Bitcoin Forum

This could be good news for all my French friends over at Bitcoin Central.....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/02/14/france-plans-to-prohibit-cash-payments-over-e1000/

It's almost like they're intentionally trying to drive people into Bitcoin's arms.

They are just following the trend. Spending cash in the EU is slowly becoming somewhere between strongly frowned upon and outright illegal. I cant see that changing ether within the Eurozone specifically as it becomes separate to the rest of the EU over the next couple of years. They need to try and make sure they are getting all they tax revenue they can and making cash unworkable forcing everyone onto a bank account and debit card then taxing transactions at source is the only realistic way.

We are already at this step in Italy, it's already prohibit, nay you have to sign many papers.
Moreover, there is also a proposal to force merchants to accept CCs if the sum of euro is over 50 and the customer ask for use them.

I'd be interested to know if they have data showing that unrecorded cash transactions are a significant source of tax fraud. Having seen how regulators work, at least in America and the UK, I strongly suspect they have no idea whatsoever and have just assumed that constantly lowering thresholds will "make things better". Cost/benefit analyses don't seem to be very common in those parts of government.

Because bitcoins act sorta like cash, is it illegal to make a bitcoin transaction over the threshold as well?

How do they possibly think they will be able to police this? Cash transactions are untraceable, how is making a law going to make them any more traceable?

In lands as France, Italy, Spain of Greece people don't trust governmants and governments don't trust people....

Regards, Inge

2-party anonymous escrows will make it impossible for authorities to honeypot violators.

In Italy tax evasion is very very high

It's not enough to say "tax evasion is high". A good government should:

1) Prove it with data.
2) Show that the area where evasion is high, is actually a significant contributor to overall tax revenues.
3) Provide a convincing calculation of the costs of implementing the proposal.
4) Show that the revenue gained is significantly higher than the costs.

In this case I am skeptical they're doing any such calculations.

Oh trust me, italy has second highest tax evasion rate in europe, first position is for greece  :D

But France? Their evasion is much lower.

Since when to thugs that call themselves the government bother with pesky things such as facts?  ::)

France has legal casinos what will they do?

Edit:
I'm not a gambler, but...
Posts = 777  ..  I just hit the jackpot!   :D

Good thing BTC isn't cash!

A note about taxes: in europe we have a decent public health system

You're trolling right? French health care, for the least, is a catastrophe. I've experienced it first hand. My family too.

Yeah, go try USA health system and then post again, if you managed to pay the insurance and you didn't die because you are poor and you could not pay.

At least I'd have the opportunity to pay for it... Don't talk about French health care, just don't.

Okay i wasn't going to say anything except you've persisted in derailing a currency restriction thread topic into USA health care ??? wtf??? your neuron wiring may need some looking at their chump?

Back on topic.

The damage to an economy with cash restrictions cannot be estimated, since much of the cash economy is unmeasured and unmeasurable. They are playing with some serious fire. Restricting ANY economic activity at this time is lunacy, just look at Greece, Spain and Italy, all these economies have gone into a serious tail-spin since cash transactions became restricted. These are exactly the actions of facist, totalitarian economies, and usually when going into their end-of-life phase. I would warn against investing at all in France and getting funds out of there if you have any there.

And as John M. says in the article it is the small to medium enterprises that are most likely to be trading in the cash of the size that they will impact. It will hit the working poor the hardest, not the people you want to restrict economic activity since these are major drivers towards improvement. The desperately poor and living-off-the-state poor are not going to be driving any economy anywhere.

tl;dr
Cruel, stupid move against the working poor who are trying to better themselves by the French Socialists govt.

Well i also heard that they want to take the €500,- euro bill out of roulation, the reason was, that this only used by criminals and crime related transactions ...WTF.. !!!

Nah, at least for Italy i can safely say that our economy (or better, our politic class) was failing even before that. Our problems aren't caused by this restriction.
Yeah, of course this restriction is not helping anyone. But our troubles are not caused by that

"Looks like the house is on fire!"
"I've an idea! Douse it with petrol!"

That's true  :D

The idiocy of governments never ceases to amaze me. :-\

FTFY  :D

oh geezuz.

The video description discusses 6% of world exports.  I always wondered where the world exports to.   ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojrQq6yc_2w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojrQq6yc_2w)

Sometimes I wonder what kinds of goons run france, first they want google to pay for linking to french newspapers, and now this... Oh my god...

They are also coveted by trackers (https://eurobilltracker.com).</shameless_plug>

I thought this was going to be one of those ultra-right-wing American conspiracy theories when I read that description, but sure enough, that's exactly what the video is!

I doubt they actually set out to make an advert that subliminally demonizes cash. Rather, someone at an ad agency was given the brief "international organized crime, let's put them out of business" and remembered watching Lord Of War. The camera attached to the note that makes its way to an arms dealer is very Lord Of War-esque. But then again, they clearly signed off on it.

Still, people working in the drugs are not economists or online traders. In the perfect world everyone would carefully research and consider all sides of every issue that affects them. In reality that's never going to happen (how many of us are experts on the international arms trade?) so I'd not expect them to consider the impact of demonizing cash very much.

dude. it's the government.

It is said that if one does not believe in hell, one cannot go there.  I wonder if a similar principle applies to conspiracies?

It probably is a fact that if/when all economic transactions are PII it will reduce 'crime' by a fair bit.  At least among us proles...or outer members as the case may be.

You may have had a bad experience but for all I know it's still much better than most places. Simply look at average life expectancy. Health care is not where improvements are needed most in France: bloated banking bureaucracy is where something can be spared.

This is the same as FDIC, they are trying to prevent people from withdraw large sum of money, since banks are all empty now ;)

I tend to agree, atleast in the EU. I get the feeling that some circles would actually make it happen today if they could. Yet at the same time I can't believe that they would outright ban it, since there are still a lot of people who have no real alternative to using cash. Also cash transactions still make up the bulk of number of transactions or is this no longer true in the EU (I've read a recent paper from the canadian central bank about it)

This video amazes, I had no idea it was this bad already

Are you sure? have you read the ECB paper on virtual currencies, to me it was clear they were putting bitcoin and cash in the same place when it comes to the things in the video. It could be again like you say just an employee of the ECB who thinks such.
Also look at some of the government proposals, in Belgium they had one to prohibit employers to pay their workforce in cash for example
I thought the banknotes where the star of the add

slightly off topic if cash gets banned, won't this hurt bitcoin's anonimity?

Actually it would be doing the backward poor people who don't have alternatives to cash a favor to issue them debit cards and even to re-charge them from time to time in order to help them survive.  Doing so will also protect the rest of us from the ill effects of the vices that permeate the existence of these folks.

I don't know about other 'developed' countries, but I am sure that the message will be well received and highly resonant in the fat middle of the United States population.

What the fuck do you mean by that?


Do you work for JP morgan or Mastercard by any chance?

I don't write in a way that everyone can easily understand, but a certain percentage of those here could probably figure it out.  If they've not figured it out for themselves already.


Nope.  I observe and comment.  It brings me pleasure so I'll continue as long as it is possible and not completely unsafe to my health and welfare.

---

Edit: add following observation by Goring which I've always liked.  It's about war, but is just as applicable to the (likely) attempt to get rid of cash:

"...But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

...Interviewer mentions people's power of will in a Democracy...

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

 Well the whole world is turning against cash. But, people like the feelinf of money  ::)

I have no problem with that and I will always defend your right to say whatever you like.



   "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

  "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

I won't bother to dig up a quote, but a lot of my words on this forum and particularly those of my posts on this thread are distinctly inspired by Sun Tzu's thoughts about the importance of knowing one's enemy.  Specifically, in this case, understanding his tactics through either analysis or history or both.

Well I too have read the Art of war, but in relation to your comment I originally took issue because of your comments they implied elitism and possible eugenicist type attitude, because of your misdirection I still do not know your stance, but franlky I care less and less.

What you say was already obvious.  You are clearly a very simple person.

Obviously

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-92JBGSRvyLc/TZhzgLsvviI/AAAAAAAABtU/K-LoywIK2oU/s1600/albert-einstein-simple-quote.png




http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/20399643.jpg

I  asserted that you were 'simple'.  Not 'stupid'.  There is a difference...though also often a correlation.

Armstrong picked up on the Matonis article:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/02/16/are-we-headed-toward-another-french-revolution/

I don't recall him ever issuing any opinion on Bitcoin, probably still evaluating it, but I trust he's smart enough to eventually come to the right conclusion.

actually, its interesting Matonis didn't mention Bitcoin once in his article.  he probably forgot.

There is but one form of transaction the government would be happy to let you conduct: the one that is easily traceable and stoppable by the authority, whereas there are almost an infinite number of mediums that could be potentially used as cash, and Bitcoin is cash's ultimate reincarnation. Moreover, cash is not going to die because governments brainwash their people to believe it's unnecessary and evil, you'll almost always spontaneously turn something into cash when you really need it.

"How will The Man make sure noone transacts more than 1k Eur?"
Same as "How will The Man make sure you can't turn fiat into Bitcoins without him knowing?"

MtGox enforces KIY, as do most/all other exchanges too, afaik. Same with money. Cardealers do file taxreports and stuff, *they* enforce the ban. Of course I can and do OTC trades. Just like people will, after the 1k Eur ban, do private 1k+Eur stuff.


What I like about the whole development? It will bring Bitcoin from the current "Paypal replacement" to "Fiat replacement".
Think about it: This strengthens OTC, and people will routinely work or produce or sell for btc, leaving out fiat right from the start!
Yes, it will somewhat radicalize the whole Bitcoin thingie, and will make it more difficult to use and grasp for the average person. But then they still are free to use Mt* with full KIY and all other regulations..

On another note:
Italy and now maybe France restricting cashflow is one of the brightest signs for serious turmoil coming. Endgame, anyone?

Ente

A couple quick thoughts on this.

Any law like this is going to be very specifically directed at cash because it is virtually unenforceable otherwise.  You can't really prohibit barter if nothing in question is not directly valued in currency terms.

The value of a currency is dependent on the ability to use it in transactions.  If you limit people's ability to use currency you have essentially destroyed its value.  People will switch to something else, whether BTC or even Tide laundry detergent (http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/), just to pick a ridiculous example that, nevertheless, people have actually used.

However, even if you make the law very clear as to what is prohibited, people will probably just ignore it.  People involved in illegal activities will just ignore it because they generally ignore laws.  Normal people will ignore the law because it is stupid.  There are places like restaurants and clubs where people like flashing around money.  So it will basically piss off wealthy people and damage service industries.

So you basically drop a bomb on the legitimate economy without touching the illegal activities you're supposedly trying to stop.  There is also no shortage of countries who would love to have their currency used in any kind of economic activity and will not hesitate to fill the breach.  Like the United States, which never objects to dollars being used anywhere.  Nothing spends quite like greenbacks for those CIA black budgets.  Though as BTC continues to catch on, I wouldn't be surprised if you see it replacing some of this kind of use of cash.

Ohhhh, tax evasion is going to be high once everyone knows how to use Bitcoin :D

Lol this can't even exist, it's like trying to ban gay relationships or something. The bottom line is you can't ban such a fundamental part of society. People have cash, and prefer cash. I don't trust banks, I don't like banks, and I don't like a digital number on a screen instead of hard earned money, and tons of other people in the world agree with me.

I bought a rolex watch at a dealer and paid him with 10 grand in cash, he didn't look deterred a bit as this is fairly normal when dealing with luxury goods. Pawn shops pay out huge amounts of cash all the time, because the person selling the item/loaning doesn't want the complications that a bank transfer or cheque causes. This law is a joke and reflects the government that is issuing it.

This is completely unrelated to bitcoins, this is simply a joke on society.

Funny  for someone who sells bank cards  ;)

I doubt that.  Everyone who tries to run a Bitcoin related business larger than a process on a machine under their desk has one of two reactions when the powers that be tell them to jump:

1) Ask 'how high'  (e.g., Mt. Gox)

2) Exit the industry (e.g., GLBSE)

Makes perfect sense since there are distinct limits to the amount of pressure that an individual is willing to tolerate for a particular reward, and they tend to be well under what is possible to apply.

Crypto-currencies generally are a tax-mans dream.  Taxes can be assessed at the mining level and I have every expectation that they will be when a certain level of consolidation takes place.

This is the main reason I do not wish to see a situation evolve where operators cannot be widely distributed, reasonably covert, and operating on a budget which can be written off without much pain.

Ultimately I don't trust that it will be possible to find friendly jurisdictions in which to operated large scale efforts.  Bitcoin (in it's original form) is not a very welcome development to any central government and any protection it may enjoy as an artifact of geopolitical economic conflict is likely to be transient.

There's no reason to think it will be any higher than it is now with cash.  People get caught for tax evasion not because the government can track every dollar spent but because they claim one income and are obviously enjoying a different standard of living, i.e. Al Capone.

Also unlike your average tax evader who takes everything in cash under the table, there are ways of proving that a careless evader spent a specific amount of BTC through a specific address to a specific address at a specific time.  So it's entirely possible the tax evader who spends BTC will get caught red-handed with what amounts to mathematical proof of their tax evasion.

BTC, unlike cash, requires separate efforts to ensure anonymity, since there is nothing inherently anonymous about the protocol itself.

QFT

Newsflash: Lawbreakers break laws.

You're correct. This is inane.

Grizzly Taylor, although rude was very right. French politicians are doing literally everything they can to destroy the French economy. They will succeed.

When I first read your reply I thought you said "Lawmakers break laws." How are all the lawmakers going to get their bribes if cash is outlawed?

Expensive meals, private jets, all-inclusive holidays in the med... The usual stuff.

This is not about taxes. This is about taking our freedom of economic transaction.

reminds me of a TED talk about "System D":

Robert Neuwirth: The power of the informal economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM4JupBz_E)

Reading the posts on this thread makes me believe that there are a lot of people with very little idea of how France and the EU actually work.

France loves coming up with new laws - its what they do.  What they also do is ignore the laws they don't like.  When this happens, the French law makers will adapt the law people don't like so that there is no penalty if the law is broken.  It keep everyone happy! Italy is similar, and Greece and the law are rarely in the same room!

Secondly, the EU are determined to get rid of cash in the next 10-20 years.  In the UK the maximum amount of cash you can trade with has been steadily dropping to ensure that cash based businesses find alternatives.

A few years ago, you couldn't spend more than £10k in cash, without a letter from the bank to say the cash was legal.  Now its £5k, and it will drop to £1 eventually.  The first to suffer were builders and car traders who used cash a lot.  They adapted.  By today, there are loads of businesses which are practically banned from using cash without a lot of paperwork being filled it.  For instance, try selling a ton of metal to a scrap dealer and getting cash - its not going to happen!

Strangely, I have a feeling this is an extremely bad thing for Bitcoin because one of the major arguments being used is the anonymous nature of cash, and its use in tax evasion, crime and every other bad thing since Moses was a boy!

It will be interesting to see how this develops!

Or alternatively, everything that makes the usual currencies harder to use is a point in Bitcoin's favor.


Indeed.

People won't use Bitcoin for transactions if they feel it'd be illegal to use cash for those transactions, simple as that. So yes it is a big problem.

Over time the only way to roll those laws back is democratic pressure. Right now there isn't much pushback against these laws because

1. it's being done slowly, frog boiler-style
2. cash is annoying, insecure, bulky, expensive to deal with etc so the argument that only tax evaders actually want to use it is a pretty strong one

Bitcoin has the potential to change this equation quite significantly by giving people the advantages of cash (irreversible, no payment fraud, fast, good privacy) combined with the advantages of bank transfers (cheap, online, works over wires, can be secure).

At that point the argument that only bad people want to use it will go away and it will become a bigger political issue. Assuming Bitcoin actually survives and grows in such an incredibly hostile environment, of course.

Now just because We The People might want to use coins for everything, doesn't mean lawmakers will actually let us .... governments aren't going to allow something that looks like it might significantly undermine tax collection, end of story. That's why it's important to do research into building efficient and privacy preserving tax systems that can apply to cryptocurrencies (and yes, they exist, Bitcoin is not the end of taxation).

There are many uses for cash and it has its place. Do you think tax evaders will vanish if cash is gone ? There are other means. Those who want to find a way, finds a way.

Of course. Nobody is making the argument that ALL tax evasion is based on cash transactions. Just that the audit trails that banks leave behind make it a lot easier to catch people who are engaging in it.

Sounds like you'll keep yourself busy making sure everybody is paying their taxes ... you better go get started on that right now, maybe on Google's time?

This is such a terrible piece of bullshit.

We do not exist for governments, it's the other way around. Governments exist for us.

We should pay taxes because we want to, not because we are forced to. If we are all forced to pay taxes we don't want to pay, it means that something is seriously wrong with our democracy.

And actually, because what I said is the case in most countries in the world (except for Switzerland and maybe few other countries) , there is something wrong with the whole world actually. So the sooner the world changes to the situation where people WILL WANT TO PAY THE TAXES (because they will know that the money will be well spent), the better.

Do let us know when you catch that unicorn.  ::)

But if they want to use cash for a transaction but using one of the usual suspects is risky/difficult, there is an alternative.

This explains why nobody uses SilkRoad, because it would be illegal to use cash for the same purposes.

I want to be happy with ruling of my government, is that really so much to ask ? I f I am happy, I want to pay taxes, because government  doing a good job means we need more of that good job. If government is doing a bad job, we need less of it -> so less taxes from me.

Perhaps we should redesign the version of democracy we are currently using, because it clearly sucks goat balls.

+1

I lol'd.

You give me the choice to not pay taxes and I don't care if the govt is handing out whisky, joints and whores I'm not given 'em any money.

People like you are one of the reasons why taxes (and almost everything coming from government) have to be forced. You should reduce your assholeness level.

You just keep on chasin that unicorn sweetheart. LOL

This kind of an attitude sickens me.

I agree!

Hazek, you should be ashamed of yourself!  ;D

Crypto-currencies of the Bitcoin variety actually have a potential for pretty convenient tax collection.

In one conception of crypto-currencies, I sort of envision 'competitive management' which includes taxation among other things (such as inflation, issuance, etc.)  In this form almost any entity who wished could issue a currency.  Say the state, county, city, and any private organization who wished to.

Those entities who managed their currency well would have a strong currency and those who didn't, a weak one.  Most people would hold a variety of the currencies they used most often.  Even at scale exchanges should be able to operate profitably on a pretty tiny cut so I don't see a problem converting between them when necessary.

You sir, are an idiot.
Life is going to constantly kick your butt with this attitude. The funny thing is that you are yet too stupid to realize why are all these things happening to you.

Or perhaps you are just some kid. In that case, i hope that when you grow up, you will start to understand things.

I think he understands things pretty well, looks like.

I wonder, if other European countries follow suit and keep reducing the limit, what is going to happen to people who are unable to open a bank account (eg. foreign students, day laborers, homeless people, minors, refugees, people who have declared bankruptcy,...) ?

Are they going to be criminals by default? Are they expected to live without using money? That would be appalling.

If the government forces people to use banks then the least it can do is to force banks to open a bank account for anyone who asks.

That's not the case in Germany anymore since the Postbank was privatized.  There are reports about members of the above groups being refused bank accounts by banks.   I'm not sure what the situation is in Italy and Spain where similar cash bans have been introduced.

Not an advancement of freedom, that's for sure

A couple of years ago I tried to open an account at Banco Santander in Spain. They required proof that I had a job. I am fortunate enough to have a job but didn't have a proof with me at that moment so I was unable to open it.

Fsck em.

They are. Here in Slovenia currently the cash limit is at 10k € and they want to lower it to 3k I believe.

I think in that case bitcoin will be heavily traded against gold and the like

except of course if holding gold gets banned explicitly, but at that time I think you'd better get a good seat in the people's party

To explain this: the Postbank was run by the state's postal service and by law had to provide everybody with a bank account. Then they sold it to the Deutsche Bank without passing on that duty. I love seeing their ads where they explain how seriously they take their "responsibility for society" :).

I know of cases where people cannot get a bank account without a job and no job without a bank account. Or no flat. Can be a mean circle if noone let's you break out.

My girlfriend (student) had real problems last year to get an account in England. Great when someone from HSBC explains to you that these are their normal anti money laundering meassures. No comedian could come up with something funny as that.

However, what I really can see in Germany is that the banks are doing everything to make the handling of cash as unconvenient and expensive as possible (our business handles a lot of cash). They close down counters so the queues in front of the rest of the counters get ridiculously long, they make cash deposits really expensive and a pain in the ass to go through (passport showing, forms filling, ...).

There is no limit on person to person cash transactions yet though. Tax evaders from all over the world are known to pay the real estate they buy here in cash so I guess this is politically welcome.

Joe

I think this issue will come to a head at some point. As far as I can tell the numbers they're picking for these limits come out of thin air, I've never been able to find genuine economic or scientific studies that would recommend certain thresholds.

Many countries have or had laws stating that everyone is entitled to a bank account, however, this has been progressively weakened over time. In Switzerland the last bank that was required to give everyone an account was also the PostFinance bank, but that's changing soon so people who present "reputational impact" can be excluded.

In particular due to FATCA it is looking increasingly likely that at some point, all US taxpayers will be systematically eradicated from the Swiss financial system. It is already happening but the Americans I know have so far been able to find smaller banks or PostFinance accounts that still take them. I have no idea what will happen then because they aren't even allowed to have joint accounts! Married Americans will have to become dependent on their spouses for handouts of cash. It's not going to be very pleasant for them.

People without bank accounts in our society are kind of like the homeless ... all too often governments try to brush them to one side and make them invisible. As it gets harder to use cash and banks start to systematically exclude entire classes of ordinary people, the issue will gain a higher profile.

and Bitcoin :)

I can just see trying to push a cashless society on Germany. The Germans like their 'Bargeld' very much, thank you, and many businesses there do not even take credit cards, or take them only over certain fairly high transaction limits. My Visa card was almost useless in Berlin last time I visited; luckily I had a usable ATM  card.

Didn't anybody vote for a party that said it was going to limit cash transactions?

They never make this part of their election manifesto do they? It is always brought in under colour of "protecting them from themselves" type bureaucracy arguments. Has there been any polling to see what the majority of people actually want for cash transactions?

It doesn't seem at all democratic, or good for the economy or helpful for the people at all. It just seems to suit a very narrow agenda of the banks to cut costs ... who are these laws actually benefiting and who the hell wants them except the govt. and the banks?

Lots of people vote for 'security'.  Full control over populations facilitate this.

Don't bore me with the quote about security vs. freedom.  We've all heard it before and most of us here agree with the freedom side of things.  I'm just making a statement about the reality of the situation.

Maybe, but did you ever hear any politician campaign for an election with the argument they were going to lower cash transactions limits for your "security". It is just an idiotic argument that wouldn't wash with the masses. No, they do it in the dark of night and in back rooms with bureaucrats and bankers' technocrats figuring out how they can screw "them" for a few more pennies.

As Mike Hearn is saying, it would be great to see some objective analysis (and transparency) on the economic/financial arguments in a proper cost-benefit on limiting cash transactions. I've never seen any research on this, and they are gutting their own cash economies, for what, a few tax dollars? It's insane, cruel and stupid.

Government: Protecting you from yourself.

No, there's better places to do that (Scandinavia for example).

Germany would really be a bad place to go cashless first, most of all because German politicians like to get their bribes in cash notes in black leather briefcases. The guy who is our minister for finances right now for example lied to the parliament a bit more then a decade ago, saying he wouldn't even know a certain arms dealer and lateron it turned out that he had 100k DM black money from that very arms dealer sitting in his desk drawer that very moment. So politicians here don't want cash abolished at all I guess.

What I would expect therefor is actually a change from a _maximum_ to a _minimum_ limit. So you can only do cash transactions from _no less_ then say 100k EUR or 250k or so on, so that ordinary people cannot do any cash transactions anymore but governmental and corporational bodies as well as rich people can still do business as usual.

Would make sense, no?

Joe

Don't underestimate the power of the media. They can make cash look like something dirty, something only a homeless person or criminal would use... even in germany.

I'm having trouble deciding wether or not this is good or bad for bitcoin in the long run. On the one hand it's extremely good, because bitcoin offers a way around this prohibition. On the other hand, should cash be banned or made to be perceived as being "the way to pay for bad people", it'd be way too easy for "the law" to just put bitcoin right into that cash category and make bitcoin payments (above a certain amount) illegal. Providers could be pressured to filter bitcoin traffic. Of course there's ways around that, but the effect this would have on public perception would be huge. Add the media spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt and quickly bitcoins image could be back to where it was in 2011 ("that criminal internet hacker money laundering drug dealer currency") or worse... Not so good, I guess.

I agree.

In my time in the real world, I find that most people innately sense a degree of subversiveness about Bitcoin.  Even possessing a non-trivial amount of cash is looked upon as a little bit weird.  A little positive reinforcement of that sense through the media could go a long ways.

In a semi-democracy like ours in the US, old people and the upper middle class are the ones with the highest leverage (voting wise).  Both groups are strongly attached to the status quo and have no interest in rocking the boat.  Our society is working quite well for them as it is, thank you very much.  They may have empathy for others, but they also have fear of them which could be put to good use.

Poor people are the ones who use cash the most.  They can be pacified by issuing them EBT cards which are expanded to gift them some extra spending power for other shiny trinkets.

In the end I actually don't think it would be all that difficult to get rid of cash, or at least make it so onerous to use it legally that it would be mostly a relic in 'modern' countries.  And it would be much easier to do so for Bitcoin.

edit: add missing word