

Onstage, he went so far as to contend that bitcoin has yet to be tested by a real catastrophe, but that when one happens, people will be more likely to flock to government-backed money.

"The paper that's in your pocket, that we call money, only has value because we believe it has value, because we believe the government stands behind it. It's all trust issues," Harker said.

He told attendees:

"And so, when cryptocurrencies and other forms of currency emerge, I think the basis of that has to be how do they create that trust?"

Trust in the government

Harker went on to acknowledge that while citizens have put varying degrees of trust in what he called the "sovereign states" that stand behind currencies today, other currency models might be possible. This includes, he said, ways in which trust might come from another "large player," or as in the case of bitcoin, an algorithm.

But his most pertinent critique was perhaps that cryptocurrencies have not been significantly tested enough to ensure confidence.

Despite issues such as the collapse of Mt. Gox, once the bitcoin's network's largest exchange, or the ongoing bitcoin scaling debate, Harker argued that cryptocurrency has been largely insulated from "bad times."

"Everything can work in good times," he added.

This leads to the second reason Harker said he's not concerned about cryptocurrency hamstringing the Fed's monetary influence: If – and, according to Harker, when – things go wrong, the Federal Reserve and other state agencies will likely be asked to get involved anyway.

"When things really go bad, where do Americans turn?" he asked "Well, they're going to come back to the government. That's the history of the country."
'How do you regulate an algorithm?'

Elsewhere, Harker responded with his thoughts on cryptocurrency regulation, with his interviewer, Knowledge@Wharton founder Mukul Pandya, asking directly how the Federal Reserve might assist or advise on such a strategy. (The Federal Reserve has previously noted that it does not have the authority to directly regulate the technology.)

On this point, he was inconclusive, suggesting any ideation is today in early stages.

"How do you regulate an algorithm?" he asked, drawing laughs from the audience. "I don't know yet. The answer is we have to continue to study this."

Still, that doesn't mean there aren't possible next steps.

For example, those studies might include looking more closely at how another algorithm, perhaps one created by the Federal Reserve, might ensure fairness in mathematical form, something Harker said is crucial to any potential cryptocurrency controls.

He concluded:

"Before we even think about how you regulate an algorithm, how would you even build an algorithm that would have that sense of fairness in it? It is a fairly deep technical question."

"Managing the rate of inflation" is a misleading euphemism for the 'printing' of new dollars out of thin air by the central banks and the private banks. Many people do not realize that even private banks "print money" when they give out loans - that is why a debt-based system is so important to the banks.

Basically, whenever new dollars are created out of thin air, they are either loaned to the government by the central bank or loaned to the public by the private banks. This means that, the interest paid on these loans back to the private and central banks is a slow dispossession of everyone else at the rate of inflation, which is about 2-3% per year.

It's the old "boiling frog" method where the change happens slow enough for people not to get up in arms about it and accept it. Furthermore, the banks and the financial industry make sure to use misleading euphemism like "managing inflation" and a specialized language to obfuscate what goes on in the financial world. It is complex and boring enough that most people do not bother to really look into it and understand it.

"Ensuring fairness" is another misleading statement, since the current system is the opposite of that - it's unfair to the core to anyone but the owners of the banks (central banks are also owned by large private banks). This is basically Orwellian doublespeak, especially considering that an algorithm is what makes sure that nobody can control a decentralized cryptocurrency, while both central and private banks can 'print' money at will and basically scam everyone else.
 
angelburst29 said:
This might be of interest?

CBS's Showtime caught mining crypto-coins in viewers' web browsers 25 Sep 2017
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/25/showtime_hit_with_coinmining_script/

Who placed the JavaScript code on two primetime dot-coms? So far, it's a mystery

The websites of US telly giant CBS's Showtime contained JavaScript that secretly commandeered viewers' web browsers over the weekend to mine cryptocurrency.

The flagship Showtime.com and its instant-access ShowtimeAnytime.com sibling silently pulled in code that caused browsers to blow spare processor time calculating new Monero coins – a privacy-focused alternative to the ever-popular Bitcoin. The hidden software typically consumed as much as 60 per cent of CPU capacity on computers visiting the sites.

Interesting article. Some websites and third-party advertising providers seem to find more and more strategies to indirectly earn money at the cost of end users (by metadata collecting, advertising displays, CPU misuse etc.) Some have already recognized this and call the current internet broken, or facing a primal threat. Amongst them is Brendan Eich, creator of JavaScript. He, for example, invented the Brave web browser (based on Chromium and its Blink engine) [1] which has hardcoded into it advertising blocking, and blocking of other abusive scripts, which makes it one of the fastest browsers available (because it saves a lot of CPU and bandwidth). To not take away ad revenue from content providers, Brave comes with its own crypto payment system (currently based on Bitcoin) where end users can voluntarily make automatic micropayments to sites whose ads have been automatically filtered.

If this idea takes off, it would be highly disruptive to the internet ad industry (and ad blocker plugins), while content providers still would get legitimate and stable revenues for their content. The ad industry is already protesting against this idea and has sent a cease and desist letter to stop the project.

Even if the idea behind Brave won't be widely adopted, these ideas are nevertheless born right now, and I expect that if the situation with online ads worsens, some of these ideas may gain a lot of popularity. It is one example where the application of cryptocurrencies helps to cut out the centralized middlemen (ad providers, ad blockers), which become more and more selfish as time goes by.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)
 
For most people, the term "Blockchain technology" is often associated with "big money, big bubbles, artificial hype, speculation, illegal activity, terrorism funding, tax evasion" etc. But this is missing a very important point:

Cryptocurrencies are just ONE specific application running on top of blockchain technology. Yes, cryptocurrencies were the incentives needed to help the blockchains grow, but there are other applications which are often overlooked.

A blockchain is nothing more but a decentralized database/ledger, which can be trusted because of its cryptographic properties. It stores transactions of ownership of digital assets, which need not be "coins".

Decentralized blockchain databases allow cutting out traditional centralized authorities, because the cryptographic algorithms establish a consensus across all participating nodes. Important central authorities in today's internet are, for example, the DNS system (resolving human-readable domain names to IP addresses), YouTube, Facebook, etc. This makes all content and applications running on top of these services susceptible to censorship. Recent news articles about internet censorship are abundant. They are also, more or less, single points of failure.

Because the DNS is so central and important to the internet, there have been successful efforts to move DNS records to blockchains like Namecoin. Blockchains are perfectly suitable for that, because ownership of a domain name is a kind of "digital asset." More recently, the Blockstack [1] project was created. It is an abstraction layer which can run on top of a chosen blockchain. It first ran on the Namecoin blockchain, and now has switched over to the Bitcoin blockchain. It itself is decentralized and Open Source too.

Blockstack has more applications than just the DNS. But the important part is that if the underlying blockchain should die (this is always a possibility), it can move to the next best (widely adopted) blockchain.

Right now, all these projects and technologies are still in their infancy, and are exposed to all the dangers which infancy brings. But their potential to positively change the future of the internet should not be underestimated IMO.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstack
 
I also noticed that these technologies are growing and spreading more and more every single day. Some time ago I received a proposal to do some graphic design online in exchange for a bitcoin. I didn't know much about bitcoins and how can I use them so I refused that offer.
Later I received a new offer from a friend to do a graphical design for a company that works with cryptocurrencies. This time in exchange for a real money, not cryptocurrencies.
During this period I learned that some of this companies have backed their cryptocurrencies with precious metals and stones.
I still don't trust these things but as I can see they are growing and spreading very fast.
 
Data said:
Cryptocurrencies are just ONE specific application running on top of blockchain technology. Yes, cryptocurrencies were the incentives needed to help the blockchains grow, but there are other applications which are often overlooked.

A blockchain is nothing more but a decentralized database/ledger, which can be trusted because of its cryptographic properties. It stores transactions of ownership of digital assets, which need not be "coins".

I agree. The potential applications for blockchain technology are just immense. It can be compared to the Internet in the early 1990's in both level of maturity and application potential. Andreas M. Antonopoulos, in Q&A session before Canadian senate (video in the last page), made it very clear.

Right now, all these projects and technologies are still in their infancy, and are exposed to all the dangers which infancy brings. But their potential to positively change the future of the internet should not be underestimated IMO.

Again agreed. As with any promising technology, it can be used for good or evil and the direction it will go depends largely on whether the forces of good or evil succeed in steering it. That is why, at this early stage, it is very important to understand it, educate people about it and essentially contribute to steering it to the right direction.
 
from _https://fee.org/articles/imf-head-predicts-the-end-of-banking-and-the-triumph-of-cryptocurrency/

Saturday, September 30, 2017

IMF Head Foresees the End of Banking and the Triumph of Cryptocurrency

In a remarkably frank talk at a Bank of England conference, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund has speculated that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency have as much of a future as the Internet itself. It could displace central banks, conventional banking, and challenge the monopoly of national monies.

Christine Lagarde–a Paris native who has held her position at the IMF since 2011–says the only substantial problems with existing cryptocurrency are fixable over time.

In the long run, the technology itself can replace national monies, conventional financial intermediation, and even "puts a question mark on the fractional banking model we know today."

In a lecture that chastised her colleagues for failing to embrace the future, she warned that "Not so long ago, some experts argued that personal computers would never be adopted, and that tablets would only be used as expensive coffee trays. So I think it may not be wise to dismiss virtual currencies."

Here are the relevant parts of her paper:

"Let us start with virtual currencies. To be clear, this is not about digital payments in existing currencies—through Paypal and other “e-money” providers such as Alipay in China, or M-Pesa in Kenya.

Virtual currencies are in a different category, because they provide their own unit of account and payment systems. These systems allow for peer-to-peer transactions without central clearinghouses, without central banks.

For now, virtual currencies such as Bitcoin pose little or no challenge to the existing order of fiat currencies and central banks. Why? Because they are too volatile, too risky, too energy intensive, and because the underlying technologies are not yet scalable. Many are too opaque for regulators; and some have been hacked.

But many of these are technological challenges that could be addressed over time. Not so long ago, some experts argued that personal computers would never be adopted, and that tablets would only be used as expensive coffee trays. So I think it may not be wise to dismiss virtual currencies.

Better value for money?

For instance, think of countries with weak institutions and unstable national currencies. Instead of adopting the currency of another country—such as the U.S. dollar—some of these economies might see a growing use of virtual currencies. Call it dollarization 2.0.

IMF experience shows that there is a tipping point beyond which coordination around a new currency is exponential. In the Seychelles, for example, dollarization jumped from 20 percent in 2006 to 60 percent in 2008.

And yet, why might citizens hold virtual currencies rather than physical dollars, euros, or sterling? Because it may one day be easier and safer than obtaining paper bills, especially in remote regions. And because virtual currencies could actually become more stable.

For instance, they could be issued one-for-one for dollars, or a stable basket of currencies. Issuance could be fully transparent, governed by a credible, pre-defined rule, an algorithm that can be monitored…or even a “smart rule” that might reflect changing macroeconomic circumstances.

So in many ways, virtual currencies might just give existing currencies and monetary policy a run for their money. The best response by central bankers is to continue running effective monetary policy, while being open to fresh ideas and new demands, as economies evolve.

Better payment services?

For example, consider the growing demand for new payment services in countries where the shared, decentralized service economy is taking off.

This is an economy rooted in peer-to-peer transactions, in frequent, small-value payments, often across borders.

Four dollars for gardening tips from a lady in New Zealand, three euros for an expert translation of a Japanese poem, and 80 pence for a virtual rendering of historic Fleet Street: these payments can be made with credit cards and other forms of e-money. But the charges are relatively high for small-value transactions, especially across borders.

Instead, citizens may one day prefer virtual currencies, since they potentially offer the same cost and convenience as cash—no settlement risks, no clearing delays, no central registration, no intermediary to check accounts and identities. If privately issued virtual currencies remain risky and unstable, citizens may even call on central banks to provide digital forms of legal tender.

So, when the new service economy comes knocking on the Bank of England’s door, will you welcome it inside? Offer it tea—and financial liquidity?

New models of financial intermediation

This brings us to the second leg of our pod journey—new models of financial intermediation.

One possibility is the break-up, or unbundling, of banking services. In the future, we might keep minimal balances for payment services on electronic wallets.

The remaining balances may be kept in mutual funds, or invested in peer-to-peer lending platforms with an edge in big data and artificial intelligence for automatic credit scoring.

This is a world of six-month product development cycles and constant updates, primarily of software, with a huge premium on simple user-interfaces and trusted security. A world where data is king. A world of many new players without imposing branch offices.

Some would argue that this puts a question mark on the fractional banking model we know today, if there are fewer bank deposits and money flows into the economy through new channels.

How would monetary policy be set in this context?

Today’s central banks typically affect asset prices through primary dealers, or big banks, to which they provide liquidity at fixed prices—so-called open-market operations. But if these banks were to become less relevant in the new financial world, and demand for central bank balances were to diminish, could monetary policy transmission remain as effective?
 
The Mechanic said:
from _https://fee.org/articles/imf-head-predicts-the-end-of-banking-and-the-triumph-of-cryptocurrency/

If privately issued virtual currencies remain risky and unstable, citizens may even call on central banks to provide digital forms of legal tender.

I think this is the crux of the matter as far as the IMF and central banks go. They want private, decentralized cryptocurrencies to become more popular and hope that this will lead to an acceptance of state-controlled cryptocurrencies to be issued later.

The real danger lies in whether this switch to a state-controlled cryptocurrency will come with a ban on cash and decentralized cryptocurrencies, because in that case, they will be able to monitor all transactions and even push through a negative interest rate, which the BIS already says is "an attractive possibility" to stimulate money spending in the economy.

Basically, state controlled cryptocurrencies are the opposite of the current decentralized ones because instead of anonymity there will be full control by the state, instead of a limited amount of Bitcoins they can still "print money" and create as much as they want. It's even worse than the current system where you still have cash for anonymity, but everything else is either exactly the same as the current system or worse.

That is why it is very important for people to be informed and not fall into this trap that is being set for us. From what I see right now, most people have still no understanding at all of this whole topic.
 
axj said:
The Mechanic said:
from _https://fee.org/articles/imf-head-predicts-the-end-of-banking-and-the-triumph-of-cryptocurrency/

If privately issued virtual currencies remain risky and unstable, citizens may even call on central banks to provide digital forms of legal tender.

I think this is the crux of the matter as far as the IMF and central banks go. They want private, decentralized cryptocurrencies to become more popular and hope that this will lead to an acceptance of state-controlled cryptocurrencies to be issued later.

The real danger lies in whether this switch to a state-controlled cryptocurrency will come with a ban on cash and decentralized cryptocurrencies, because in that case, they will be able to monitor all transactions and even push through a negative interest rate, which the BIS already says is "an attractive possibility" to stimulate money spending in the economy.

Basically, state controlled cryptocurrencies are the opposite of the current decentralized ones because instead of anonymity there will be full control by the state, instead of a limited amount of Bitcoins they can still "print money" and create as much as they want. It's even worse than the current system where you still have cash for anonymity, but everything else is either exactly the same as the current system or worse.

That is why it is very important for people to be informed and not fall into this trap that is being set for us. From what I see right now, most people have still no understanding at all of this whole topic.


That's certainly a possibility. In the more immediate term, especially in the west, I think the Wall Street types just want another market to speculate in irresponsibly.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/wsj-goldman-sachs-planning-direct-bitcoin-trading

In the East, for sure, it seems they want to digitize everything. This is an interesting video and he has others similar:

 
Back
Top Bottom