Topic: Can CBDC users lose control of their money? (Read 933 times)

Depends on locale, I'd say.  There'd 100% be riots in the UK if you stopped people buying booze.  

To quote British comedy series 'The IT Crowd':


And what the restrictions are placed on will change depending on what type of government gets elected.  So there's always the potential for someone to feel that their freedoms are under attack when they suddenly aren't able to buy something they've always bought unchallenged up to that point.  

CBDC users losing control of their money gets lowered than what we experience with the traditional banking system. Yesterday RBI(Reserve Bank of India) Governor have vouched for CBDC. He had stated the instant settlement and more secure cross border transactions as the key advantages. He had stated the high cost, low speed, lack of transparency as the challenges in the traditional banking system. With CBDC this will be made more effective and efficient. Over time people might get used to it and the usage of local currencies for cross border could help in shielding from global shocks.

Good point. I'd imagine one of the first restrictions that we'll likely see is prohibition from purchasing certain types of goods (e.g. alcohol or tobacco) with the money received as child benefits. This could replace voucher-type benefits (such as food stamps) and there will unlikely be any massive backlash against it.
Then they'll be introducing more and more controversial restrictions (boiling the frog tactic) without any mass protests, as people will be getting used to it.

As said these advancements will help with the administrative operations, but this doesn't favour the users much. Just a digital way of using fiat. Nothing much on it. As said there might be expiry and other features that could keep the things in order. However it is people's money under the hands of banking corporates. Now itself some country's have started to fine on violations and just deduct amount from the particular person's bank without their consent. This will be an advanced way of doing it.

Oh yeah. There is no doubt about this - they will create certain conveniences. For themselves, but will be served to the public under the pretext of their safety, comfort and other fictional nonsense.

The duration of funds (CBDC) can be limited for less prosaic reasons than to combat climate change: government grants (or other payments) that can only be spent on permitted purposes. It will not be possible to accumulate this money. Didn't have time to use before a certain period - the money is reset.

Due to such a mechanism, the state obtains an instrument of influence on the economy: it will be possible to stimulate the purchase / sale of goods and services in this way. What does the consumer get? So this is digital slavery, when he ceases to be the full owner of his money (wealth). If you can't control it, then it doesn't belong to you.

But don't despair, there are some glimpses in this direction. Implementation of CBDC system failed in Senegal and Ecuador. Probably the same fate awaits Nigeria, where the people are against CBDC.

It's not just about having a full insight of your transactions or the ability to block your funds. CBDC will make programmable money possible. The government will have the ability to set expiry dates on your funds, or impose limits on certain purchases (i.e. to fight climate change) or, coupled with face recognition technology, they could fine you for any offences automatically (similarly to what's already happening in China).

But that could backfire badly in many ways.

https://twitter.com/TimHinchliffe/status/1674105699897311253

CBDCs are likely to play a significant role in improving the efficiency of the state's banking system. This is, in fact, an improved system of state cashless payments, so CBDCs will be under the full control of the state. And this means that the government can at any time block citizens' access to their money in their virtual wallets, as this is usually done with non-cash money.
But CBDC needs to be taken seriously. In any case, they will create certain conveniences for both citizens and the government with their banking system.

Another important point the wider public should be made aware of (I'm assuming a lot of people here on this forum would already know), is that in terms of "losing control of your money", it doesn't even require CBDCs for that to occur.  It has already happened.  What most people don't realise is, that from a legal standpoint, the moment you deposit funds to a bank, the ownership of that money changes from you to them.  You are a creditor of the bank.  They owe you that money, but it's not yours anymore.

The main reason CBDCs are an issue is because it will eventually eliminate the use of cash and carries serious privacy concerns if every single financial transaction can be recorded, tracked and audited, with all of your personally identifiable and financially sensitive information attached.

Cash = Privacy

I think nice and clean infographics with condensed information tend to work best, i.e. bullet-point-style information summarising all the potential threats that CBDCs can bring with links to sources or more detailed information in the footer. Something you can easily post/re-post on social media even as an image.
Plus, of course, watching and sharing any content of influencers (I hate that word) that comment on the subject, to get algorithms to boost it up.


Exactly, it'll click later on. Bitesize info is still more effective than walls of text attempting to explain everything in one go.

Sure, it's an overly peculiar way to warn people about the threat of CBDC, but it's certainly better than doing nothing and complaining about the inevitable CBDC while complaining in a bar over a glass of beer. Also, you are absolutely right that information about CBDC must be communicated to people in an appropriate way so as not to cause rejection in them, as another senseless protest.

Well, what better way to communicate about CBDC to others could you suggest? It’s impossible to talk about this in a nutshell, and ordinary inhabitants who rode under this bridge with an inscription will not read detailed long reads with all the evidence. The question is how to bring information to those who are not interested in finance at all until the day of their salary and going to the store.



I am sure that it was so, that you are the only one who is in the subject and understands what is written.

They will think about question "WTF does that mean?" for exactly 10 seconds, and then they will "switch" the TV brain channel. In order to sow a seed of doubt and have it germinate, the soil must be fertile and able to germinate this seed. Seed "WTF does that mean?" will not germinate in everyone.

Yeah, that's the one.  Pretty sure I was the only person in the car who knew what it meant, but it's a start.  Even if the majority of passing motorists are currently just wondering "WTF does that mean?", it's better to plant the seed early so that when discussion about CBDCs becomes more common, everyone will know that there is resistance to the concept.

This one?:

credit to r/BitcoinUK

It's always nice when people take actions but we need some proper, informational actions of the dangers of implementing CBDCs, otherwise masses will be quick to dismiss any warnings as tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

Was heading down the M1 (a major motorway for those not from the UK), and saw some graffiti painted onto a bridge saying "Say no to CBDCs".  I didn't get time to snap a photo.  A few people have mentioned it on twitter and there's also an FT article (but it's behind a paywall).  Looks like there are people out there hoping to spread the message.

 

And you have never made one honest post in the forum. It was my mistake to say that you're one of the people to learn from. Maybe one to learn from THE HARD WAY because everything you teach is WRONG.

Everyone should go to your trust page and read what gmaxwell and achow101 wrote, and ask themselves why they wrote them and who to trust.


Do they? Really? I believe not, or should not. The government doesn't have 24/7 access to your cash, they can't monitor all your transactions with it, and it's fungible and private. A CBDC removes all that.

most CBDC have national reserves in a multisig style. between the central bank and commercial bank. this is the distributed ledger controlled and distributed between the central bank and commercial bank, where its less of a blockchain and just a chain of UTXO updating the last state.. which this distributed ledger of an updated multisig  is where they invent new money and control total supply
below that is a separate network of the commercial banks having "payment channels" re-organising the IOU of the reserves between each other
and below that is the communication channels between customer and commercial banks that then have customers request their bank to route the balance through the commercial bank channels to other banks and thus other customers(destination)

both in law and in practice(if people researched CBDC and FIAT) central bank does not just shut down a citizen/user
in both old fiat and CBDC the commercial bank(middlemen) monitor its customers.. report those bad customers up the level and then if a court order tells them to freeze and seize a customers balance then they will

no bank just steal funds for no reason. a commercial bank can have its own policy to stop servicing a customer but has to give the option for the customer to remove funds and go elsewhere. again only if reported for suspicious activity and then receiving a court order allowing the courts to seize the funds would a customer be at a loss..

do not confuse this with situations where unregulated boiler room scammy services that just shut down or steal funds..

its also worth noting even china's CBDC is not where the chinese PBOC has control of citizens funds nor watches them all. instead then china has a list of a dozen commercial banks that have the commercial banks managing their customers and only reporting the suspicious customers. chinas CBDC even has accounts that dont need KYC, achieved by having a set limit on the im bound(balance) for a customer, thus people can still transact between different people and services without thinking its just one bank controls all

its worth people actually looking into this stuff to find the real flaws of real prototypes rather then sounding like idiots making up false fears of false problems thus by unhelpful in actually raising the real points of issues and functions

but the government still has the right to access and manage the currency, regardless of whether it is fiat or CBDC. They are responsible for managing and disposing of the property of the people in certain cases. So the possibility that the government controls people's money could be to pool it in the national treasury and use it for projects that improve people's lives. As for how they will be used, it is impossible to know, that is managed by the government to use it for their specific purposes.

windfury.. you have never said anything at all in this entire forum that was not first instructed to be said by your mentor or his forum wife.. so please try to for once get a mind of your own so you could possibly come up with idea's, and also where you can learn from the community instead of your forum daddy and mom admirers

secondly. if you continue thinking the only teams are core vs bitcoin unlimited/ABC then you really have been indoctrinated into dumbness.. there are hundreds of thousands of dev in thousands of teams some are not even in teams.. LEARN the words independence. diversity. decentralisation. zero points of failure

thirdly you dont need a monarchy/tyrannical style of organisation.. which core has made for itself..
instead individuals can be individual and have the ability to individually propose stuff without a centralised sanitised moderated system of mandated control. instead idea's should flourish and have levels of progression when they get recognition whereby for instance instead of one node brand owning the network. there would be multiple brans and even individual options. and they all have a pathway to propose upgrades to the network. where by those proposals are shared with other brands/individuals. and develop in both progress and compromise into something all brands like and enjoy and all offer..
thus achieving a majority acceptance to then activate

you think the only option(well your mentor taught you to think) the only option is core and anything else is a rival.. as your quote portrays your ill-conceived notion that its core vs enemy notion
..
you are so deluded about bitcoin history, bitcoins ability and the path bitcoin could go and the path bitcoin went, that you are not even seeing who is behind the decisions. because if you did know you would see the corporate puppetry which you then cry about in this topic

as for this topic. you have even less clue about CBDC again you seem to be getting your info from an idiot source and not from any real research. you lack even the basic understanding of how any of the current CBDC prototypes in existence function.

its time you spend less times sounding like your mentors echo and spend some time actually learning how things work and how things progress and make some decisions for yourself without your mentor informing you of an opinion you should follow.

if you really want to learn about CBDC then go to the sources, the BIS with their M-bridge and prototype connecting CBDC's and the hyperledger project

and ill give you a tip
even a central bank of current fiat and new CBDC fiat do not have politicians or central bank CEO sat at a computer watching everyone..
in old and new fiats they all support delegating that task to partnered(licenced) commercial banks. where is the commercial banks that monitor their own customers and only report the bad ones to the higher levels

learn this stuff

then learn how bitcoins controlled development went a certain direction in 2017 and the causes and who paid for the sponsorship of that direction.. and the tip is.. it was not "the community"

As the title said, there is a high possibility that it is true, it seems that cbdc is no different from fiat that is controlled by the country's government, it just became digital. So for me that cbdc is just a joke to be honest. Although, it somehow helps in the adoption of cryptocurrency, that's all, of course, it's still under centralization.

This is where the cbdc will really fall in the regulation, I just don't know if there is anyone else here who has the same understanding as I think about that matter. Of course the government will take advantage of that happening.

Lol, what are you even talking about?

The problem with altcoins' "devs" scamming people is that they're usually the ones creating tokens and allocating a huge portion to themselves as dev funds. Then they try to hype up their projects, and when there's a market with enough liquidity, they start dumping on "investors" and often disappear afterward. This is known as a "rug pull".
This is simply not the case with Bitcoin. There are no bitcoins sitting there in the development fund. Devs are either doing their work for free, getting paid by donations, or earning money from Bitcoin-related businesses, so they have vested interest in the Bitcoin network working well.

I think you may have a wrong idea of what the word "developer" means, otherwise you wouldn't be proposing not having them at all.

I feel like bitcoin and all the other coins should not have developers at all, that's it. I know that there is a need for development and improvement from people, but we could always do that as an offer, not as a payment reason. Look at altcoins right now, there are million altcoins with devs at the top getting all the money and people are losing money, do we want bitcoin to become like that one day?

Of course not, which means that we could get rid of all the "pay me to build you something better" mindset and we could do something that is much better on the long run. I hope that it can be done differently and it could be improved upon but if you keep doing something that would be even wilder and better and seems reasonable.