MasterCard Rails Against Bitcoin's (Semi-)Anonymity

angry tapir writes: MasterCard has used a submission (PDF) to an Australian Senate inquiry to argue for financial regulators to move against the pseudonymity of digital currencies such as Bitcoin. "Any regulation adopted in Australia should address the anonymity that digital currency provides to each party in a transaction," the company's told the inquiry into digital currencies. MasterCard believes that "all participants in the payments system that provide similar services to consumers should be regulated in the same way to achieve a level playing field for all."

Comments

Decentralization, do you speak it?

[Megane]

They should go after Bitcoin Inc. and force them to comply, amirite?

they must hate cash, too

[TheGratefulNet]

since that's the ultimate anon payment system.

of course, we know what's going on. they hate having to compete against another company.

poor babies!

Re:they must hate cash, too

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Exactly. One of the benefits of a cash is anonymous transactions, one of the rights people reserve unto themselves.

Making everything electronic so government can track it is just another sad cog in the panopticon the government is building, a precursor to a 1984-like dictatorship.

Re:they must hate cash, too

[mjwx]

since that's the ultimate anon payment system.

of course, we know what's going on. they hate having to compete against another company.

poor babies!

They absolutely hate cash... but seeing as the same forces who issue cash also grant them license to operate, they cant do jack shit about it.

But Bitcoin... there's people they can sue.

Seriously, if it were legal for MasterCard to punish businesses who accept cash, they would.

Re:they must hate cash, too

[witherstaff]

They already do try to punish businesses for accepting cash. They require merchants to suck up the cost of accepting Credit cards and not allowing a company to charge more to cover the credit card merchant fees. Of course 'cash discounts' can be done but that's uncommon. Most places just suck up the %3 as part of the cost of business so anyone paying cash does essentially pay more.

Re:they must hate cash, too

[mjwx]

They require merchants to suck up the cost of accepting Credit cards and not allowing a company to charge more to cover the credit card merchant fees. Of course 'cash discounts' can be done but that's uncommon. Most places just suck up the %3 as part of the cost of business so anyone paying cash does essentially pay more.

First I'll say that this little gem in the T&C is illegal in Australia (and anywhere else with semi-sane consumer protection). Hell, even in the United States I've negotiated better prices with cash because of merchant fees.

But this rule does not discriminate against cash accepting businesses. Everyone who accepts credit cards has to pay, even if they have no cash facilities what so ever.

In fact, it helps businesses that do accept cash because they have a percentage of transactions that are not subject to merchant service fees so they make more profit by giving a slight discount meaning a business has no incentive to refuse cash.

I agree

[Charliemopps]

. "Any regulation adopted in Australia should address the anonymity that digital currency provides to each party in a transaction," the company's told the inquiry into digital currencies. MasterCard believes that "all participants in the payments system that provide similar services to consumers should be regulated in the same way to achieve a level playing field for all."

For the first time in my life I totally agree with the credit card industry!
Mastercard, please immediately start providing anonymous transaction services so we can level this playing field ASAP!

Re:I agree

[bloodhawk]

I'm sure they would like to, but they can't. Have you heard of something called financial regulations?

Can you cite a financial regulation that prohibits anonymous financial transactions? Since cash, bitcoin, and anonymous prepaid debit cards are all legal, I doubt if any such regulation exists.

I can, In Australia it is the financial transactions reporting ACT, meant to prevent money laundering and it is imposed on all financial institutions. As I understand it many other countries have similar financial regulations for both money laundering and "terrorism" finance tracking. It kicks in at various amounts.

Re:I agree

[gox]

all of the protections disappear with bitcoin type anonymity

Reversing transactions requires arbitration, which is quite possible with or without anonymity (although, you wouldn't want to provide delivery receipts for physical items if you need to remain anonymous).

Actually, decentralized & pseudonymous systems like OpenBazaar which work with Bitcoin provide trustless (i.e. the notary can't steal your funds, unlike a trusted escrow) arbitration services. This sort of opt-in protection is better than what you get with Mastercard, but considering the technology is immensely more complex than what is used in centralized systems and that it is mostly open source (negligible funding), more time is needed until it matures.

I have no need of anonymous financial transactions for credit cards.

I would agree with this. Most of the problems with credit cards is because they are pull payments. The fraud levels would be immense if it became anonymous.

It's very convenient to not be required to give out personal info to prove you are not a fraud, though. It's also good for security: no "pull payment" info to steal when one of the companies you work with has a data breach. So I think from the consumer's perspective it is better in the case of push payments.

Re:I agree

[bloodhawk]

transaction reporting requires you to be able to identify both parties, not just report a transaction took place.

Wait, a level playing field?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't hear them complaining when it's tilted their way.

18-21% and higher interest rates? Obscene late fees on top the the obscene interest rate?

Yeah, I don't feel sorry for them. Not even a little bit.