I was waiting for it and I wasn’t disappointed – the Daily Sceptic article linking the CrowdStrike debacle to CBDCs. There are many arguments against CBDCs but “if it went offline all transactions would stop” isn’t one of them. Anyone making that argument does not understand how money works. It is wrong to say, as the DS article does, that: “A country reliant on a CBDC instead of cash would see an end to all transactions as a consequence of a similar failure affecting a component within whatever software stack was being used to operate CBDC infrastructure.” As an aside, you don’t hear this criticism levelled against Bitcoin. Perhaps Libertarians have access to computer architectures denied to Governments, or perhaps it’s just politics.
How do I justify my rebuttal of the usually excellent Dr. R P? We don’t know what the CBDC system architecture will be because it hasn’t been designed yet, but however it’s constituted it will only manage CBDC transactions. CBDCs are proposed as an alternative to physical cash, particularly for online transactions where notes and coins don’t work. According to the British Retail Consortium, physical cash accounts for about 11% of consumer spend, with an average transaction value around £25. And that’s just retail activity which is a subset of all transactions. The remaining 89% are cards, gift cards, bank transfers, asset transfers and so on. These are nothing to do with the Bank of England and therefore would go nowhere near any future CBDC system. That’s just retail transactions. High value transactions are handled by CHAPS. Funnily enough, CHAPS was down on July 18th. It handles £360 billion per day, which is 90% of sterling payments by value. That was bad, but still not “all transactions” and the economy didn’t stop. Indeed, most people didn’t even realise it had happened.
Dear reader, if you take nothing else away from this article, remember that just because it has a pound sign in-front of it does not mean it would be controlled by any future CBDC system. This is why there is little to fear from CBDCs. If you still oppose them if they ever come to fruition, just don’t use them, there are dozens of alternatives.
In some ways CBDCs would not be so different from all the other electronic money that we have all been using for decades and those systems do run into difficulties from time to time. But if Visa, Mastercard, NatWest or literally thousands of other parts of the global money system go offline, it is not as Dr. R P says “an end to all transactions”. This is partly because unlike airport check-in systems, financial transactions very often have alternative means of settlement. We know this because we have all experienced it: “Sorry that card isn’t working. Try another one.”
Don’t get me wrong. The CrowdStrike debacle is a catastrophe and an almost unbelievable single point of failure in otherwise disconnected corporate IT systems. Who knew that simultaneously injecting files into Windows’ kernels in millions of machines around the globe with no canary testing would one day go wrong? The folly of corporate IT knows no bounds. Indeed, one of the objections to CBDCs is that it would be a government system (if we stretch government to include the Bank of England) which in this context should be seen as a benefit. Yes, government has an appalling track record of IT system delivery, but that is not so much the case these days. If a CBDC system ever does gets built, it will be a government system classified as Critical National Infrastructure. That puts it in the same category as things such as the Electricity System Operator’s grid balancing mechanism and therefore subject to extraordinary levels of resilience planning. These are systems that you seldom hear of because they are extraordinarily reliable, and yes, expensive in a way that only governments can afford. The people running them do have a clue what they are doing, unlike your typical globalist CIO diversity hire who is in the seat for the kudos, the salary and the ability to manage suppliers and keep costs down. There is plenty to debate about CBDCs but let’s get over this idea that they will take down the economy.
Stop Press: Microsoft has blamed EU rules for preventing it from making security changes that would have protected its computers from CrowdStrike’s faulty security update. The Telegraph has more.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I very, very rarely comment without reading the full article, but I’ve read enough of this particular authors uncritical, slightly irrational, support for CBDCs to feel pretty sure that I don’t need to read this. The Tony Blair Institute is spending its money carefully.
Ridiculous isn’t it. ‘The Science’.
‘No, 95% of a population voting in 2020 election is not indicative of criminal fraud’.
‘No, fake tests do not disprove the existence of flying scariants from Chyna’.
‘No, getting Convid 4 x after 8 stabbinations, does not mean the quackcines are useless’.
This anonymous author obviously works for Snopes. Clown world.
I think it’s more that the author suffers the same problem that many intelligent people do. Namely, he knows a lot about how the world is supposed to work in theory, but is dangerously ignorant about how the world actually works in practice.
This tends to happen because intelligent people spend a disproportionate amount of time inside their own heads and too little time observing and taking in what actually happens.
When they do observe the real world and observe discrepancies with their theoretical world, they typically do the opposite of what they should. They rationalise their observations to fit their theoretical world view rather than adjust their theories to the real world.
That is how you then end up with seemingly intelligent people saying things like, who could have know lockdowns would cause so much harm. Who could have known the jabs weren’t totally safe. Who could have known Russia wasn’t going g to collapse under the weight of sanctions.
The answer is of course many people could and did. The people who saw the world how it is, not how it’s “supposed” to be.
But I didn’t know anyone that voted for Trump.
How could he have won?
Same here ! Don’t want to read anything that’s not 100% against CBDC,s on this Sceptics site ( isn’t it ?) CBDC,s are surely Check Mate to us the General Public !!!
I did choose to read the whole article. And if I was to summarise, his article is: “Don’t worry, it’ll be fine”. Not a valuable rebuttal frankly.
I must applaud the DS for its unbiased allowance of an opposite view
Not that I agree with it, but none the less, admirable
Agree. I just choose not to read another piece on a topic which I’ve already come to a conclusion on. But you’re 100% correct, we don’t want to live in an echo chamber.
What if the article(s) you made your decision on did not contain something important?
There’s a point at which you consume enough information, from multiple sources with differing opinion, that you naturally stop. Part of that judgement is also using your own experience of life, propaganda, and the direction of social and establishment travel to come to a definitive conclusion. Or are you telling me that you still read BBC articles about how great the Covid ‘vaccine’ is?
I read BBC et al simply to see what they are claiming. My point remains the same: the articles you refuse to read simply mean you have chosen to be blinded to what is being said. Read the offending articles, comment on them, prove your point. Otherwise all you are doing is living in a bunker.
So you’re saying that you still read BBC articles about the merits of the Covid ‘vaccine’ because you’re still open to evidence that shows the ‘vaccine’ is the best thing since sliced bread after all? I don’t believe you, but if that’s true then more fool you – it just means you’re waiting for the right piece of propaganda that will distort your thinking. It means that you being not ‘blinded’ shows that you still have doubt about whether the Covid ‘vaccines’ are good or bad – that’s the conclusion that must be drawn from your argument. Is that what you’re saying? That actually, maybe, the Covid ‘vaccines’ are OK after all?
I doubt it, which makes your argument fall apart. What you’re saying, I assume, is that you still read BBC articles to have a better idea of the BS that’s being spouted by the Ministry of Truth, and that’s a completely different argument – personally, I don’t have any desire to read anything that’s being stated, true or false, by one of the most powerful propaganda arms of the elites, but each to their own. I do, however, often read things that I know I fundamentally disagree with in order to understand the rationale of those arguments e.g. I read the Communist Manifesto on Friday. But, on this topic, there is nothing else I need to read that will make the blindest bit of difference to my opinion; there is absolutely nothing that would ever make me believe that CBDCs are a good thing (like the Covid ‘vaccines’), therefore I have no interest in reading anything that supports such an obviously abusable technology and which can only be supported by either the establishment or the naive.
A great example is that most Scientists believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. They refused to read anything contradictory, claiming the evidence was clear.
Funnily enough, the same attitude brought about the existence of this very site.
“Who knew that simultaneously injecting files into Windows’ kernels in millions of machines around the globe with no canary testing would one day go wrong? ”
I did. A while ago, I suffered the same problem by installing an online security system from Intego, I seem to recall, and they injected an update into my Mac without asking me to approve it first. It took over the machine – 200% of CPU activity – and they refunded my money in full without apologising.
So arrogance is indeed a far too widespread feature in software companies.
I don’t necessarily believe that a failure in the future of some CDBC system would “take down the economy” (socialists are working on taking down the economy but that’s a longer term project), but it seems obvious that the more you centralise payment systems the more vulnerable payments are to the kind of thing we’ve just seen.
The principal danger of CDBCs remains the further erosion of anonymous transactions (cash) and the ability of the state to track and control citizens easily.
In a sense I agree but in another I simply cannot. You get paid via the Bank presumably. You then go to the Bank, to the cash till, use your card whilst you are on film. You walk back up the high street, quite likely on film. You go in a shop, almost certainly on film, and spend £10. That £10 goes on the shops accounts and its time and dated till roll. You then walk back to your already tracked car and pay your parking fee. Drive away and are tracked to your next spending spree.
Maybe though the steps you describe are more complex. If CDBCs become a widespread means of payment, the state can cut you off quickly – now they would need the cooperation of banks etc – not impossible but harder. Also some people still get paid in cash and lots of transactions are not in shops on film.
That’s certainly true but throws up a glaring question: who should be able to cut you off? Surely only the Courts should be able to do so but we all know the Courts are largely corrupt.
Indeed. I have come to think that the only sure defences against tyranny are a willingness from the population to fight it, and for it to be logistically difficult to maintain. As things move from the physical to the digital, control becomes easier.
The Chinese seem to be able to do it, Trudeau did it. That’s probably the easiest bit. (I speculate)
That doesn’t apply if you live out in the sticks, as I do. I get cashback in the supermarket in the nearby town. There’s no CCTV around here so when I go to the Farmers Shop on the way home, I’m not filmed. I buy something nice in the Farmers Shop and pay cash. They don’t have CCTV. Yes, the sale is recorded on the till roll but it doesn’t record WHO bought the product and the receipt doesn’t record WHAT the product sold was. I return home and the window-cleaner turns up. I pay him cash – there’s no recording of the transaction. I pop into the local charity shop, buy a second-hand puzzle and pay cash. There’s no record.
The obvious point the author has overlooked is that once CBDCs are in place what happens next?
Will CBDCs cannibalise other payment forms?
Will the same standards of tracking and control be applied to the other forms of payment, because the state demands it?
Clearly CBDCs represent a slippery slope towards an uncertain future that involves more state control over our lives, consistent with current direction of travel.
To be fair in this piece the main point is that the addition of CDBCs to the payment mix won’t lead to a meltdown because of tech problems, but I think he’s fighting a rearguard action in the face of the overwhelming case that CDBCs are a solution in search of a problem, or rather a solution but to the “problems” they are supposed to address.
The Bank of England wallahs were unable to explain to a Parliamentary committee what CDBCs could do that existing electronic banking didn’t.
The question then is who will want them?
Good question! Probably not many. My worry is that it could be used by retailers and others as an excuse for getting rid of cash.
The issue for me is the REMOVAL of choice. i.e. ‘REPLACING’ cash with digital payments, as is happening in far too many places. I had a ‘noisy’ exchange in the Royal Albert Hall recently where they refused to accept cash at the bar: I was unable to pay them ‘digitally’ and handed back the drinks etc. I doubt I’ll go back there as long as they refuse to give the choice of paying with legal tender. The excuse from the staff member was that it was “for my own and her protection”!….Once again someone presumably with some agenda has been busy brainwashing impressionable low paid proles.
Surely the point is to make life easier and more convenient for all. You don’t do that by removing choice.
To do so smells of something insidious.
If it smells like a fart, it probably is a fart!
“for my own and her protection”
Blimey – germs on the notes and coins??? Armed robbers?
In order for an economy to be taken down, there has to be one to take down
What’s left of the British economy will be destroyed by the Socialist in Government now – and Sir Kneel wants to re-tether our economy to the moribund EU enterprise to make sure.
Our payments system has been centralised for decades – Bank Clearing System.
People forget, machines, only automate existing manual processes, but do them quicker, more efficiently.
The term ‘computer’ was invented by Alan Turing in a mathematical paper, where he imagined a line of people each doing part of a calculation then passing it down the line where each would add to and build the calculation until by the end of the line it would be complete.
The people in the line he referred to as ‘computers’.
Well, there are other ways to make payments – credit cards being the most obvious. Also if clearing is down, debit cards and cash withdrawals may still work as I imagine they interact in real time/near real time only with the provider bank’s systems, not with clearing. My point was that cash is the most obvious thing that CDBCs would replace and cash is certainly not centralised at least for a while – it’s much more distributed and there’s a time buffer between an outage and it affecting you – when you run out of cash.
And the topic worth mentioning is that of Safety Integrity Level (SIL) defined in IEC 61508. Appears to be roughly zero with the system under consideration.
Presumably the retired CIOs and managers because it was standard practice to do system testing before roll out.
“in the same category as things such as the Electricity System Operator’s grid balancing mechanism” This doesn’t reassure me.
I work in IT, have done for over half my life. Some companies in the past were cowboys who winged it. Today is different, Microsoft doesn’t exactly use software supplied by cowboys and CrowdStrike is hardly a company wearing a Stetson. It’s a basic fact that shit happens in any system. As the author said “Most people didn’t even notice”. It was minor in the great scheme of things but happened just as the schools closed.
Banks go through the most rigorous testing imagineable. I had a few friends years back who moved to banking and hated the backwards and forwards of everything. Mistakes do not happen for shits and giggles.
Anyway, what do you actually think CBDCs are? You are probably wrong because you are looking at a high level. Asking what your bank balance is on a printed sheet or on an ATM gives a clue. It’s all just numbers in a database. It doesn’t matter what system, it doesn’t matter if it is Bank of England, Co-Op, Virgin, HSBC. It is just digits.
In terms of access to your money you are far better off campaigning against Nut Zero than worrying about digits in a database you know bugger all about it. Nut Zero will turn off the cash tills, turn off the freezers, close the shops, switch off the pumps. Cash won’t help at most stores; they won’t be open because they have no electricity.
For when this happens I am planning my own currency pegged to the potato. Unlike cyber currency it doesn’t have to be mine. The investment is made through the early part of the year trough a manual process known as planting, but it doesn’t require energy hungry mining techniques (a simple fork carefully deployed is all that is needed).
This year the return on investment looks good. In my case it is between 1500% and 2000%.
When society breaks down and delivery services are no longer viable, I am looking at a very good exchange rate – exchange aka barter will be the only way to survive.
I am going to call it the Samogon (Russian potato moonshine).
I also work in IT, in large banks.
CBDCs are an obvious control mechanism. Yes they can debank you today if they like. However, you still have some options.
CBDCs take away all other options, regardless of what sits in the database. And it won’t end with ‘CBDCs’. You might have noticed the sick transmogrification of the queer cult from queer marriage, to ‘we are coming after your children’.
I agree with Nut Zero etc there will be no money in any form to worry about, but I can’t feel relaxed about CDBCs – I’m really not clear what problem they are supposed to solve and putting more aspects of money within easier direct control of the state cannot be a good idea.
Actually that’s right, what problem are they meant to solve? We’re jogging along quite nicely at the moment with credit, debit, the odd cheques and cash, even bitcoin for those that do. Why add another layer into transactions unless it’s for control in some way?
Indeed, or possibly to take oxygen away from alternative “unregulated” payment systems like Bitcoin, which they may feel are a threat. I doubt the motive is genuine concern for the wellbeing of the public.
“… within easier direct control of the state…”
Er… what exactly do you think fiat currency is? Our money is issued by the State, under its direct and exclusive control, not backed by any tangible asset or commodity.
The State controls the money supply and who gets it.
Yes I know that but they don’t have such immediate direct control of what happens to it afterwards – in the case of cash, not much and in the case of electronic money/payments they would in the first instance need to deal with banks and other providers – a few steps removed. I’m not saying it would be impossible to effectively freeze you but harder than if the “cash database” is run directly by them.
I am sympathetic to the “Swiss Cheese Model” publicised by Mentour Pilot on YouTube in a different setting. His pointed, repeatedly made, is that aircraft accidents tend to occur when a combination of unlikely events all happen at the same time and cause an incident, sometimes serious. He compares aircraft systems, especially safety ones and the pilots themselves, to layers of sliced “Swiss Cheese” (the type with holes) piled on top of each other. It is highly unlikely that there will be a hole through the entire layer on any one particular random collection. Nevertheless, like the monkeys and typewriters, if you repeatedly keep trying a large number of times there will from time to time be cases where this happens: ten holes line up in the slices, or ten rare failures occur on the same flight, or ten gaps in design, coding, testing and distribution occur. Each incident triggers not so much a search for legal liability (and hence income to the lawyers) but for ways of reducing the probability of the same thing happening in the future. The root cause of most aircraft accidents these days are is not technology but by human oversight (and occasionally malice, psychological factors or recklessness), lack of comprehension of how the system *really* works (as opposed to how the designer of new systems, or those who have the task of maintaining legacy systems discover it works).
I think this has a parallel in the technology of online banking, in which somehow a (retrospectively) obvious single-point failure caused collapse of a large (but not dominant) part of the financial and logistical operations of the world.
Just as in the aeronautical world, people with a political or social agenda pile in with little knowledge of the facts of a particular case, or how the real world works, and use the latest “disaster” to articulate their political aims (“any OS other than Windows”, “any manufacturer except Boing”, “anyone except Trump”, “any cause other than lab leak”, “anything other than Capitalism”…)
This was a glitch in a computer system, not a fundamental flaw in “the system”. To look for flaws in “the system” you need to look at the global economic and political landscape, not to how a contaminated 291.sys file accidentally got released from the anti-virus lab!
Incidentally, the author is talking nonsense about the “kernel”. All the Kernel does is allow Windows to start, nothing else.
You’re misusing the term. The kernel of an OS is what directly controls/ drives the hardware while it is running. It’s a privileged program (or set or programs — people obviously still keep reinventing microkernels as that’s about standard of intellectual propriety among establishment types – one could call the tech-bureaucrats – and not about what works in the real world) which is running all the time and whose purpose is to provided applications controlled access to this hardware using some form of hardware independent, abstract interface (an API — this means Application Programming Interface and not Something on web the I don’t really understand but our competitors have it and we surely must have one, too!).
The whole point of CBDCs is to remove from people the ability to transact without the government spying on them, and approving what they purchase, or denying them the right to do so.
It is a control mechanism.
I live out in the sticks in Dorset. I can assure the anonymous writer of these articles attempting to assuage concerns about CBDCs that cash transactions are very common here and are growing. The message is getting out that “you use cash, or you’ll lose it.”
I was down in Okehampton, Devon this week for a short break. I used cash for virtually every transaction whilst I was there and, when there was an opportunity I explained to the retailer that I am part of the Awkward Squad who is resisting the cashless society. Every single one of them engaged with the conversation and agreed that a Digital Currency would be dangerous and highly negative.
It was, of course, helped by the fact that during those few days the IT systems crashed. There’s nothing like a bit of real-time inconvenience to make a point for you
I was in a pub the other day where I tried to pay cash. They told me that whilst they would accept cash they no longer carried a float so would be unable to give change.
To be fair this is the first time I have experienced this. Most pubs are pleased when I proffer cash and one, recently, had a sign to say that they _only_ accept cash.
Yes. My local in Somerset only accepts cash and has done so for many years. The logic had always been it was overall cheaper. This is still reflected in their prices. Not necessarily true for all. its a shame in some ways because they don’t offer the ‘choice’ however, the practise benefits all because the bank isn’t getting a slice out of every other transaction. Though the banks are trying to profit from cash transactions by increasing their ‘cash’ banking charges. I wonder why that might be…
Technology always has the capacity to fail.
“Wait until we’ve got AI”, comes the cry.
I refer you to line 1
Apparently there were about 6.4 billion cash payments in 2022 out of a total of 45.7 billion transactions in that year.
https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/news-and-insight/press-release/half-all-payments-now-made-using-debit-cards
I think that means the actual number of transactions carried out, not the values..
Does anyone know how the figure of 6.4 billion cash transactions is calculated
How on earth can anyone ever know precisely where and to who say a £10 note goes to.
Modelling probably, and it may not include transactions that the people involved don’t want anyone to know about.
That is 100% of my transactions. And not because there is anything nefarious about any them.
Indeed – I reckon whatever estimate has been done is well under
The tech bros are aligning behind Trump, and Trump says ‘No CBDC”. That has a knock-on effect on other countries. Will he hold?
Thinking use of cash means computer problems won’t affect you, is like saying a power cut won’t affect you if you have gas central heating.
Think about it.
It’s the EU’s fault
“In 2020, Apple told developers that its MacOS operating system would no longer grant them kernel-level access.
That change was a pain for Apple’s partners, but it also meant that a blue screen-style problem couldn’t happen on Macs, said Patrick Wardle, the chief executive of Mac security maker DoubleYou.
“What it meant was that a lot of third-party developers, ourselves included, had to rewrite our security software,” he said.
A Microsoft spokesman said it cannot legally wall off its operating system in the same way Apple does because of an understanding it reached with the European Commission following a complaint. In 2009, Microsoft agreed it would give makers of security software the same level of access to Windows that Microsoft gets.”
https://www.wsj.com/tech/cybersecurity/microsoft-tech-outage-role-crowdstrike-50917b90
Sorry that card isn’t working. Try another one.
Are you aware that some people don’t carry half a gadzillion of ‘cards’ with them because their desire to believe in digital payments systems as these are soo convenient necessitates them being able to work around their constant malfunctions in order to continue fooling themselves about the real quality of the service they’re getting?
I mean, for all practical purposes, the above could also be rendered as Sorry, the card reader got scared of you again! Please put on a high-quality facemask before retrying the same card! and this would be exactly as truthful (ie, not at all) and have the exact same technical chance of working (random malfunctions usually don’t strike more than at most a few times in a row).
I’d take this more seriously if I knew who had written it.
Some of the most important articles have been written by people who wish to remain anonymous. The basic idea is to verify what they say just as you would any article from MSM.
Indeed they have but I don’t see anything ‘important’ in this article. The author has an opinion about a contentious subject, his background/politics/history would have a huge bearing on what he has to say.
Why is he hiding his identity?
I know him, he’s actually a lovely chap, and he has told me “I’m not reading the comments.”
I think Stewart summed it up quite neatly though…
“He knows a lot about how the world is supposed to work in theory, but is dangerously ignorant about how the world actually works in practice”.
I’d be inclined to agree.
As with Dinger, “I must applaud the DS for its unbiased allowance of an opposite view!”
TransmissionOfFlame raises an interesting point in this thread:
“[] If CDBCs become a widespread means of payment, the state can cut you off quickly – now they would need the cooperation of banks etc – not impossible but harder. Also some people still get paid in cash and lots of transactions are not in shops on film.”
Now, who should, if anyone, be able to cut you off from your own money? We know the Banks do it with impunity; ask Toby or Nigel.
CBDC’s are managed by unelected Central Bank non-entities, do they have the right and, if so, how and why? Importantly, a Central Bank is not your Bank. As the article says:
“[System Not] designed yet, but however it’s constituted it will only manage CBDC transactions”
CBDC transactions are, most likely, going to be the same thing as the Bank of England currently do. How do the BofE know who you are? It’s akin to getting an email from an African Billionaire.
Your current bank, obviously knows who you are, but under what rules can it cut you off from your money? It seems somewhat arbitrary and rather “We don’t like the cut of his jib old chap” to me. It very much appears to be based around political views so maybe we need to choose who we Bank with rather carefully?
Overall, the legislation for your Bank cutting your finances off appears looser than a whores drawers on a Friday night. So, surely, that fact and Net Zero are the major threats to you and access to your money. After all, unless you get cash in hand and haven’t been caught yet, you have to get your cash out of a Bank.
Ideally we’d have legal protections against debanking, as a condition of banks being able to operate. Or perhaps if it was easier to start a new bank, different banks with varying political views would emerge and there would be right wing banks for those of us who are “Literally Hitler”.
I have no idea who this writer is but his breezy “calm down dears smart people like will make it all right” approach gets severely on my tits.
You should read the previous articles on CDBCs and how we can trust them – much worse!
I have read them, and it’s hard to avoid concluding that the writer is a high functioning idiot.
I found his point of view baffling and he seemed unable to address the feedback from the first article
Mr Anoymous IT writer clearly has not thought this through properly and is utterly naïve.
He is arguing as if post-modern man and society is still modern and rational. He is like Lord Frost recent arguing for the resurrection of the Conservative party if only they can find the right balance of conservative policies – a true display of just how much he has missed the point on just what they have done/not done in the last 14 years.
The point is Mr Anoymous IT writer is that the whole trend of modern society and wokism for that matter, is to put all your eggs in one basket, because its more efficient and we are puritanically all in this together, and if you disagree you are out. And if the eggs do not fit in the basket properly then the advice is to double down and just to push them down a bit harder harder, and when they all break to commit to being more careful at pushing harder and also developing cubic eggs or maybe blaming the eggs for not being progressive enough.
“Extraordinary levels of resilience” is exactly what is on the way out in our society and business. And let’s be clear it’s not just resilience for some system, it is resilience for individuals to be able to do business and so go about their living, which is a basic human right and which physical cash as legal tender actually underpins. Fundamentally we should not be beholden to electricity, or an app or a phone signal or a phone (which many older people cannot get their heads around and so is disenfranchising for them – all councils should hang their heads in shame over this) to be able go about our business, pay for parking, or get a cup of tea, even if such things make certain aspects more convenient for some people.
Wake up Mr Anoymous IT – a back stop of cash is resilience, and that is why removing cash wholesale to digit currency is an extremely bad idea. A bad idea which will be run by people already show to be in hock to authoritarian control, and not individual rights and freedoms so people can get on with their own business in the way they see fit.
I really don’t know where to begin with this nonsense!
Let’s start with the reference to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not like cash, because it is not legal tender. Sterling would always be an alternative to Bitcoin.
More seriously, a CBDC would be a single centralised ledger,through which all financial transactions would pass. “Anonymous It Reporter”, please note that it is designed to replace Sterling itself, not to replace cash. As such, it would be a single point of failure for all financial transactions. No such thing exists for Sterling. Even our electronic banking transactions are handled by multiple systems. And cash, of course, requires no computer system to process a transaction.
It might be classed as critical national infrastructure, and subject to “extraordinary levels of resilience planning”. But that will be planning by the same team that brought you the shambolic HMRC tax system. Frankly it doesn’t fill me with confidence – but even if they are competent, the point is that the possibility of failure could never be zero, and the failure would be so catastrophic that it could easily lead to millions of deaths and the destruction of our country as we know it.
I do not care if only 11% of transactions are made with cash and the rest is digital. I only pay cash when the amount to be paid is a whole number, that way I do not end up with jars full of loose change. The fact is that the current system works fine for me as I am sure it does for most people. I am not that intelligent but it is obvious to me that CBDC’s will give any government the ability to take complete control of my life.
Anyone who argues the case for CBDC’s being a good thing for humanity is either STUPID or a NARCISSIST in my opinion.
CBDC’s are another battle “ normal people” have to fight and win against the “ Woke” extremists of the left and right.
Things are a lot worse than you think. Insects negligible. Farmers struggling to grow crops, chem trails, Geoengineering daily, total instability in US gov’t, who has been running the US the lady three yrs?, weather manipulation throughout the world. The next 3 months will be the most difficult most countries have experienced in a long time.
‘…physical cash accounts for about 11% of consumer spend, with an average transaction value around £25. And that’s just retail activity which is a subset of all transactions. The remaining 89% are cards, gift cards, bank transfers, asset transfers and so on. These are nothing to do with the Bank of England and therefore would go nowhere near any future CBDC system.’
Er, if 11% is cash, and 89% is non-CBDC. where do CBDCs come in? I mean, 11+89=100, right?
An example of something that you would pay for using a CBDC is…?
The point about CBDCs is not the technology per se, it is the programmable and time limited aspects designed to control what you spend, when and with whom. Programmable currency can be terminated and (like a gift card) if you don’t use it, you cannot save it. No more savings, no building wealth nor passing it on to your children. Cashless seems harmless until you realise it can be controlled remotely by powerful agents. Moreover, it’s not unrealistic to envision its roll out as the Chinese already have a social credit system which can be linked to digital currency. People are right to be worried and watchful.
The DS should be commended for printing this counter to its prior article. However, its simply wrong.
During the 2008 financial crisis the biggest concern was the failure of the payment system(s) but that wasn’t an IT problem, it was a counterparty problem. If institutions can’t trust counterparties to pay, everything seizes up.
CBDC is a government system to control and track people’s expenditures, that’s its only reason to exist. If in the future, people no longer trust the Government’s that issue this crap, CBDC could be a target for the most aggressive of hackers so it poses a systemic risk on two fronts, not just one.
Corbett over on Off-Guardian (and his main site CorbettReport.com) discusses complexities of the CBDCs that I’d never heard before. In short, it involves the relationship between retail and central banks.
CBDCs are only designed to replace cash.
Exactly. That is the problem. How do people dependent on cash manage in the tech world of CBDCs ?