commit de9b74599020dc4c6d66f6bc47647f8bf6489398
parent fe76d392fa3ecc0722c001840d6dfeb3dd400463
Author: Martin Schanzenbach <schanzen@gnunet.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 12:14:58 +0100
some comments; minor text additions/changes
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/2022-privacy/privacy.tex b/2022-privacy/privacy.tex
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
\usepackage{enumitem}
\title{Accounts are an Unnecessary Evil \\ A critique of two papers}
-\author{Antoinne Aligny \and Emmanuel Benoist \and Christian Grothoff \and \"Ozg\"ur Kesim}
+\author{Antoinne Aligny \and Emmanuel Benoist \and Christian Grothoff \and \"Ozg\"ur Kesim \and Martin Schanzenbach}
\date{\today}
\begin{document}
@@ -83,7 +83,12 @@ permissioned blockchains does not inherently prevent such manipulations as
long as the participating operators are colluding. Thus, if European
democratic ideals and personal freedoms are to prevail, we clearly cannot
ignore this danger and must reestablish the principles of personal
-self-reliance, personal independence and subsidiarity in the design processes
+%MSC: Question: Is "self-reliance" supposed to mean "autarky" or "personal responsibility"?
+% Autarky sounds a bit odd as a principle in the European or democratic context.
+% Hence change it for now, feel free to change again.
+% Unless referring to some defined EU principle it is better as it ties in with
+% the idea of being responsible for your tokens just like cash.
+responsibility, personal independence and subsidiarity in the design processes
for critical infrastructure created by European institutions.
Here the wording of the French report is confusing, as it suggests that
@@ -95,21 +100,25 @@ as fact, for example when they write that ``the centralization and data
tracking of central bank digital currency projects leads to a loss of privacy
that coupled with the programmability of the currency can have serious
consequences.'' Using the indicative here is a serious mistake, as it is
-understood that any CBDC would leads to a loss
+understood that any CBDC would lead to a loss
of privacy, when this is false.
-Since this far-fetched assumption is taken as true, the conclusion of the
-first part of the French report is obviously flawed. The authors ask ``Should
-the objectives, mandate and governance of central banks be redefined?'',
+Since this far-fetched assumption is taken as true while counterexamples
+exists, the conclusion of the first part of the French report follows a logical fallacy.
+In it, the authors ask ``Should the objectives, mandate and governance of central banks be redefined?'',
implying that the management of a CBDC would be impossible in the current
-state. This is likely wrong. They should have written that central banks
-should limit CBDC issuance corresponding to their mission, and not that their
-missions must be adapted. Especially adaptations of central bank missions to
+state.
+But adaptations of central bank missions to
include complete control over money via the issuance of a CBDC (as envisioned
by Agustin Carstens of the Bank of International Settlement\footnote{ See
speach given on October 19th 2020 on ``Cross-Border Payment -- A vision for
-the future''}) are dangerous and must be firmly rejected.
+the future''}) are dangerous and must be firmly rejected. %MSC: Citation needed? Unfounded claim?
+% MSC: I removed a strawman here (This [the implication] is likely wrong).
+% I replaced it with "our belief", not sure if that is better...
+Instead, we believe the question should be if central banks
+should limit CBDC issuance corresponding to their mission instead of adapting
+it.
\section{Harmful coupling with identity}
@@ -122,6 +131,13 @@ without first creating a reliable, secure digital identity offering the
necessary guarantees''. The statement is hard to defend, since current
cryptocurrencies work perfectly well without depending on a ``trusted digital
identity''.
+%MSC: Yes, but they are not (used as) CDBC (yet). They do not say that cryptocurrencies
+% do not work iwthout the ID. They say CDBC does not work.
+% Hence, this is another strawman argument.
+% They work as part of their current use cases without
+% the ID. Maybe better would be an argument limited to the _use_ (payment) and then make a bridge
+% to cash and how its use does not require an ID?
+% Otherwise, I would simply remove the sentence above.
Naturally, it is understood that institutions working with a Digital Euro will
at times be legally required to establish the identity of actors. However,
