Just thinking, bear with me...

[DaC0nsumeR]

Not a technologist or a programmer, just an independent trader, so if you can bear with the technological ignorance revealed here, I will try and not be too vague.

Recently I was reading about the transition to a "cashless" society, which of course got me thinking about government surveillance, and then logically about the claims of the Austrian-type of Bitcoin believers. I am not myself in this camp that makes claims about financial sovereignty and sound money, but I do sympathize with libertarianism on an ethical level.

Now if governments do find that they have to clamp down on cryptocurrency it seems to me that they would have to do so at the level of infrastructure and hardware. Around the same time that I was thinking about this, I was also at hard wallets.

It got me thinking that despite being digital and a network, Bitcoin could in some sense, to the extent that it exists outside government controlled/regulated infrastructure, constitute a new form of cash, that is if hard wallet technology can facilitate easy interactions. Is there a sense in which cash might be able to exist in technologically evolved form?

This idea must be out there already, and I am probably just behind in what's going on in hard wallet technology, but it seems to me like that could be the key to cryptocurrency's being a viable alternative to centralized digital currency/social credit/tyranny.

[n0nce]

I am not sure what you mean by a hard wallet. A web search just reveals hardware wallets. If you mean those: they aren't even necessarily needed. No government can 100% control or block the software you download and run onto your computer (which is needed even when using a hardware wallet anyway), especially since you can use Tor and Torrents to get it, in case they restrict internet access. They can forbid the usage, but actually effectively preventing it is a different story.

An example, where a currency other than the national currency is used, already exists. Actually a few:

The U.S. dollar is also widely used throughout the world as a quasi-currency of exchange. While it should be no surprise that the U.S. dollar is widely accepted for commerce in both Canada and Mexico, the U.S. dollar is also accepted in a host of tourist destinations including the Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Sint Maarten, St Kitts and Nevis, the ABC Islands of Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, and the BES Islands including Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba—now collectively known as the Caribbean Netherlands.

If I remember correctly there are even countries where using U.S. Dollar is forbidden, but since the national currency devaluates so much, everyone still uses it.

Personally, I'm sure if cash is retired and CBDCs are forced to be used in EU / USA for maximum surveillance, people will easily be able to instead use Bitcoin, be it a hardware or software wallet. Bitcoin cannot be blocked, don't forget

As for 'cashless society' and 'cash might be able to exist in technologically evolved form': that's one of the beauties of Bitcoin. It's similar to cash. The keys that you have are not like a bank card that entitles you to a certain balance, which someone may modify or restrict your access to. The keys are the money. Quite similar to holding a dollar bill in your hand instead of giving it to the bank and having an account balance in a database somewhere.

As long as you have your keys and a way to broadcast transactions, you can pay. If your country forbids / blocks Bitcoin traffic, you can use Tor. If they control Tor, you can use a VPN in another country. If all fails, you can send those transactions without internet - use ham radio!

Fears over government interference and internet surveillance have given rise to some novel experiments in sending offline transactions as somebody has transmitted bitcoin internationally by high frequency radio… through a snowstorm.

[ranochigo]

Bitcoin exists on the internet, or rather on the computers which are connected to the same internet. For Bitcoin to function, then the network has to be interconnected through a medium, which can be in many forms; mesh network, the internet, etc. It is possible for you to trade using physical private keys or signed transactions, but it is only yours when you send the funds to your own wallet.

You cannot completely block Bitcoin without shutting down the internet, because you can encrypt and obfuscate the traffic.

[n0nce]

It is possible for you to trade using physical private keys or signed transactions, but it is only yours when you send the funds to your own wallet.

You could actually have a few OpenDimes with e.g. 0.01BTC each on them, and an M5Verifier as the buyer to trade BTC p2p without internet access and without having to perform a transaction.


https://twitter.com/SamSamskies/status/1202806098140418048/photo/1

[ranochigo]

You could actually have a few OpenDimes with e.g. 0.01BTC each on them, and an M5Verifier as the buyer to trade BTC p2p without internet access and without having to perform a transaction.


https://twitter.com/SamSamskies/status/1202806098140418048/photo/1

You can't really divide OpenDimes into smaller denomination other than the amount that you've initially put in. You'll be spending another $20 for a single OpenDime just to transact and be stuck with it. You can only redeem it and use it once.

Anyways, I'm assuming that it is done completely offline. If there is an internet connection, then it makes more sense (and also cheaper) to just settle it on-chain.

[n0nce]

You can't really divide OpenDimes into smaller denomination other than the amount that you've initially put in. You'll be spending another $20 for a single OpenDime just to transact and be stuck with it. You can only redeem it and use it once.

Anyways, I'm assuming that it is done completely offline. If there is an internet connection, then it makes more sense (and also cheaper) to just settle it on-chain.

Correct, it could be a viable method for value transfer as a last resort, if no connectivity is available. You could use it for larger purchases; think of the device as a 500€ bill. I think in an extreme scenario, you might be better off with a couple of 0.01BTC loaded OpenDimes than with a couple thousand € or $. Even if you don't get the change, if someone gives you food for a couple weeks for one OpenDime, that's better than no food

[ranochigo]

Correct, it could be a viable method for value transfer as a last resort, if no connectivity is available. You could use it for larger purchases; think of the device as a 500€ bill. I think in an extreme scenario, you might be better off with a couple of 0.01BTC loaded OpenDimes than with a couple thousand € or $. Even if you don't get the change, if someone gives you food for a couple weeks for one OpenDime, that's better than no food

If there is no connectivity available then I supposed there is no way to verify the value inside as well? So it'll be my words against yours. Unless I'm missing something?

[n0nce]

Correct, it could be a viable method for value transfer as a last resort, if no connectivity is available. You could use it for larger purchases; think of the device as a 500€ bill. I think in an extreme scenario, you might be better off with a couple of 0.01BTC loaded OpenDimes than with a couple thousand € or $. Even if you don't get the change, if someone gives you food for a couple weeks for one OpenDime, that's better than no food

If there is no connectivity available then I supposed there is no way to verify the value inside as well? So it'll be my words against yours. Unless I'm missing something?

That's a valid point; I mean you can be sure the funds were never spent due to the device being all sealed up, but you cannot check how much was deposited to the address, that's true. If it was loaded up a long time ago, when you still had internet, you could check your local Bitcoin full node. Remember you just need to see how much was loaded because it's tamper-evident so you're sure it wasn't spent.

And maybe a product could be made that is purchased with a predefined amount (like 0.01BTC) on it from the get-go, just an idea. I think it exists in terms of those 'physical Bitcoins', actually.

[pooya87]

Assuming by "hard" you mean "physical" bitcoin, I have to say it is not going to happen. The world moved to digital form a while ago and (ignoring bitcoin) everything is becoming digital including money. I can't remember last time I paid with cash (ie. physical money).

This idea must be out there already, and I am probably just behind in what's going on in hard wallet technology, but it seems to me like that could be the key to cryptocurrency's being a viable alternative to centralized digital currency/social credit/tyranny.

The way cryptocurrency would become a viable alternative is when it offers something different and solves some actual problem. In case of bitcoin that is the globality of it alongside the decentralization and some other factors. If cryptocurrencies started following down the same path (physical form requires centralization) they lose their only purpose to exist.

[a.a]

Reminds me of the German GeldKarte, which is provided by German Banks. It uses also Crypto (DES and 3-DES) and works offline.

[n0nce]

Assuming by "hard" you mean "physical" bitcoin, I have to say it is not going to happen. The world moved to digital form a while ago and (ignoring bitcoin) everything is becoming digital including money. I can't remember last time I paid with cash (ie. physical money).

I tend to agree and I find digital very convenient as well, but I prefer paying cash, because it's anonymous

[o_e_l_e_o]

Although not a super convenient solution, if you knew you were going to be somewhere without an internet connection where you might want to use bitcoin, you could set up a node to sync with blockstream satellite. Alternatively, you could communicate with a trusted third party via another method, such as telephone or mesh network, although if this is possible you could also simply ask them to broadcast a transaction for you rather than confirm the balance on an OpenDime address.

[n0nce]

It got me thinking that despite being digital and a network, Bitcoin could in some sense, to the extent that it exists outside government controlled/regulated infrastructure

The infrastructure (mainly the internet) may be regulated, but that doesn't mean government have full control or have capability do determine whether someone use cryptocurrency with 100% accuracy. Even great firewall could be bypassed with some time & effort.

Regarding infrastructure, I would argue if the internet is going to be that extremely censored, it would make sense to create a new network. Now, this is going to be off-topic, but I thought about it a few times so far, here are my thoughts. Maybe idea for a new topic
Unfortunately, I don't see a way to re-use existing infrastructure for a new network, analogously to the way people created the internet from the existing analog phone network.

Ham radio can be used through AMPRNet. Their wiki is here.
However, encryption is not allowed in ham radio, so it's not well suited. And what I'm thinking of is not a way to connect to the internet anyway, but a whole new, independent network.

Another idea is to use directional 2.4GHz (in ISM band) antennas and potentially off-the-shelf routers to connect to people in your range (max. a few kilometers line-of-sight). This would thus need completely new hardware but that way the infrastructure would be completely decentralised. With enough participants, a network can be created that is easily able to connect a whole continent together. Biggest challenge would just be intercontinental communication.

[fresheneesz]

It would be interesting if an opendime-like or hardware-wallet device could facilitate bitcoin transfers offline. This could potentially work by locking coins and swapping transactions directly via the hardware wallets, kind of like the lightning network uses off-chain pre-signed transactions.

This would necessarily require some trust in the user and/or device used. Obviously, a tampered-with device could simply double spend a number of coins. However, if the users involve trust that the hardware device is not compromised (perhaps because the company making it has a good reputation for making them secure), it should be possible to make offline transactions. If the company (or a government) goes further to deter people from double spending (either via tampered-with devices, or counterfeits), it could bolster trust in it further.

But basically, you could timelock coins into a wallet where they aren't spendable until a later date, and when you want to pay someone, you give them a transaction that gives them future ownership over those coins. The additional counterparty risk might be acceptable for small amounts when internet isn't always available. Whenever internet becomes available, the commitments could theoretically be cemented at that point to prevent any possible future double spends.

Mostly interesting musings ^

[NotATether]

It got me thinking that despite being digital and a network, Bitcoin could in some sense, to the extent that it exists outside government controlled/regulated infrastructure, constitute a new form of cash, that is if hard wallet technology can facilitate easy interactions. Is there a sense in which cash might be able to exist in technologically evolved form?

Yes, but bear in mind that just as $1 dollar bills can be whitewashed into $100 bills fraudulently, so can ASICs specifically for brute-forcing bitcoin addresses can be made as well (they don't exist yet, but they might in the future). So the corruption factor isn't really eliminated.

[ranochigo]

Regarding infrastructure, I would argue if the internet is going to be that extremely censored, it would make sense to create a new network. Now, this is going to be off-topic, but I thought about it a few times so far, here are my thoughts. Maybe idea for a new topic

It is trivial for any governments to have blanket radio jammers above certain areas. If the government were to be banning the internet, of all things, then I would expect them to also restrict any radio transmissions as well. The benefit of Bitcoin is that the internet is a common tool used world wide. Having to install radios to just use Bitcoin exposes the user, in the sense that it is obvious that they're using Bitcoin, triangulation would be easy as well. If it comes a day that the internet were to be shut down, it is possible for Bitcoin to be shifted to another medium but at that point, it just becomes a cat and mouse game.

This would necessarily require some trust in the user and/or device used. Obviously, a tampered-with device could simply double spend a number of coins. However, if the users involve trust that the hardware device is not compromised (perhaps because the company making it has a good reputation for making them secure), it should be possible to make offline transactions. If the company (or a government) goes further to deter people from double spending (either via tampered-with devices, or counterfeits), it could bolster trust in it further.

But basically, you could timelock coins into a wallet where they aren't spendable until a later date, and when you want to pay someone, you give them a transaction that gives them future ownership over those coins. The additional counterparty risk might be acceptable for small amounts when internet isn't always available. Whenever internet becomes available, the commitments could theoretically be cemented at that point to prevent any possible future double spends.

It would be synonymous with a completely separate token rather than using Bitcoin. I would either go with precious metal at that point in time, or a physical Bitcoin but even the legitimacy of that is disputable. Transaction finality cannot be guaranteed by any organization, and the trust lies on the company making them which is a central point of failure. The problem with timelock is that there isn't a commitment involved, unless the recipient spends the coin to another address that they control. Trusting someone on signed and unbroadcasted transaction is not safe, and arguably even worse than accepting zero-conf transactions.

[n0nce]

Regarding infrastructure, I would argue if the internet is going to be that extremely censored, it would make sense to create a new network. Now, this is going to be off-topic, but I thought about it a few times so far, here are my thoughts. Maybe idea for a new topic

It is trivial for any governments to have blanket radio jammers above certain areas. If the government were to be banning the internet, of all things, then I would expect them to also restrict any radio transmissions as well. The benefit of Bitcoin is that the internet is a common tool used world wide. Having to install radios to just use Bitcoin exposes the user, in the sense that it is obvious that they're using Bitcoin, triangulation would be easy as well. If it comes a day that the internet were to be shut down, it is possible for Bitcoin to be shifted to another medium but at that point, it just becomes a cat and mouse game.

I tend to disagree. I work a lot with people who are highly specialized in this field and it's not as trivial as you may think, especially when using high-powered, directional wireless links. They're getting smaller and more focused, to the point where it's almost a wire in the air, meaning if you're not in LOS, you can't feasibly jam. This is just one option of many to prevent jamming.
Further, what I'm proposing is not something specific for Bitcoin! You're correct that it wouldn't be wise (and feasible) to create a network just for Bitcoin. I am thinking of a way to create a 'new internet' altogether. Mail, chatrooms, forums, shops, all on a new network. While replacing the whole undercarriage, the upper protocol stack can be kept but e.g. IPv6 may be enforced / encouraged so this new network could start off fresh with all the latest technologies and standards and drop the old stuff that is hard to get rid of in the current state.