Slashdot Mirror
RMS Calls For "Truly Anonymous" Payment Alternative To Bitcoin
BitVulture writes "Richard Stallman took time to air his views on the crypto-currency that has become virtually as valuable as gold. In an interview with Russian media giant RT, Stallman praised Bitcoin for allowing people to 'send money to someone without getting the permission of a payment company'. But he also warned against a major weakness of Bitcoin and called for the development of 'a system for truly anonymous payment' online."
Paper money still exist and it is anonymous by design, cheap and accessible to everybody on earth, not just the tech-haves. Technology is not always the answer.
Tomorrow is another day...
"In the case of digital currency, there is no short-term benefit for swapping coins, but there is no loss either."
Are you kidding? There's a major loss; making theft virtually untraceable and thus making theft considerably more attractive. Now even the not-so-clever criminals in western easy-to-reach-by-the-law countries can get in on the online theft game. Not just those that are good at hiding their tracks or are in countries that won't cooperate with your own country's police.
If someone steals your digital coins, they may end up virtually (ha!) anywhere, with little or no chance of ever find them again.
This is what we had with a cash-only economy, except much, much worse, since the thieves don't have to be physically close to you or your money. For most people, moving away from a cash-only economy has had the great benefit that their accumulated wealth is much better protected.
Also, corruption (which anonymous currency is fantastic for) is hardly a "friendly thought-crime which doesn't affect others".
That is one of the classic tradeoffs when it comes to freedom. There are all sorts of activities that people both want for personal freedom but are also used by bad people to do, well, bad things. Sometimes it makes sense for the general population to have a freedom restricted in order to make it more difficult for a minority to use that same freedom to hurt people. Other times it doesn't.. and while people will often site extreme examples one way or the other, usually it is a non-trivial trade off.
What I find sad is how many people fight the middle grounds, attempts to find a balance between people keeping their general freedom while still trying to do something to reign in the bad actors. Much of the debate around CTRs is like that, something that disproportionately makes things more difficult for criminals but people still fight it on philosophical personal freedom grounds.