when you do a bank transfer, do you think they physical cash?
When the BoE does quantitative easing, they don't actually print money[1], they just "transfer" money to banks who then do "things" with it. Its literally just numbers in a DB.
[1] handling physical cash is expensive, slow and difficult. Not only is the price of movement relatively static regardless of the value, you have to keep on paying to store the stuff. The Federal reserve do things differently I think, because are not quite as all in one as the BoE.
Not, it's not.
It seems you and others are confused here and do not understand what is meant by "digital currency".
Digital currencies, like what is discussed and e.g. the "digital yuan" in China, it to create real digital bank notes / coins. Not expert by I think similar to a crypto token.
It means I can hold a digital bank note and pay you by transferring it to you.
This is very different to the current system in which I instruct my bank to do something and to balance with the recipient's bank.
Depending how this is implemented it can be anonymous like physical bank notes, or it can be tracked and plenty of other things also become possible. It also does not require me to interact with my bank.
The only real benefit to this system is that it would probably be run by a government agency and as such, would theoretically make it available to everyone. This would reduce the cost of being unbanked in the US and probably improve lives. Honestly, though, you could just make basic banking available for everyone so they can get paid, pay bills online, and shop easily - it'd likely prove to be more cost effective.
The point being is that what is referred to as "digital currency" is not what we have now (otherwise the BoE and others would not be studying feasibility and costs/benefits). In that sense currency is not digital at the moment. Bank ledgers and transfer instructions are.
You started of staying "currency is not digital", a broad statement about which I don't think there's any confusion, it's just flat-out incorrect. If it's not digital then what is it then, analogue?
Now you're talking about a particular form of digital token, which OK, maybe currency isn't that, and the usefulness of that isn't given. Saying "currency isn't digital because it's not this token" is like saying ".png files aren't digital because they're not .mp3s". It's still numbers in computers. You know, digital.
Currency is currently not digital in the sense meant here. Otherwise the BoE and other central banks would not discuss the possibility of issuing digital currency. It's rather the banks' ledgers and transfer instructions that are digital.
In my previous comment I have only tried to explain what CBDC is. Perhaps I did not do a good job if so please feel free to provide a better explanation that would benefit everyone.
> "currency isn't digital because it's not this token
I have not written that, so I think you do not understand the topic. Here for reference to start with:
The alternative is of course that it's all meaningless hype. Just because the government does something doesn't necessarily prove it makes sense.
your clarifications were helpful
It seems that you're now saying that "BoE Currency is not digital currency." with a specific meaning of "digital currency" separate from the definition of "digital" or "currency".
What they mean by "digital currency" is a for instance a purely digital bank note than you can hold and transfer to someone else (like for instance a crypto token). Clearly that's not how things work now.
Edit: See my further comment below as it looks like people don't quite understand what "digital currency" is.