On 11/27/13 11:52, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2013-11-27, Guido Witmond wrote:
Bitcoin cannot stop corruption but it may make it harder to hide.
How, precisely, compared to what we have now?
Any direct transactions between bribers and bribees will be visible in the blockchain. It forces politicians to get other mechanisms, such as the public speaking arrangements like those of ex-presidents.
My worry is that by using intermediate payment providers, this transparency gets lost due to 'banking secrets'.
I on the other hand worry about how much transparency such intermediates still afford. Because there should be none at all. Full opaqueness is what we ultimately strive for. Or why do you think anybody would want to go with crypto in the first place?
My worry is that the transparency of these 'banks' is one way only, towards the despots. Not towards the people. Just like the problem with SWIFT. My payment records get hauled to the US, what can I learn at SWIFT of the US-payments? We needed a whistle blower to learn about the black budget.
My point was that money == power and power needs to be checked. Not by those in power.
Good money is *individual*, *distributed* power. Not power in the sense of a central despot. It's power in the sense of power to the people, individual and several.
Most people don't regards money as power. They regard it as property. That's why calls to 'vote with your wallet' are unsuccessful. When we have transparent money, people will realise their power, and learn of the consequences. It sucks when you cheat on your wife and the whole world can find out about it. It might also lead to more local currencies where a group of people have the privacy of their group against the rest of the world. That certainly diminishes the power of despots. Just like we can use cash to buy our daily groceries. These local currencies mustn't grow to be big banks, otherwise the circle is complete and we're back at square one. Guido.