More like it shows dangers of using only one provider for almost all IT infrastructure.
…why not both?
Because if everyone used cash, schedule systems, records systems, communication systems around the world, breakdown still.
If there's a verity of software vendors used in these systems, and financial systems, you don't get simultaneous global breakdowns any more.
Basically. Using cash won't prevent this from happening. Using several interoperable software providers and systems will.
Using cash won't prevent this from happening.
I mean yeah, that’s why I said both, not just cash. I carry some cash on me because you never know. I’d also like to see less monopolization of just about everything because it makes for single points of failure. Diversifying your payment methods by including the potential for cash also helps.
But cash has nothing to do with this.
It's an entirely unrelated issue.
It could equally be a warning to floss every day for all they're related.
When the payment processor goes down, I can buy my groceries/gas/weed with cash, not by flossing my teeth. I don’t follow the point you’re making. Going fully cashless is a bad idea, and the recent outage didn’t affect every system used. I don’t see how having multiple methods of payment is possibly a bad thing. I’m not advocating for only cash.
The inventory and POS systems also go down. You still can't by your groceries/gas/weed.
Going cashless is a bad idea. But not because of this.
That’s not what I witnessed recently. Payment processors went down but local POS was fine. Inventory didn’t matter with the short duration of the outage. This is one of the reasons going cashless is a bad idea. Far from the only one, but it’s a factor, and I experienced it. Going cashless reduces diversity in payment options and makes the system more vulnerable.
Going cashless is a bad idea. But not because of this.
It's pretty clear this incident has highlighted a myriad of very important issues.
It's likely more productive to discuss the other issues in their own threads - this thread is clearly focused on the cashless problem.
There's more to it. The mono-culture is one thing, but rolling out the update to millions of computers on the same days sounds like a bad idea.
Fun fact in 2008, with nuclear submarines, the mono-culture was not that bad yet.
It's interesting to note the UK went with a Windows XP variant and not Windows Vista, which is marketed as the more reliable OS. The USA never made the same calculations: The American Navy runs on Linux.
Navy: "we use Arch btw"
Not necessarily one provider but one point of failure. In this case it was the update system that allowed one company to push something to production on other companies systems.
*global IT outage shows dangers of monopolies.
No, that is not correct. Global outage shows the dangers of centralized systems would be a better headline. Monero Worked all day throughout the entire outage with no problems.
Define "worked" in this context. You mean their own infrastructure didn't crash? You certainly didn't pop down to the store and buying anything useful with Monero 😂
Not that day I didn't, but I have bought Domino's several times this month, and I bought my groceries at the beginning of the month.
Even central currencies can work if you can make offline and peer to peer payments.
Not easy to pull off cryptographically, though.
One problem no one has mentioned, is that it also makes life a lot harder for homeless people. I guess they need to open a bank account and start writing their account number on a cardboard.
This actually reminds me of when I went to a restaurant a while ago. I had some physical money to spend, so I figured I'd take it with me and pay with that. At the end of the meal, while my friends paid with a card, I asked if I could pay with cash. Immediately, the waiter's demeanor changed and he looked almost... disgusted? I don't even know. Then he asked me in a tone that matched his expression if I didn't have a card, and I answered something like "Well, I do, but it would be more convenient for me to pay with cash, if that's okay". Then he, for some reason, repeated the question, and I answered similarly. He didn't say anything and just avoided looking at me. While a friend next to me was paying I asked again, "so, can I pay with cash?", and without looking at me, he just barely shook his head yes. So I paid with cash, and then I awaited my 3€ change back (in my country it's not usually custom to tip because waiters actually get paid full salaries). Eventually he came back with our receipt, but no change. I just left without saying anything - at this point I wasn't going to argue about 3€ - but I'm most definitely not coming back to that place.
Still don't know what the dude's problem was, but it did leave me wondering how are homeless people expected to pay for anything, if even a person who isn't homeless can receive such cold treatment just for choosing to pay with cash.
One problem no one has mentioned, is that it also makes life a lot harder for homeless people. I guess they need to open a bank account and start writing their account number on a cardboard.
And you need a permanent address for a bank account. Unfortunately, that's a feature of the cashless movement not a bug. Anything to make the lives of people experiencing homelessness harder.
In Europe it's so much more common to use cash than card anyway, that guy was a fucking weirdo
One problem no one has mentioned, is that it also makes life a lot harder for homeless people.
But to those who organise those systems, they're not consumers with disposable income or a credit line to spend. They are happy for them to fall through the cracks and people not using cash penalises them further by eradicating charity and widening divisions.
It is functioning as designed.
cashless society is a really stupid idea. it's not worth sacrificing privacy and stability for a tiny bit of convenience.
I don't understand why we can't have multiple forms of payment. I'll keep cash and cards so I have options
Maybe if somebody needs something we could just give it to them.
Socialist scum.
What are you going to say next, that housing is a human right? That food and water should be free? That the economic surplus should first go to the people in need?
Socialism!!! 🤮🤮🤮🤯🤯🤯🤢🤢😷🤒
Think of the shareholders!!!
Agreed. I would love to see a law requiring businesses to accept cash where possible. That sort of law already exists at state and local levels in the US, would like to see it adopted in the UK.
Bitcoin wasn't down. Hasn't had a single hour of downtime or hack since it started 15 years ago in 2008. No bank holidays. Clear and transparent supply, 100% open source code. Not run by any single government, corporate board, or CEO. Sends money across the globe in under a second for pennies in fees, all you need is a phone. Powerful stuff.
I see this comment every now and then, and it always forgets the cost of the transaction, confirmation time, and of course, the need for miners to exist to process these confirmations/transactions. The energy cost is extraordinary, and the end user is taxed for the use of their own dollars.
It's not really feasible on a broad scale. Bitcoin is a holding stock, not a valid currency. Its value only increases because it manufactures its own scarcity. And as its scarcity increases, it naturally moves toward centralization since mining becomes too large an activity for the individual to reap any benefit. You can argue for proof of stake to eliminate the need for mining, but then you open the doors to centralization more immediately.
I see this comment every now and then, and it always forgets the cost of the transaction, confirmation time
With Bitcoin lightning the confirmation time is under a second and you pay pennies in fees as you don't make the transaction on the main chain. Even main chain is like $1.50 for a 10 minute confirmation time which for many transactions like an international wire is still a great deal.
The energy cost is extraordinary, and the end user is taxed for the use of their own dollars.
The energy cost to maintain the base chain is <1% of global energy use, mostly from renewables at off-peak hours since miners have to chase the cheapest electricity. Remittance services and other funds transfer companies also use energy and human capital to move value around, it's not free. A single on-chain tx can open a lightning channel which can contain and secure trillions of transactions off-chain. Processing these transactions takes the energy equivalent of sending an e-mail. Users are "taxed for the use of their own dollars" in regular currency as well. Who pays that tax and the amount of that tax varies by context.
It can't scale
In the last two months alone, Nostr users (decentralized twitter clone like Mastodon) sent each other 3 million tips over Bitcoin lightning. It absolutely scales. And there is plenty of more room to grow.
Its value only increases because it manufactures its own scarcity.
Its value also comes from its use as a transactional network and from it's political neutrality geopolitically speaking. And from the known supply which nobody can manipulate. It's not purely scarcity.
naturally moves toward centralization since mining becomes too large an activity for the individual to reap any benefit
And yet mining is still distributed globally. Any person, company, or country with spare energy resources can buy an ASIC and mine. Mining pools have become more centralized, but a lot of work has been done on that in recent years and that trend is reversing as a result.
Oh yes, it is also feels so good that the richer have priority on transactions because they can pay exorbitant fees while you sometimes need to wait more than a month for a transaction to be confirmed.
I had to make a transaction to a private tracker and I don't want to go through it never again.
As long as you ignore its problems it's great. I'm sure you do.
Meanwhile the rest of us who don't live in cloud Cuckoo land have to deal with your shitty system that takes 45 minutes to process a transaction and requires the burning down of several rainforests per transaction. So we can see it is probably not a good idea.
One of the biggest rules in IT is always have a backup.
A cashless society has no backup.
I think it is important to have cash as a backup.
A couple of years ago there were some issues with card reading terminals in Germany. Due to a faulty security certificate these card reading terminals were not operational for about a whole month. Many stores were affected, because they almost all use ones from the same manufacturer. The only reason why it wasn't such a big deal was that people were carrying cash around anyway and were able to switch the method of payment easily. Having cash worked as a backup.
What good is cash gonna do if the networked cash register doesn't open anymore?
A cashless society is so stupid beyond words. In order to create one you must also create a full surveillance society to protect it, and even that would be ineffective to stop it from being hacked.
Just to be clear we are a mostly cashless society and the majority of currency is not physically in existence around the world and somehow it manages to be protected by and large.
Totally. My petrol station allowed me to pay in seashells while everyone else were just standing around complaining, was kinda nice
It would be fine if not everyone had the same exact setup. Also you can have cashless payments why still supporting cash. They aren't mutually exclusive
Me, wanting to abolish currency entirely...
The economy is so fucked i essentially interact with friends and family on a barter system anyway. I bake them cookies and cakes and they let me use their laundry machines.
Even cash breaks down pretty quickly in a hypothetical situation where you have something similar occur that lasts for an extended period. When banks' systems are impacted, how do I get more cash from my account with them when whatever amount I had when the system went down runs out? I haven't had a physical passbook for an account in a good 20 years.
Can't remember which one but credit cards were offline for a time with something and places that still had the carbon paper roller things stashed away took them out and used them. They should keep those things around.
Achieving a moneyless society after one big overlong network outage.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)