Viagra, or anything that could be embarrassing (heroin addiction is, in my opinion, embarrassing).
Good point. Maybe I can refute it if I modify my statement so it says care less about privacy than security?
... If I lived in Cuban (before 2011!) I would love to have driven a car made in 2000. The 90's. Hell, the 80's would have been an upgrade. Get my point? There are MANY places when anonymity is required and a third party simply isn't enough.
I'm sorry I don't understand how a cryptocurrency would effect buying a more expensive car in a socialist state. Unless you mean the anonymity would have toppled the government?
If it's opt-in, why would someone choose this currency over other cryptocurrencies? Keep in mind that individuals don't choose options that are best for everyone involved, but focus on short-term selfish benefit. So even if GMI is desirable, the system still might not work as intended.
It really depends on the economic landscape and political attitudes. If unemployment rises above 50%, or if you could convince 60% of the population that their jobs are fundamentally worthless, then hopefully this type of system would be attractive to the majority.
If you're doing face-to-face distribution, who collects and distributes the cash? You?
You're right this idea was stupid. It's why I started thinking about WiFi, but as I mentioned I wasn't happy with the forced menial labour. My question now is whether the network could monitor a combination of a user's physical movements and general online interactions. Would this be enough to prevent fake humans using the network?