This capability is pretty pointless when the bank can indefinitely suspend your ability to make transactions. The ability to block transactions is an essential part of compliance with anti-money-laundering and other banking regulations.
You beat me to it: Having cryptographically signed transactions simply does not matter when you have to submit the transaction to what Zuck calls a "validator". The validator will just refuse to validate if your address is on a blacklist.
The net effect is that the coins are frozen. And since this is a backed currency, the backing will then be reduced by the amount corresponding to the frozen coins. This has the exact effect of lessening a user's balance.
Naming it "Byzantine Consensus" in their white paper turns out to be surprisingly apropos.
In the same way they used to be able to tap your phone, but now we can encrypt our calls and make that much more difficult. That doesn’t mean encryption should be illegal.
> In the same way they used to be able to tap your phone, but now we can encrypt our calls and make that much more difficult. That doesn’t mean encryption should be illegal.
The government has the power to unilaterally block any transaction in any domain, so long as they deem the transaction to have occurred in or whose parties are under their jurisdiction. I think that, generally speaking, it is rare for the government to cede jurisdiction over a domain once acquired.
The government cannot block cash or barter transactions. Instead, they can declare certain kinds of transaction illegal and then use the courts to punish anyone who engaged in an illegal transaction.
It’s a subtle but important distinction— to do anything against you, the government needs to present some sort of a case to judge and jury, and you have an opportunity to argue your side.
But to your point, thankfully we (mostly) have due process with our government (in US at least); the same cannot be said of dealing with corporations. I certainly see your point. One large fear I have around money being a number in a database is that your access to the monetary system is more easily revoked, whomever the controlling authority may be.
[1] anti-money-laundering
The main reason we do need to ask the question is that Bitcoin is currently effective at preventing governments from blocking Bitcoin transactions. Even if financial laws exist for a good reason, they don't supercede the "natural laws" of cryptography that determine which actions are possible. So the question isn't whether Facebook should have the power to do X. The question is whether Facebook should be allowed to do X, given that Bitcoin is already permitted to do so.
It is bad that there are private companies, that allow me to engage in free speech, anonymously, without the government knowning my every move?
The inability to do this stuff in "secret" part is still useful.
https://insidebitcoins.com/news/not-so-decentralized-ripple-...
Uh, neither can my Traditional Legacy Bank™ if I ask for regular statements?
I suppose you could argue they could lie to me about the actual amount. Well, then I will just sue them for the money.
As for the FDIC, there's a similar deal in most countries up to a specific amount(FDIC is $150K, other countries sometimes have less), but I don't think the FDIC has enough money for a more massive bank run.
I agree with you that Facebook & co. aren't that much more trustworthy at all, my comment was aiming more towards pointing out some benefits of things like Bitcoin.
I see a few benefits, but nothing on the order of the full potential of crypto.
1. Your FacebookCoin value is a collection of the world's currency value and not tied to a single goverment currency. It's more likely that {Single Fiat Currency} experiences hyperinflation than {Collection of Fiat Currencies} thus some of your risk is mitigated. Most individuals hold the majority of their wealth in a single currency, or in assets that are sold for a single currency (NYSE transactions are completed in USD, same with US based real-estate.)
2. Transaction fees can potentially be lower than incumbents. This is probably going to be especially true with person-to-person international transfers and could big a huge win for third world startups dealing in digital services.
3. The barrier to entry will, in all likelihood, be significantly lower than traditional banks. I've known people with a credit score so low they couldn't open a bank account. I've meet people with anxiety of using a debt card because of over withdrawal fees.
I think in the end we have to accept that taxonomies are going to have rough edges because the map is not the territory. With Bitcoin as the canonical cryptocurrency there have been a number of experiments that have removed or added guarantees. A distributed, verifiable, immutable chain of history is basically git with a couple of extra features, so the lines are necessarily blurry.
Rather than arguing semantics, the main questions are to what degree it is censorship-proof, permissionless, and scarce. The third one is the one that is least clear from the description and whitepaper. It sounds like they're trying to get the first two as well, but the designation of initial stakeholders might make that tricky until they can transition to proof-of-stake.