related posts
196 sats \ 0 replies \ @indonesia 1 Nov 2022
TLDR: “In particular, we propose a token-based, software-only CBDC without DLT. DLT is an interesting design if no central party is available or if the interacting entities are not willing to agree on a trusted central party. However, this is hardly the case for a retail CBDC issued by a central bank. Distributing the central bank’s ledger with a blockchain merely increases transaction costs; it does not provide tangible benefits in a central bank deployment. Utilizing DLT to issue digital cash may be useful if there is no central bank to start with (e.g., the Marshall Islands’ Sovereign project) or if the explicit intention is to do without a central bank (e.g., Bitcoin).”
reply
166 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama OP 1 Nov 2022
Abstract:
reply
144 sats \ 0 replies \ @gunson 1 Nov 2022
Smart. Show that a CBDC can easily be privacy preserving so that governments have to actively justify why they chose surveillance.
The danger is if governments talk up this design and get people more supportive of a CBDC, but then rug pull just before implementing by switching to Surveillance Coin.
Anyway, whatever. Stack Sats.
reply
134 sats \ 0 replies \ @amnesiac 1 Nov 2022 freebie
Note 6: "While the term 'Bitcoin' suggests the use of a token, Bitcoin is an account-based system. The only difference between a traditional account-based system and a blockchain is that the accounts are not kept in a central database but in a decentralized append-only database".
Ethereum is an account based system, not bitcoin with its UTXOs model.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Brunswick 1 Nov 2022
Finally, Chaum speaks up and clears the air
reply