Interesting, but not surprising considering all the pressure from governments regarding Libra. I wonder if Facebook will ever back down from Libra considering how popular it is, or if they're going to adopt a "rain or shine" attitude and go forward with it regardless of what happens?
Facebook will never back down from Libra, they'll just release a "watered down" version of Libra that's essentially just store credit like "Amazon Bucks" and then sunset it after it's forgotten.
I don't think so, there is no way it would achieve mainstream adoption if there was a potential tax liability for users spending their after tax dollars.
The only press coverage I see about Libra is how governments are not gonna let this run and a bunch of other negative remarks (possibly drawn from the fact that this is a Facebok project which is seen as am evil company by many).
I don’t understand how is that valuable? If that’s valuable then all companies with bad press would increase their valuations. Unlike the popular saying there’s actually such thing as “bad press”.
I think governments actually want Libra, what we're seeing is the role of Facebook in all of this being forcefully reshaped to better serve the needs of governments. Facebook will be compelled to give up some of the control and access over this new identity system in exchange for being allowed to operate it.
Which governments? Libra doesn’t benefit any government.
While Libra is a “real” cryptocurrency (distributed, any user can exchange, etc) as opposed to schemes like Beenz, it’s closer to company scrip than to Bitcoin’s model of “digital gold”.
Also - despite all the white-papers and hired evangelists - Facebook would still de-facto control Libra: not directly, of course - but they’d control the specification and the reference implementation - which means they’d control the consensus system that underpins distributed cryptocurrencies - so if they want to switch to adopting a proof-of-stake system (i.e. good for whales and hoarders) or intentionally introducing a backdoor’d cryptography scheme - or even adding address blacklisting.
That last part is probably the most important: I imagine most governments (especially western ones) really want address blacklisting: it provides a Libra with an equivalent of today’s bank account seizures - and it’s easy to ask for: you don’t want to be seen allowing terrorists, money-launderers and CP porn sellers to keep hold of their money.
Finally, Facebook does not have a substantial corporate presence in every country - which means that governments without the ability to sue or prosecute FB for malfeasance probably /don’t/ want to endorse anything FB does.
"Address blacklisting" -- you just explained why governments actually DO want Libra. They will get that from Facebook. They will not get that from real cryptocurrency.
You need another human to make use of any kind of money. This human will be subject to some governments regulations, so it's entirely possible to implement some form of address blacklisting (in the form of some "due diligence" requirement when receiving money) without a technical solution. No cryptocurrency can escape government control.
I personally hope key governments deep-six it. Facebook has shown itself to be untrustworthy for personal data - in what interesting ways will they abuse a custodial role on a currency?
> Governments are as untrustworthy as Facebook but more scary as they have a monopoly on violence and can take away your life.
That’s an extreme and reductionist position - and I feel it’s an incorrect position.
The state does not have a monopoly on violence - certainly not in practice, and in most democracies today the state is expressly forbidden from using any kind of physical force (domestically, at least) excepting emergencies (e.g. police shootouts). Corporations /can/ be just as bad: look at brutal Fortune 500-sponsored union-suppression in South America happening today, for example.
Expect for very few exceptions like defending your home , self defence etc, you are even not allowed even show force let alone act violently.
State does not need to use violence in stable democracies they just have make sure ppl know they can to get everyone in line.
Also violence is not always physical. Threatening incarceration/ social humiliation / jail time for parole violations/ job loss and other economic harm etc is common tactic law enforcement employ to get cooperation.
Finally the state also offers the candy of lower jail time reduced charges and assorted other incentives for cooperation all of it beneficial because of the harm associated with the alternatives.
A monopoly on legal violence isn't about only the state legally being able to be violent, but it's also the state being able to outline who can legally become violent and in which circumstances. Which would include things like outlining that you can defend your home - so this isn't really an exception to the statement.
I don't find the phrase all that compelling. What is legal in a given place is based upon the strongest coalition of people that cares about that place. When speaking at this level of social organization its basically might makes right. A state with no police and no military has a monopoly on nothing.
They'd need to pay more than the other robbers, sure. Shouldn't really be a problem for them, though.
Something funny happens when the monetary contribution from a company to a country/government moves from millions to billions. It changes from a potential bribe that people want to keep quiet about to an investment that people want to boast about. And yet it's trivial to siphon between 10-70% of that "investment" into private pockets depending on the country.
Proxies too. Teenagers install proxy modules on their own phones and APs all the time across the globe. This “illegal crypto” is simple a series of mathematical algorithms.
