Skip to main content

I still don't get it

The good people at BBVA Research recently published a paper on central bank digital currencies (Central Bank Digital Currencies, Gouveia et al, March 2017) in which, amongst other conclusions, the authors say that “we also consider it likely that a scenario in which CBDC is anonymous, universal and non-yield bearing will be implemented”. But why is this “likely”? Why would any central bank bother setting up the form of distributed ledger that the authors envisage in order to implement something of such obvious utility to criminals, terrorists, money-launderers, tax-evaders and corrupt politicians? I don’t get it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We could fix mobile security, you know. We don't, but we could

Earlier in the week I blogged about mobile banking security , and I said that in design terms it is best to assume that the internet is in the hands of your enemies. In case you think I was exaggerating… The thieves also provided “free” wireless connections in public places to secretly mine users’ personal information. From Gone in minutes: Chinese cybertheft gangs mine smartphones for bank card data | South China Morning Post Personally, I always use an SSL VPN when connected by wifi (even at home!) but I doubt that most people would ever go to this trouble or take the time to configure a VPN and such like. Anyway, the point is that the internet isn’t secure. And actually SMS isn’t much better, which is why it shouldn’t really be used for securing anything as important as home banking. The report also described how gangs stole mobile security codes – which banks automatically send to card holders’ registered mobile phones to verify online transactions – by using either a Trojan...
Post a Comment
Read more