The "Criticism and risks of the digital euro" section on Wikipedia outlines my concerns about such a system pretty well.
Unless they are going to implement a cryptocurrency with centralized minting (essentially giving themselves both as much and as little control over the digital currency as they have over physically printed money), it doesn't seem that much different from what we have already. Just because it's going to be a new system, doesn't really mean it not going to have issues with false-positives suspending regular transactions or fees that are higher than they need to be.
Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
This is amazing. I was curious if you held an original thought this entire chain as I was reading it and your response ended up being “read this Wikipedia section for my thoughts”. I will concede that you are an astute parrot.
S410@kbin.social 4 months ago
"What are your thoughts about setting your hair on fire?"
"This Wikipedia article about burns covers it pretty well"
"Aha! So you're a parrot!"
There's a finite number of possible conclusions one can come to if they use this little thing called "logic". If multiple people apply it to the same problem, they're likely to come up with similar, if not identical, answers. If your conclusions about some given thing aren't shared by anybody else, it's more likely than not because they're illogical nonsense. It's even worse if your conclusions are outright nonexistent. That's not good. Means you stoopid.
Something like a centralized financial system has some very obvious, glaring issues that should be instantly apparent to anyone. And I'm, obviously, not the first person to think about it. So, why should I write something, if people who thought about it before me already outlined all the logical concerns about this system? And, likely, in a more detailed and in-depth manner than I'd care to write in a comment on a random website.