A key feature of cash is its ability to pass through and into the KYC/AML panopticon where (edit: to make it clear what the "KYC/AML panopticon" meant -- after being deposited in a bank) you can buy things like real estate and heavy capital equipment. If you can't prove chain of custody of source of funds and source of wealth, you're effectively shut off from a wide amount of transactions.

At least in the West. If you go to someplace like Dubai it is no problem.

▲

estearum 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm confused

your argument is that Monero fails at doing a thing that cash also fails at, which is making large purchases without chain of custody/source of funds?

▲

mothballed 4 days ago | parent [-]

No my argument is Monero fails in practice relatively worse than similar 'weight class' crypto currency assets at actually spending 'digital cash' (presumably a desirable quality of 'cash') to make legal purchases from crypto accepting sellers. This is quite evident if you survey available offerings -- vendors are far more likely to accept even the lower cap litecoin than monero (even the 'cryptwerk' website advertised by getmonero shows 2x as many vedors accepting LTC).

I do postulate that the fact it is easier to show chain of custody to the point it satisfies banks and regulated entities as part of this (even if through chain-analysis mumbo jumbo), thus other crypto currencies have lent more towards accessing more purchases in a way cash idealizes to do.

At no point was my argument simply monero fails at the same thing a pile of cash dropped through the sky might fail at and that's the end of it. I think that's a pretty silly portrayal of what I've said, made in bad faith. Although in reality I've had my cex account frozen almost every single time I've tried depositing very low, 3 digit amounts of XMR (including frozen for years) whereas you can somewhat reliably put $200-$1000 in a bank in place like USA and then use that as part of purchase that goes through KYC/AML channels.

Now if you do want to compare, say, a pile of cash falling out of the sky, vs a pile of bitcoin, vs a pile of monero and you wanted to spend it on something big that went through KYC/AML compliance. In order of what would be easiest to spend, assuming the money actually came from a legal source. Bitcoin would be the easiest to spend because you have some chance at showing it came straight from a KYC'd source because of the plaintext blockchain, next would be cash (largely for historical reasons), the hardest to actually spend would be the monero. Now if we presume matheusmoreira point about banks was just a red herring, then your follow on is just one too, since the bit regarding KYC/AML compliance purchases/transactions was a response to that.

▲

estearum 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Right but isn't the point of Monero that once you have it, you don't have a public, immutable ledger of all subsequent transactions, just waiting there for when you become persona non grata to some entity with significant time or computational resources to fuck you?

The relevant similarity to (unbanked) cash is the post-facto privacy.

And yes, this feature does dramatically increase the KYC posture of institutions that need to be afraid of those same computation-rich entities, but obviously the point of the currency is you don't functionally need them the way you functionally need a bank to do anything similar with cash.

	▲	mothballed 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Most basic economics academic reviews show a few main qualities of cash[0][1]. (1)durability (2)portability (3)divisibility (4) uniformity (5) acceptability (6) limited supply Monero beats plaintext chain coins at uniformity, as BTC for example is non-fungible because there are tainted and non-tainted coins. Monero is truly fungible. It loses to even similar weight class coin at acceptability. I suppose you can argue the gains in uniformity overcome the losses in acceptability. I'm not sure reality has bore that out if you actually want to use your cash. In practice BTC/LTC can shed their taint and public trail by being mixed and this seems to make up for this weakness enough for acceptance while still allowing a public chain for the last few transactions before it enters/leaves the KYC/AML panopticon, which is highly desirable for 'acceptability' (this is probably also why ZCash is far more easier to access than XMR, as it has a feature to disable anonymity so it can go to/from central exchanges and KYC/AML'd vendors). Note: if you go to some cryptocurrency shilling website, you can find 'anonymity' as a trait, but this deviates from the more common definition. [0] https://inomics.com/terms/characteristics-of-money-1545438 [1] https://illinoistreasurergovprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net...

▲

doctorpangloss 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You: "everybody is autistic but me!"

Also you: proceeds to rant about "heavy equipment," a beloved pastime of everyone, including the neurodivergent

I don't think what you are saying is that complicated honestly, but surely you see that, there can be many successful niches.

▲

matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> A key feature of cash is its ability to pass through and into the KYC/AML panopticon where you can buy things like real estate and heavy capital equipment.

My country is in the process of criminalizing the purchase of real estate with cash. Laws have been proposed to that end. Politicians have also proposed restricting the amount of "unexplained" physical cash the population is "allowed" to hold.

This is your future if you don't resist.

> If you can't prove chain of custody of source of funds and source of wealth

You shouldn't have to "prove" anything. What a bunch of nonsense.