[HN Gopher] Boston Fed releases report, source code of digital c...
___________________________________________________________________
Boston Fed releases report, source code of digital currency
prototype study
Author : 60654
Score : 107 points
Date : 2022-02-06 16:05 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bostonfed.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bostonfed.org)
| mjevans wrote:
| The mention of blockchain in the summary worries me. We have real
| world data that shows us this only leads to wasted electricity
| and fabricated silicon shortages/outrageously expensive computer
| hardware.
|
| The idea of a public ledger and distributed witness signatures is
| sound though, and that should be the basis of a government
| approved system of inter-reserve asset tracking.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| They opted against the use of DLT, so ok for now, I suppose.
| After all, it is something explicitly under central control.
| anm89 wrote:
| The concept of a blockchain has ZERO connection to electricity
| usage.
|
| Proof of work is the thing that uses the electricity.
| blockchains can use or not use proof of work.
| jlarocco wrote:
| I think you may be confusing "blockchain" with "bitcoin".
|
| A blockchain is just blocks of data linked together using hash
| functions to guarantee the authenticity of previous blocks.
| There's no mining, and only a tiny amount of electricity used.
| skybrian wrote:
| Isn't that a Merkle tree? "Blockchain" is not commonly used
| for what git does.
| macksd wrote:
| "Block chaining" is absolutely used to refer to that
| concept in cryptography, and pre-dates cryptocurrency.
| erosenbe0 wrote:
| Correct. Block cipher, block list, block chain, block
| vector, array of blocks -- I'm sure you can find them all
| decades ago.
| acdha wrote:
| There's a fair amount of confusion around that term, however:
| for example, Bitcoin proponents spent most of a decade saying
| that only proof-of-waste systems were true blockchains
| because they knew that anyone picking a different mechanism
| would have much better performance and cost numbers.
| jonathan-adly wrote:
| The anti-crypto bros don't need that kind of nuance.
| Blockchains = bad, we don't need to complicate their simple
| world with big words.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Why not just be charitable and not malign entire classes of
| people with certain opinions?
| ur-whale wrote:
| > We have real world data that shows us this only leads to
| wasted electricity
|
| You are either ill-informed and should educate yourself on the
| subject (blockchain != proof of work-based consensus) or
| willingly creating confusion by mixing up concepts.
|
| Let's assume the first, shall we?
| politician wrote:
| There are different classes of blockchains. For example, the
| data structure managed by `git` is a blockchain. So, in and of
| themselves, blockchains are not problematic. When you raise
| those criticisms you probably meant to address the security
| function of the consensus mechanism for distributed
| decentralized ledgers. The security function there is crazy not
| because the people are evil scammers and con artists, but
| because Byzantine Fault Tolerance [1] is a hard CS problem,
| like AI.
|
| Tiered systems for central bank digital currencies that allow
| complete tracking of all transactions are an active area of
| interest by central banks. For instance, the PBoC has filed
| over 80 patents on the subject. You can be sure that these
| systems don't attempt to solve BFT, don't use as much
| electricity, and don't protect the peasants from the abuses of
| the rulers.
|
| [1] https://decrypt.co/resources/byzantine-fault-tolerance-
| what-...
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| Isnt git a merkle tree? And a blockchain a special case of a
| merkle tree? More like a merkle chain ^.^
| erosenbe0 wrote:
| Adding signatures or a cipher to nodes is basically the
| difference.
| tylersmith wrote:
| That's exactly what a blockchain is. Blockchain being the
| "secret sauce" has always been a misconception; as noted
| git is exactly a blockchain. What we call refs in git are
| blocks in Bitcoin.
|
| Nakamoto consensus was the innovation, the major energy
| consumer, and not necessary for cryptographic data
| integrity like a CBDC or git repo needs.
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| Interesting side fact. Proof of work was used before in
| 2004 to prevent spam but it failed. Nakamoto put that
| concept in a merkle tree.
|
| https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/8/238347-the-
| history-o...
| beefman wrote:
| "In our design users interact with a central transaction
| processor using digital wallets storing cryptographic keys. ...
| Despite using ideas from blockchain technology, we found that a
| distributed ledger operating under the jurisdiction of different
| actors was not needed to achieve our goals. Specifically, a
| distributed ledger does not match the trust assumptions in
| Project Hamilton's approach, which assumes that the platform
| would be administered by a central actor."
| DennisP wrote:
| This doesn't sound all that different from the banking system
| we have now.
| tadfisher wrote:
| The key words here are "central transaction processor". Being
| able to interact with the financial system without going
| through intermediaries would eliminate an incredible amount
| of waste in the form of most of the payments industry.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| Would also eliminate an incredible last grain of financial
| privacy people have.
|
| When every transaction goes through FED, the government
| won't need to call or subpoena anyone to know where your
| money come and go.
| djbusby wrote:
| How does the Post remain private, since the Government
| runs that too?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| one secret there is, they can photo record every source
| addr<->dest addr from the post item face, for some or all
| of the delivery, for years and years without fail, keep
| those records, and then do investigative work from that.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| With mail, the only information that is verifiable is the
| address that received the mail.
|
| The return address can be made up. Although the general
| area it is sent from is recorded in the form of zip code.
|
| The contents of the letter are also not known.
|
| So even if that info got out, there's really not much
| information beyond the fact that mail was received, and
| we probably know who sent it.
|
| Thats a world of difference from cryptographically signed
| transactions between known parties with known amounts.
| salawat wrote:
| They never open the package, and technically, they are
| quasi-public.
|
| Public enough that they can't play fast and loose like
| everyone else, but private where it matters in terms of
| not having literal Federally administered databases all
| just eafer for the reaping.
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| The fed is quasi public too? It's actually less public
| than the postal service, the postal service is a fully
| public agency, the fed is partially governed by private
| banks.
| djbusby wrote:
| Right. So, couldn't the central ledger be similar?
| DennisP wrote:
| If they don't require KYC for accounts, and maybe even
| use privacy tech like Monero or ZCash, then sure. How
| likely do you think that is?
| drusepth wrote:
| So what you're saying is they can finally just do my
| taxes for me?
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| A distributed ledger could prevent the central banks from
| cooking the books. Anyone and everyone could audit the
| fed. Can't have that.
| melony wrote:
| It is better for the government to run financial
| infrastructure. The restrictions imposed by PayPal and the
| banks on certain types of businesses can then be challenged
| in court.
| lvl100 wrote:
| This is right to some extent. They can have distributed ledger
| in virtual sense.
| slickrick216 wrote:
| Isn't this somewhat like hyperledger where it's a
| permissioned federated blockchain?
| tylersmith wrote:
| That's basically a requirement for a CBDC. They're certainly
| not going to promote a coin they don't control the consensus
| rules for.
| triangleman wrote:
| Reading Matt Levine's latest column on this CBDC was sort of
| mind blowing. With a truly centralized digital currency the Fed
| would basically monopolize all bank deposits (why store money
| in the bank at all when your digital wallet is perfectly safe)
| and destroy the entire banking sector.
|
| So they are forced to decentralize the currency to some extent,
| so that banks are the ones to actually issue the currency
| (after borrowing it from the fed).
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Or couldn't it force banks to offer better rates on accounts?
| If the Fed will store your money for free, then the banks
| would have to offer a few percent return to get you to lend
| to them.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is literally the only reason I support it. Banking,
| debit cards, and paypal are just private taxes.
| rvense wrote:
| Exactly. CBDC is not a response to cryptocurrencies. It is
| a (belated) response to the fact that the way cashless
| economies have evolved has basically privatized money-as-
| infrastructure.
|
| The privacy implications of CDBC are a real problem, but
| the rapidly approaching end game of the current slippery
| slope is one in which, among other things, all
| participation in the economy is gated entirely by private
| banks. No sovereign country should accept that. And yes,
| any real implementation of a blockchain as a day-to-day
| cash replacement will have the same problem. These are
| legal problem requiring a legal solution, not a technical
| one.
| throwthere wrote:
| Should name it PowellCoin-- This is what happens when the Fed
| governors won't let him print USD any more.
|
| I jest, it actually is kind of interesting and could allow an
| even closer look at the day to day operations of banks if the
| ledger was in fact published.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Many people on HN claim that the rise of crypto-currencies is a
| social catastrophe.
|
| Maybe so (I disagree), but wait until central-bank issued digital
| currencies become a reality, you'll very quickly learn the real
| meaning of social catastrophe.
|
| Spending 10 seconds thinking about it, I can come up with the
| following scenarios: - complete and utter
| "financial deplatforming" if you don't behave as a citizen. This
| is basically China's CCP dream come true. - total
| loss of privacy: the absolute entirety of your financial
| interactions are an open book to the government. You won't be
| able to buy a pack of gums without big brother knowing about it,
| much less paying for your sex toys. - security
| nightmare : how do you guarantee the soundness of such a system
| when it is centralized. Just ask Sony how long they manage to
| keep their private keys secret on average. -
| security nightmare : preventing the leakage of citizen's private
| financial information. If the chain is public, there is none. If
| it is kept under lock and key by the govt: 1) no way to check
| what the actual supply is 2) subject to hackage and publishing
| the data publicly. Knowing the track records of governmental
| institutions when it comes to IT security, this is basically a
| guaranteed fuck-up within the first 5 years of such a system
| existing. - economic nightmare: running the printing
| press full steam is now instantaneous and gives the government
| even more unchecked power to spend money on brain-dead programs,
| without leaving any decision-making power to the citizens.
|
| I don't think we will avoid the implementation of such an
| abomination, but I do believe that - like in everything political
| - if there's healthy competition from decentralized chains such
| as Bitcoin, the craziness will be kept in check because there
| will be an escape hatch to the govt. economic jail.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Most points could already apply in current payments and banking
| systems with only a few big players (basically security,
| privacy).
|
| The economic nightmare is maybe a degree up, but not really
| more. Generally speaking, it also tends not to be just "the
| government" doing stuff that no-one wants - there will be
| people liking whatever the policy is.
|
| The only real new point is that CDBCs with any kind of
| programming would effectively be vouchers, not money (ie your
| first point).
| koshergweilo wrote:
| Your comment ignores the fact that we already have centralized
| digital transactions and they're all run by private, for-profit
| entities. I'm just some random dude with no other
| qualifications than I read the article, but here are my
| thoughts on your worries.
|
| > complete and utter "financial deplatforming" if you don't
| behave as a citizen. This is basically China's CCP dream come
| true.
|
| This problem has nothing to do with having a digital currency,
| if the government wanted to punish people "if you don't behave
| as a citizen", it has plenty of tools to do that already.
| Something like this would be huge government overreach and
| frankly a violation of the first amendment, I doubt if any law
| suggested this it would even make it to the supreme court.
|
| Also the current centralized currencies such as PayPal and
| Banks already do this, if anything this gives deplatformed
| people more freedom as they have a viable digital alternative
| to purchase.
|
| > total loss of privacy: the absolute entirety of your
| financial interactions are an open book to the government. You
| won't be able to buy a pack of gums without big brother knowing
| about it, much less paying for your sex toys
|
| Banks already know this information and the government could
| audit the banks if it wants to. What's stopping a banker from
| publishing your purchase history? Many Decentralized currencies
| would also publicly show this. That said I think it's a totally
| valid point.
|
| > security nightmare : preventing the leakage of citizen's
| private financial information.
|
| This is true, hence why JP thinks "It's more important to do
| this right than to do it fast". As I said before though, banks
| and private companies already leak this kind of information.
|
| > economic nightmare: running the printing press full steam is
| now instantaneous and gives the government even more unchecked
| power to spend money on brain-dead programs
|
| I don't see how this changes anything. The Fed can already run
| the money printer to whatever throughput it needs. This doesn't
| change that. Only thing this changes is that it would be easier
| to give direct aid to citizens, especially the lowest 5% who
| don't own bank accounts.
|
| >if there's healthy competition from decentralized chains such
| as Bitcoin, the craziness will be kept in check because there
| will be an escape hatch to the govt
|
| Yeah that's why I kind of think this is a good idea. We already
| have private versions of this and we could always... Just use
| those if we don't want to use whatever Powell coin turns out to
| be. It only gives us more options. Also it would be great to
| have digital transactions without the $.35 fees
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > complete and utter "financial deplatforming" if you don't
| behave as a citizen.
|
| We live in a world with prisons. Stopping your spending is
| nothing compared to literally locking you up.
| mrkentutbabi wrote:
| This is precisely why I am still a crypto believer despite all
| its flaws.
| pphysch wrote:
| This is overwhelming one-sided...
|
| Why CBDC is good:
|
| - Efficiency: much of the legacy financial institutions are no
| longer needed in current form (going as far as the Fed and
| IRS). Opportunity to reform finance as a whole and remove
| legacy waste.
|
| - Fraud detection: money laundering and financial crime becomes
| very difficult to hide
|
| - Observability: much better data & insight into economic
| trends
|
| - Security: Infra being controlled by a public org that can be
| held more accountable than a decentralized mess of private
| corporations (see endless Equifax leaks, etc)
|
| - Responsiveness: can rapidly implement policy changes in
| response to crises
| pessimizer wrote:
| We already have all of this. The government can tell your bank
| to do something, and your bank will do it. What a government
| digital currency would do is end the subsidy of banks as the
| only "safe" place to park money. If I have a government account
| with my money, banks don't get to gamble with it for their own
| benefit. If I want to do that, I could withdraw the cash from
| where it is safe and consciously put it at risk, rather than
| the government backstopping the finance industry.
|
| If government bits are just the beginning of a banning of cash,
| that's the real problem; but there's no reason they can't ban
| cash _now._
|
| The benefit to some sort of government semi-distributed ledger
| would be that independent people could set up ATMs. Otherwise,
| I'd just be happy with postal checking/savings. We already have
| a bunch of post offices.
| reese_john wrote:
| We already have all of this. The government can tell your
| bank to do something, and your bank will do it.
|
| But can the government do that at scale ? I thought they
| needed at least a subpoena to get your bank records.
|
| It's different from the mass surveillance that a CBDC
| enables.
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's assuming that your bank cares about keeping your
| transactions private enough not to voluntarily submit to
| anything asked of it.
|
| If you hate the idea, you'd still be free to park your cash
| with some rando that promises to keep it safe, just without
| subsidy. Hell, the existence of a gov digital currency
| might ironically stabilize bitcoin or a bitcoin-like.
| rvense wrote:
| Why is it you think a CDBC can't be set up, legally, to
| require subpoenas?
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| kangaroozach wrote:
| FIAT
| nabla9 wrote:
| Central bank digital currency efforts seem interesting.
|
| 1. They make it possible to deliver helicopter money directly to
| the consumers. Now central banks can only work trough banks or
| financial markets. Digital currency where everyone has access to
| central bank money can correct the errors in current systems.
|
| 2. Currency would be anchored in real economy with sound monetary
| policy. Nobody in their right mind takes Bitcoin denominated 10
| year mortgage.
| anm89 wrote:
| I don't understand what you are saying here
|
| if point 1 is that it enables helicopter money, how is the
| conclusion in point 2 that it enables sound monetary policy?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Sound monetary policy according to Fed mandate and goals is
| low unemployment rate and average inflation rate 2 percent
| over medium length period.
|
| Many argue that helicopter money is better alternative to
| quantitative easing (buying bonds). Just give money to the
| people. Buying bonds is ineffective because bond holders
| don't consume. The velocity of money just drops and asset
| prices increase.
|
| (you may picture helicopter money as trowing more money than
| is needed, but that's now what the idiom means. It means that
| the money lands on people, not banks).
| ur-whale wrote:
| FWIW:
|
| https://github.com/mit-dci/opencbdc-tx
|
| Detailed architecture:
|
| https://github.com/mit-dci/opencbdc-tx/blob/trunk/docs/archi...
|
| Some remarks: - Seems to be implemented in C++
| - Looks like they reused bits and pieces from the Bitcoin code
| base (bech32, secp256k1, sha256) - Claim of being able to
| handle 1.7M TPS - Experimented with UTXO-style (Bitcoin-
| like) but seem to have bet on something called "unspent hashes"
| instead. - I found very little on things that matter
| (policy-related): - How is the "central authority"
| implemented - How is the coin supply managed
| [deleted]
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Will this basically mean the federal government would have a
| record of all our transactions?
| tantalor wrote:
| It depends on how Congress writes the law that would enable
| CDBC.
|
| They could simply copy & paste the existing laws regarding
| banking privacy, e.g., RFPA.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Financial_Privacy_Act
| rvense wrote:
| This is a legal problem, not a technical one.
| lvl100 wrote:
| I wasn't aware they would make this open. It's a great way to
| play around with toy digital currency implementation. There goes
| my plans for rest of weekend.
| jonathan-adly wrote:
| It's ironic that they named it project Hamilton. He is probably
| rolling in his grave now thinking that Jefferson would be finally
| proven right with CBDC and the insane ever increasing Public
| debt.
|
| "banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than
| standing armies," Thomas Jefferson
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| 21st Century Jefferson would be stacking sats and telling
| everyone they knew about BTC. The antidote to 21st Century
| Hamilton CBDCs.
| jonathan-adly wrote:
| I actually think both will be stacking sats. Hamilton was a
| practical libertarian, Jefferson was "we must have a
| revolution every now and then to show the government who is
| boss" libertarian.
| skybrian wrote:
| History hasn't been kind to either of Jefferson's opinions in
| that sentence. The US did abolish the central bank for a while
| and nothing good happened as a result. Also, military coups are
| a problem in many countries, but not the US.
| chewzerita wrote:
| > military coups are a problem in many countries, but not the
| US
|
| I wonder why
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| Privately owned banks.
|
| Private, untraceable, accurate, high capacity banks.
| tryptophan wrote:
| Nothing good has happened after central banking was
| established either. It's been one financial crisis after
| another.
|
| Also fun fact - back when the US had private currencies,
| people WILLINGLY preferred to use them despite a gov currency
| existing. It is only after the government passed high taxes
| on these currencies(ie having to pay tax for each transaction
| to exchange them) that they went out of favor. If they were
| really so terrible, why did the gov feel the need to kill
| them?
|
| Central banking is nothing but a power grab. The "it
| stabilizes the baking system" is nothing but a lie.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _Also fun fact - back when the US had private currencies,
| people WILLINGLY preferred to use them despite a gov
| currency existing._
|
| I'm not much of a historian, but are you referring to
| company stores? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
|
| > Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go // I owe
| my soul to the company store
|
| -- Johnny Cash, _Sixteen Tons_
| [deleted]
| cgriswald wrote:
| That's not a Johnny Cash song although he did release a
| cover of it:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen_Tons
| shkkmo wrote:
| There was an extended period when state chartered banks
| could print their own currency.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Banking_Era
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Fwiw in hindsight it appears that structural regulation
| like Glass-Steagal is what stabilizes the banking system.
|
| Separating banking, investment banking, and insurance into
| separate legal entities and preventing the banks from
| consolidating into mega-banks prevented another a Great
| Depression for ~70years. Then roughly 8yrs after we
| repealed all that, we unsurprisingly had another Great
| Depression level financial crisis.
|
| The Fed's lending support, along with govt stimulus,
| prevented the actual depression from happening, so you
| could argue that the Central Bank does have some impact on
| banking system stability. But it was only necessary because
| we removed the structural regulation that had maintained a
| stable banking system for over half a century.
| tryptophan wrote:
| > Fwiw in hindsight it appears that structural regulation
| like Glass-Steagal is what stabilizes the banking system.
|
| This is not at all clear.
|
| > Separating banking, investment banking, and insurance
| into separate legal entities and preventing the banks
| from consolidating into mega-banks prevented another a
| Great Depression for ~70years. Then roughly 8yrs after we
| repealed all that, we unsurprisingly had another Great
| Depression level financial crisis.
|
| Are we forgetting the inflationary period in the 70s? How
| the gold standard was lost during this time? All the
| emerging market crises? How the USD has lost 98% of its
| value since the 70s? How inequality is sky high due to
| interest rate suppression causing asset price inflation?
| How we have a massive trade defect leading to an
| extremely large negative net-foreign-investment balance?
| Does it makes sense to you that countries that are much
| "poorer" than us are lending us money?
|
| > The Fed's lending support, along with govt stimulus,
| prevented the actual depression from happening, so you
| could argue that the Central Bank does have some impact
| on banking system stability. But it was only necessary
| because we removed the structural regulation that had
| maintained a stable banking system for over half a
| century.
|
| We trade depression for inflation then. Is this good?
| Bad? Not sure. We are living in that experiment though.
| One day this excessive debt and money printing will catch
| up with us. It has happened to every single fiat currency
| in history.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > How we have a massive trade defect leading to an
| extremely large negative net-foreign-investment balance?
| Does it makes sense to you that countries that are much
| "poorer" than us are lending us money?
|
| If you're against this, what you want is more inflation,
| not less. This is the entirely intentional result of the
| strong dollar policy.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| >How the USD has lost 98% of its value since the 70s?
|
| By what metric has the USD lost 98% of its value since
| the 70s?
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's hyperbole referring to how much US dollars stored in
| a mattress 50 years ago would be worth now. If, instead,
| you earned money from wages and/or invested in
| stocks/bonds/real estate/comic books, nothing of the sort
| happened.
| sgerenser wrote:
| Even if "the 70s" means 1970, it's still not 98%, more
| like about 86% according to:
| https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
| pessimizer wrote:
| That's why I said "hyperbole." I should have said "mild
| hyperbole," but I didn't bother to look up the actual
| numbers.
| skybrian wrote:
| This isn't good history. You should read more about wildcat
| banks and the financial crises of that era.
| notch656a wrote:
| The federal government is the worst 'wildcat' bank as
| it's a wildcat bank who has refused to redeem dollars for
| the gold they said it was backed by (eventually in '71
| totally reneging their obligation), at one point even
| outlawing private ownership of gold (the item the
| currency was backed by) and actually intentionally
| destroy the currency by target of at least 2% each year.
| A wildcat bank whos notes you are compelled to purchase,
| at pain of being in violation of tax law.
|
| At least in the old wildcat banks, you had a shot of
| redeeming for specie if you went out to the sticks where
| the main branch was.
| tryptophan wrote:
| https://www.alt-m.org/2021/07/06/the-fable-of-the-cats/
| SantalBlush wrote:
| >Nothing good has happened after central banking was
| established either. It's been one financial crisis after
| another.
|
| The US financial crises--terrible as they are--are not even
| remotely comparable to the damage inflicted by a military
| coup. Putting these two things in the same category is a
| nonstarter.
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| Do you have any good documentation that backs up your
| statement that is a lie? I'd be curious to read it.
| culturestate wrote:
| _> History hasn 't been kind to either of Jefferson's
| opinions in that sentence...military coups are a problem in
| many countries, but not the US._
|
| In fairness, if Jefferson had his way, there wouldn't be much
| of a military around to plot a coup in the first place.
|
| He'd also be considered a staunch non-interventionist were he
| alive today - "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with
| all nations and entangling alliances with none." Not much use
| for a standing army when that's how you see your role in
| global affairs.
| sp332 wrote:
| I think that argument had more power before a bunch of
| Canadians set the White House on fire.
| soperj wrote:
| the US started that war.
| skybrian wrote:
| This despite being mostly unprepared:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Unpreparedness
|
| Apparently having a very small army didn't help when
| Jefferson's party wanted a war. I guess they over-rated
| state militias?
|
| A lot of the founders' ideas didn't work out they way
| they hoped. (For example, they tried to prevent political
| parties and failed utterly.)
|
| When people quote American founders out of context, it's
| as if it settles things, but they were just making it up
| at the time, often based just on what sounds good.
| Jefferson in particular was often a rather impractical
| man, but a popular politician who promoted a lot of bad
| ideas (and a few good ones) that made for good politics
| at the time. He's hardly the only one.
| voakbasda wrote:
| The high level of individual gun ownership in the US makes a
| coup a very risky proposition.
| pphysch wrote:
| What does civilians owning firearms have to do with a well-
| trained military force taking over the seats of power?
| ur-whale wrote:
| > What does civilians owning firearms have to do with a
| well-trained military force taking over the seats of
| power?
|
| Such a military force would be facing a very well armed
| citizen-led guerilla response.
|
| Given the amount of private gun ownership in the US,
| holding on to power after a coup would prove a rather
| difficult proposition.
| klyrs wrote:
| How do guerilla forces defend themselves against Predator
| drones?
| krapp wrote:
| >Such a military force would be facing a very well armed
| citizen-led guerilla response.
|
| Unless enough citizens were on the side of the coup. I
| don't know why no one ever seems to acknowledge that as a
| possibility, especially after Jan. 6. Gun owners are just
| as driven by politics and ideology as anyone else.
|
| Plus just because you have a gun in a safe and maybe
| sometimes shoot watermelons in the backyard with it
| doesn't mean you'll be effective in guerilla warfare
| against an actual military. I know Americans like to
| bring up Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples of guerilla
| warfare succeeding against the US, but fighters in both
| cases still went through training that would break the
| average American gun owner.
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| > Unless enough citizens were on the side of the coup.
|
| That was kinda the whole point of the revolutionary war.
| #DemocracySpeaksManyLanguages
| selectodude wrote:
| It would be interesting to see how these "3 percenters"
| would do living in the mountains and eating bush meat for
| five years.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The flip side is that many people in the military _would_
| absolutely sabotage the coup. Keep in mind that
| _everyone_ in the military is bound by an oath to defend
| the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.
| AutumnCurtain wrote:
| Purely anecdotal, but from discussion with my military
| friends there is widespread belief more than half of
| enlisted soldiers would've supported the Jan 6th coup
| attempt militarily. That percentage is far smaller along
| officers. With two exceptions though the people telling
| me this are officers and that will slant their view.
| culturestate wrote:
| _> Such a military force would be facing a very well
| armed citizen-led guerilla response._
|
| As well-armed as the citizenry may be, the military is
| _infinitely_ more so - they have, you know, tanks and
| planes and smart bombs - and in this fantasy civil war-
| esque scenario I don't think the junta would be shy about
| exploiting that advantage.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| That's a weird argument. Yes, _obviously_ the US
| government can win any engagement against anyone,
| including its own civilians, by nuking them at any time.
| Clearly there is additional nuance to this argument since
| the US didn 't just nuke the Vietnamese, Iraqis, or Jan 6
| protesters from the get-go.
| salawat wrote:
| ...All of which require extensive logistics to employ
| that have hitherto been predicated in the Armed Forces
| _not_ being on the wrong side of the American public 's
| ire. I.e. you can handle hostile logistics in Afghanistan
| because it isn't that hard to get the raw materials
| stateside, and move them through Allied supply chains.
|
| Remove the part where it's easy to get things Stateside,
| and I assure you, a U.S. military coup/junta will be
| fighting a two sided war as well. Both internal from the
| populace, and external from former Allies who in no way,
| shape, or form are going to sit idly by and be threatened
| by a militaristic U.S. Armed Forces that's even remotely
| controversial enough to even be considered a coup by the
| populace.
|
| People forget: The Army Sabotage Manual is public domain.
|
| The military knows exactly the hell it will be entrenched
| in if it ever goes against the public's wishes. They
| literally wrote the book.
| acdha wrote:
| > The military knows exactly the hell it will be
| entrenched in if it ever goes against the public's
| wishes. They literally wrote the book.
|
| The entire public's wishes, yes. Now consider what would
| have happened if the military leadership hadn't resisted
| the call to join the January 6th insurrection -- it's
| much easier to imagine something like 90s Serbia where a
| substantial fraction of the population hopped up on
| propaganda supports the military efforts and will keep
| their neighbors from forming an effective resistance.
| EL_Loco wrote:
| Yeah, that's a complete fantasy. Since in US society the
| riot police doesn't come around with tanks and machine
| guns mowing down protesters, people have created this
| delusionthat that if they grabbed a couple of hundred M4s
| they could take on a government with a full blown army,
| and that when the shit hit the fan that army would still
| choose to fight with just shields and batons. There is a
| clip from the January invasion where a woman is fleeing
| the scene crying, because of the a 'violent' response
| from the police. I even think she just got pepper-sprayed
| (can't remember exactly). When asked what was she doing
| there, she said she went there to start a revolution.
| There's a passage in a book (can't remember now either)
| about the Mexican revolution, where a man hopped on a
| donkey and left his tiny village to join the armed
| struggle. About 5 miles from a conflict site, he heard
| the boom of a cannon going off. He stopped, turned the
| donkey 180 degrees and went back to his village.
| brimble wrote:
| I haven't seen any real-world evidence that high levels
| of individual firearm ownership correlate with the
| preservation of liberty and democracy. Most examples
| people like to bring out are resistance to a _foreign_
| occupation, typically with _external assistance_ from a
| real military and /or shipments of military arms. And,
| perhaps tellingly, the result after the occupiers leave
| is rarely democracy.
|
| Meanwhile improvised bombs seem to be far more important
| to and effective for a modern insurgency than firearms.
|
| Add in that it sure seems to be more common to read about
| private militias _aiding_ an authoritarian coup than
| _successfully resisting_ it and I think the pro-
| widespread-individual-firearm-ownership faction has an
| uphill battle just to demonstrate that the practice is a
| _wash_ , let alone beneficial to the preservation of
| liberty and democracy.
|
| There are a few cases of private arms being used in anti-
| corruption "wars" or stand-offs in the US, but at least
| as many in which they're used for essentially the
| opposite purpose (supporting anti-liberty, and especially
| racist, policies and actions). In any case, the national
| guard stepping in tends to end these in a hurry.
|
| The notion that the 2nd amendment is vital to the
| preservation of liberty and democracy in 2022 seems to be
| dubious at best. I'm not in favor of a blanket gun ban
| but I think that particular argument in favor of gun
| rights--which seems to be what anti-gun-regulation folks
| fall back on very quickly, when challenged, which makes
| sense as it's the reason given in founders' writings and,
| arguably, in the constitution--is, at best, pretty weak.
| gscott wrote:
| Mexico
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Also, military coups are a problem in many countries, but
| not the US
|
| Standing armies' threat to liberty isn't exclusively, or even
| mostly, via military coup, it's through acting without
| effective oversight against citizens when employed in a
| domestic security role, heightened by the separate culture
| and us-vs- them attitude standing forces create.
|
| And, since the mid-19th century, it's mostly been realized in
| the US through standing paramilitary police forces rather
| than an normal standing military, as the former were
| established as _permanent_ entities _before_ regular standing
| armies in the US, and displaced regular standing armies from
| the dangerous domestic role that is the main underpinning of
| them being in Jefferson's statement.
| psswrd12345 wrote:
| It was named after Margaret Hamilton, not Alexander
| Kalanos wrote:
| It's apt, not ironic.
| https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html
| cryptica wrote:
| CDBCs are going to be a goldmine for hackers. If implemented as
| centralized systems, some hackers and insiders are going to have
| access to unlimited free money. The fact is that nobody, no group
| of people on this planet is trustworthy enough to implement such
| an important system. Such people don't exist. Such centralized
| system is guaranteed to be corrupted.
|
| This is why such important financial systems MUST be
| decentralized, at least to the extent that anyone should be able
| to verify the correctness of the system's state independently.
| skybrian wrote:
| Banks are centralized systems. They do guard against attacks
| from hackers. It doesn't seem to result in unlimited free
| money. How is this different?
| macksd wrote:
| A national currency would be even more centralized, and
| centralized banking systems have not been free of problems
| either. They acted irresponsibly for years and then many got
| bailed out because they were "too big to fail". And people
| that society doesn't approve of can get screwed over if the
| payment processors choose not to do business with them.
| Moving in the direction of eliminating cash for these people
| scares me.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Has anyone ever hacked normal central bank vs bank pipes and
| injected new balances, for example? Or wholesale siphoned off
| stuff from payment systems? Why would a decentralized system be
| stronger? Would really more people care to actively monitor it?
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Its clear that current implementations of decentralized finance
| are also deregulated. There is a reason that we have some
| regulation, every single financial scam that is regulated in
| centralized systems is currently active in decentralized
| systems. Your concept of decentralization has been corrupted
| from the start.
| dragonelite wrote:
| I have been cashless for pretty much a decade, I'm more
| interested in what smart money that can be programmed can do.
|
| Like can i get paid instantly for every KWH i deliver back to
| the grid via solar panels. Can my salary or hourly contract be
| streamed to my bank account. These sort of things are all
| possible in crypto.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| So is irrevocably draining your net worth in half a second if
| your vendor makes a mistake.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| Can you not get paid for every KWH you deliver to the grid
| right now? My friend has a solar power setup at his house and
| he gets credits to his bill when he produces more than he
| consumes. That would be pretty simple to make into an ACH to
| his bank account.
|
| It just seems to me that everything you can do with crypto
| you can do with the existing financial system. Maybe not 100%
| of crypto's features, but easily what a huge majority of
| people and institutions rely on and use today.
| pavlov wrote:
| They are also possible with the instantaneous bank transfer
| system that exists in Europe. If an employer wanted to pay
| you once an hour, they could. I'm not sure what the point is,
| though.
| vmception wrote:
| SEPA is often heralded as being that convenient but this
| isn't complete information.
|
| Basically there is a parallel _instant_ SEPA that is only
| partially implemented in between certain banks in some
| countries. Cross border SEPA between two SEPA system
| countries is much more likely to be just as slow as the US
| ACH system.
|
| So the only way people could possibly believe this works is
| if they and their friends use the same banks. Which is
| basically the case, most Europeans don't even use the SEPA
| system to another European country compared to using a few
| big banks in their single tiny country with their friends
| and local businesses. But if an outsider wanted to do
| business in the European banking system, wanting to believe
| the experience Europeans come on forums to talk about, they
| likely wont be able to experience it.
|
| Expect 3 - 7 business days and some questions for your
| banking partners who might not know where the transaction
| currently is.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| You seem to be conflating hacked contracts and hacked coins.
|
| AFAIK, none of the major cryptocurrencies have ever been
| "hacked."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-06 23:00 UTC)