> Honestly don’t know if you’re trolling or just old.

No need to be ageist. It's a fair perspective. There is a quality of independence and agency that comes from being able to purchase things with cash.

Ironically, your weed transaction is a perfect example of that. I am a little confused by your argument though. Are you saying that you used cash because you couldn't pay legally with a debit/credit card or something? How come you didn't you use crypto? That aside, even with cash you were able to come to an independent accord (without the gov) and trade value for value. You could almost call it a barter, if you really consider cash to be a relic.

Despite having laws against this, society is mostly okay with some gray area around "off the books" transactions - which is why you can brag about it online and no one really cares, much like jaywalking.

More options for independent transactions don't necessarily hurt, but they do muddy the waters. The thing about cash is, since it is so commonly used, people generally understand what it is worth.

If I sell a TV for $100 on Craigslist, I take my $100 and I have a good idea of what I can buy at the grocery store with that. Offer to trade me 0.0020 BTC (~$100 right now) and I'm less likely to engage in the transaction because I don't understand its inherent value. You could even offer me 0.0022 BTC ($110) and I'd pass. How much gas can I buy with 0.0022 BTC? Do any gas stations around me take BTC? Do I need to convert it? I don't know. Add even more cryptos and it becomes even less clear...

I'm not against more options. More crypto options = more ability to barter. You and your dealer can decide to transact in Pokémon cards and no one's going care. But I do not see it being some sort of fix-all for the downsides to cash.

Seriously, cash is awesome:

* If I want to get payed quickly for a quick job, cash is the preferred payment method.

* If I immigrate to a country where I am not allowed to work legally, cash would be my preferred payment method.

* If I’m buying something illegal (including labor from a person not allowed to work in my country) cash is the preferred payment method.

* I can use cash to pay for products in the farmstand across the street without any transaction fees or 3rd party apps.

* I can use cash during a week long blackout.

* I can use cash without an internet access.

Parent might not personally use cash. But for many people around the world cash is by far the most convenient payment method. And for many less privileged people cash is the only payment method.

Re. buying/selling with BTC, one other problem is stability of value. Without stability, usability as a currency becomes hard. How does one even list items' cost in BTC when the value of BTC is constantly fluctuating?

There are stablecoins on Ethereum that fix that problem. Some of them are derivatives backed by nothing but ETH.

So, right back to fiat!

No reason we couldn't peg those to the price of gold, a basket of commodities, or of consumer goods.

Cash’s no. 1 use case in the 21st century is tax evasion. Most people just refuse to acknowledge that because they like evading taxes.

I’m sure there are ways to use cryptocurrency to do the same.

I doubt that’s true. It doesn’t seem to work out logically.

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right, and the no. 1 use case of cash is to evade taxes. Then the people getting payed for their tax-free labor will need to use this cash somehow. The easiest (and cheapest) is simply to circulate the money while buying regular goods and services. So buying of regular goods and services would rise to be at least as popular use case of cash as tax evasion is.

Also note that there are plenty of people willing to pay tax for their transaction, but the transaction is made illegal by their government and hence they cannot. Then the reason to use cash is not tax evasion, but illegal transaction, (note that this includes paying and receiving salaries for people not allowed to work because of immigration status). Tax evasion then becomes a happy byproduct of the no. 1 reason for using cash, illegal transaction.

But I honestly doubt that either illegal transactions, nor tax evasion comes even close to why most people use cash. Convenience. Though I could be persuaded if I saw some data pointing to the opposite.

There are certainly a lot of people who use it for tax evasion, to be sure. One interesting tangible example that this problem exists is the recent removal of large bank notes by the Indian Central Bank, which was done expressly to combat tax evasion and money laundering.

The fact that lots of people in India have had serious issues because they were unbanked does seem to indicate that there's a sizable population of people using cash for everything*. I'm curious if there's any research into whether that's for tax-evasion reasons or for some other reason.

My personal belief is that the number one use is for money laundering, and that people who are using it that way would be willing to pay taxes on the money they are laundering from some other illegal activity. For instance, there are all-cash drug dealers who pay taxes on their drug money. I'm sure Al Capone wishes in retrospect that he'd paid taxes...

> My personal belief is that the number one use is for money laundering...

Have you ever experienced a natural disaster? One thing you realize quite quickly is that your debit card is useless. That doesn’t mean transactions stop, people are still buying and selling, those with cash at least. If there’s runs on banks, infrastructure outages, etc, those relying entirely on debit and other payment cards won’t be buying food!

That's a reason why you might have cash, not why you would use it. For example, you might own a gun in case society collapses. It stays locked in a hard to find place in your house. You don't walk down the street with it on your hip. Similarly, you don't pay for goods and services with cash when you're not in a crisis unless you're breaking some law, whether or not you want to figure out if you are or not.

There's something like $13 trillion in consumer spending in the US each year, and something like 9% of that is in cash.

That's like $1.2 trillion in boring, normal, law-abiding cash transactions each year.

What makes you think that it's law-abiding? You're aware that literally the entire goal of money laundering is to appear law-abiding, yes?

What country are you from? I’ve only seen this kind of hate towards cash in the European countries. Last time in Sweden and ask to use cash they looked like they were about to kick me out of the store.

You should get out of your bubble more?

Heh, I’ve been to about 30 countries, how about you?

112, disaster response is a great way to see the world.

Do you seriously think that even a large minority of cash transactions are somehow related to natural disasters...?

So logically we get rid of it since most transaction don’t happen for those reasons? Is my point invalidated in any way if a majority of cash transactions are not during a natural disaster?

You replied to, and quoted, a comment about the majority of cash transactions. Your point is entirely irrelevant to that discussion.

Also, for the record, I have been in and responded to a number of natural disasters in the "first world". With the exception of a few hours here and there, using cards was never a problem. If the infrastructure is so wrecked that cards don't work, food/water is coming from people in high-vis vests.

No my point is relevant and struck a nerve, hence the hostile replies. Keep loving digital currencies tho.

Try a hurricane, or something serious enough to be registered as a natural disaster.

As you've discovered yourself once last year, the option of using cash (without permission / knowledge of a third party) is more important than actually using it.

This is the same misleading argument as when people claim that BTC is in practice equivalent to USD as most people just keep it on exchanges (same as USD in banks). Yes, but BTC/crypto also gives you one new option, i.e. not keepign money on an exchange ("being your own bank"). You're free to take that option, or not - but it exists.

I'm old and in the same boat as you, for many years now. I haven't been to a cash machine in years, because maybe once a year I get someone who wants to pay me in cash for something, so that just becomes my "bank" for the year. I use so little cash that just one person paying me for their part of a nice meal is enough for the entire year. Even the vendors on the side of the road prefer Venmo/PayPal now.

Hell, aside from recurring bills, I put everything on credit and then pay it off within the week. That way I get cashback rewards, build credit and can ensure I have the peace of mind of being able to pay for anything at the time of transaction without worrying about shifting money between accounts or where I am in the pay cycle. It also ensures that, due to building my credit score, I have ample credit at my disposal in an emergency situation. And, of course, the antifraud benefits are immeasurable.

As someone who comes from a working class background, I hate this system. Credit is something that ought to be abolished in its current form. Credit card companies and banks abuse this system to offer overpriced loans to desperate people, and they oversell the convenience to working class folks, encouraging them to buy things on credit they otherwise couldn’t afford... Now they most likely will pay their credit card bill at the end of the month, but at the cost of not having any money for the rest of the month.

Moving to America I was horrified to learn that in order to get applicable for loans (including home loans) I had to “work up my credit”, which includes maxing out on credit cards and then paying it back. As a teenager I made it my philosophy (experiencing second hand stress from the people around me) never to get a credit card. Now if I want to have a realistic opportunity to buy a house here I’m forced to abandon this philosophy and to the thing that kept my mom in constant state of stress. This credit system ought to be abolished.

From my personal perspective, credit cards are a systematic way to bamboozle the working class into over-consuming and keep them in constant state of dept. And to reward the wealthy for the same behavior, which only serves to shove it in the face of poor folks that the rich get away with everything. This system ought to be abolished.

Those 1% cash back rewards cost everybody you buy from 3%

That sounds like a complaint to take to your representatives. It won't be solved with a boycott of using credit cards.

My understanding is that Europe has strict limits on credit card fees, and as such, most cards in Europe don't have rewards.

I've never been robbed for cash. I have had my bank account emptied multiple times though, recently too.

When I hand cash over to someone, I know how much is leaving and coming back right then and there. When I fill out a payment form with my card details I'm handing over my entire balance into the ether. I could be sleeping and quietly money is leaving my bank account, which happened. So cash is king still.

Plus it's generational. If I said walkman's are the best I would guess you have a different response, more digital based I imagine.

I'm curious how your bank account is being emptied so often?

I work in digital marketing so generally I make purchases for random ebooks, courses etc. Chrome tells me that basically every major website has been hacked or exposed.

But here is my PIN **

and what his account number and pin are!

This sounds really stupid. No bank allows it here. You get redirected to the bank's site and are asked to confirm the transaction with all the details including the amount of money, plus there's an OTP pin required. Maybe it's the damn socialism protecting it's citizens with regulations again.

Card not present is the bane of the ecommerce world. Which is how most fraud is done but it makes it very easy for banks to recover it.

You're aware that your experiences are not universal though, yes? Anecdotally, I know far more people who have been mugged than had their accounts zeroed out. I actually know more people who have been passed counterfeit money than have had their accounts zeroed as well!

It's also hard to have silverfish eat your bank account balance, or have your credit card account catch fire and disappear.

https://pestrepublic.com/do-silverfish-eat-money-how-to-keep...

> No one I know uses physical cash anymore.

But physical cash should always be an option. You can't have a truly free society without it. Some intermediary could always have control over your transactions.

It's much easier to imagine a scenario where physical money is controlled by an outside force than crypto. Holding physical zimbabwean dollars, for example, did not ensure you held anything of value.

I think arguing that control over crypto transactions is more likely than the devaluing of physical currencies is a little far-fetched since we've seen plenty of the former without much of an example of any centralized power being able to control users actions on the internet.

Just think of all the wealth changing hands on the internet today against the will of governments.

They are having to mandate cash acceptance at stores now as many would prefer to do away with it.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/06/803003343/some-businesses-are...

The possibility of not getting robbed because you have $4000 cash on the till is a damn killer feature. Sure, this would just lead to an evolution in methodology. but for now its worth it.

Safes exist. There's no reason to have $4000 in a till.

Besides, even without cash, you're still going to get robbed. They'll just take merchandise instead of cash.

If you want a hipper, 21st-century term all the yutes love, cash is peer-to-peer.

Crypto-currencies don't provide a way to transfer value peer-to-peer, online, just a third party that is (hopefully) neutral.

If you both have full node bitcoin wallets it's possible, just like how it worked in the first place. But having a full node on your computer takes up >350GB of space now, so I doubt there's too many people that still do that.

Is this true? You still need connections to the rest of the network so that you know your block chain is the longest one and you get the number of confirmations that both of you feel is sufficient to remove double-spend risk. So it's not really just between the two of you, even if you both have full nodes. Right?

run a pruned node and it only takes up 3Gb

Save the risk of forgery, physical cash is still the only way for a seller to guarantee the dollar value of a transaction with an unknown buyer. Otherwise Paypal could block it, or your bank, or the buyer could reverse the charge, or whatever.

And that's why plenty of businesses still only take cash. Casinos want cash for chips. Peter Luger's still only takes cash. When you buy something like a dog from a breeder, it will be in cash. Any transaction where person on the other end has little recourse if your payment didn't go through will be in cash. Or if the business is popular enough to force it (in the case of Luger's).

Maybe you’re just too young but it’s still recommended to store your fancy digital cash in offline paper wallets. Maybe research what happened with Mt Gox :)