Programmable money is like programmable computation, there are infinite applications on the spectrum of good and evil. If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors (e.g. citystate crypto, nationstate crypto, non-CB crypto) and incumbent payments like cash.
> The Payment Choice Act is a bill that would require applicable retail businesses to accept cash for transactions of less than $2,000 and prohibit them from charging cash-paying customers a higher price relative to customers not paying with cash. Retail businesses would retain the flexibility to accept payments through any other means. The House Financial Services Committee passed the bill 32-17 on 18 May 2022.
> there are infinite applications on the spectrum of good and evil.
Which means it should be firmly in the hands of the people and never in those of a centralized government, in particular, never one which collects taxes directly from the people.
> If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors (e.g. citystate crypto, nationstate crypto, non-CB crypto) and incumbent payments like cash.
Well.. precisely. At this point, though.. what incentive to the population is there for a central government "programmable" token of value?
> Which means it should be firmly in the hands of the people and never in those of a centralized government
I don't understand this sentence.
In political discourse, "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament. If the people can't control the currency through parliament and government, how do you stop private or foreign interests from taking control?
My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.
> "the hands of the people" usually means the people corporately i.e. the nation through their representatives in parliament.
Is a free press in the hands of the people? Is it controlled by a parliament? The right to it may be recognized there, but I think it makes the definition a bit broader than your casting.
> My best guess is you mean "in the hands of people", which necessarily means in the hands of the strongest and richest.
It's only necessarily when the government refuses to take action against monopolies and cartels. This is a rather cynical take, though it may currently ring true in our modern environment.
What an insane takeaway. "The hands of the people" could not possibly be clearer. To equate that with essentially "the government" shows how incredibly effective the state's propaganda mills are on people such as yourself.
Also, why are the "strongest and richest" objectionable to you, but not the government? That statement describes the government perfectly, and the main thing that distinguishes them from individuals who are privately wealthy is holding a monopoly on violence that's used to forcibly extract wealth while producing nothing in return.
* Logistics: if you have poor infrastructure and remote communities, you eventually have to send armoured trucks full of notes and coins to replenish those lost to attrition or external trade. It seems a bit easier and less risky just to let people query the central bank from a satellite-based hotspot.
* Universal access: Modern payment systems tend to be for the (relatively) well-off. Commercial banks aren't going to be interested in handing out debit cards and maintaining accounts for people with an average balance of only a few dollar-equivalents. A state program can afford to operate at a loss (and may actually deliver cost savings if it can be used as a cheap way to disburse subsidy or welfare payments)
Historical incentives have often been closer to stick than carrot. One scenario could be a change in the definition of legal tender, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOuiWIID2vo. If there is sufficient awareness voiced by the general population, elected representatives could have the political capital to push back against those lobbying for new powers in a post-CBDC economy.
> If we are going to allow programmable money, we must allow competitors
The 'must' in the second part is more of something that you'd like governments to do, but not something that they in any way 'have' to do. I see vanishingly small chance of any government ever doing so because it would defeat the entire purpose of the central in CBDC.
https://cashessentials.org/us-considers-legislation-on-manda...
> The Payment Choice Act is a bill that would require applicable retail businesses to accept cash for transactions of less than $2,000 and prohibit them from charging cash-paying customers a higher price relative to customers not paying with cash. Retail businesses would retain the flexibility to accept payments through any other means. The House Financial Services Committee passed the bill 32-17 on 18 May 2022.
Previous CBDC threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30634245 (2022) & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27805709 (2021)
A 15m video titled "Johnny's Cash and The Smart Money Nightmare" simulates future TV news on CBDCs. It's regularly deleted, and mirrored.