This is a disingenuous argument.If you want to pay for software or digital goods you already probably have or want a bank account, a paypal or something.You're already in the ecosystem and nobody forces you to use cash everywhere.By the way >it is< possible to pay for digital goods using cash, without a bank account or digital money service: it's called Western Union/MoneyGram/etc.Yeah there are limits and often way more expensive, but at the same time you don't pay with your transaction data, which the bank uses for more than you know.

Let's do the opposite example now: Do you >need< to use anything besides cash when you shop for groceries, pay some toilet tax when you're on the highway, or similar trivial things?No, you don't.The option of providing an alternative payment method is up to the merchant.The only institutions that are required to provide cash options are the government ones(at least where I live).You don't provide that?I sue and I win, for obvious reasons.

People want to think about cash/cashless in terms of black and white, yes or no.I used to be pro-cashless and certainly I am in some regards depending on the wanted product/service.Yet I limited my use to being restrictive because there are way more loopholes to be rendered bankrupt and have no money available.There are certainly risks to cash aswell, and yet more advantages when buying products/services in-person.

My point was that a larger and larger proportion of the things we buy we buy over the internet: it is something like 25% of all consumer purchasing now. Those transactions are cashless.

Some types of goods you can only buy over the internet, like software, and this trend will only continue.

I think MoneyGram/Western Union are a great counterpoint, but while anonymous, I consider that more similar to cashless than cash: you have to input cash into a machine and… transmit it over the internet.

I also agree it is not a binary thing.

I agree, the key point here is the dangers we potentially face if we forcefully remove cash as an option of payment.We should strive to at least keep it an option where possible, and I would base this mainly on the privacy aspect(and secondarily maybe security).

Cashless is great as a convenience option, or when there are time sensitive factors.

All of these scenarios can be addressed with a fungible cryptocurrency.

Yes, that is the argument I am making.

But it is important that these fungible cryptocurrencies are as cash-like as possible. So, no global ledger.

I always tend to assume good faith in discussions, so I must ask, are you trolling? Or is it just that HN's general antagonism towards any form of cryptographic currency stems from a dearth of information?

No, I did not mean to come off as trolling at all! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30441804

Someone was arguing that we should reject a cashless society, and I was making an argument that it is impossible to do at this point.

The only solution is to have a digital currency as close to cash as possible.

Ethereum (on its own) does not meet this requirement. It is perfectly fungible, but still has a global ledger that can be used to track transactions. It is important that people move to standard L2s that don’t have a record of every transaction.

Bitcoin is actually not fungible in the first place. The Lightning network does provide transaction privacy, though.

By “no global ledger” I should have clarified: there might be a need for a global ledger, but it should be missing all consumer transactions.

Thoughts on Monero? I liked it the best when I started looking into crypto, but with so much momentum behind bitcoin I just kind of went down that path instead.

Lightning on top of Bitcoin fulfills that retirement.

This doesn't seem much different from mail order catalogs. Shareware had an address to mail cash or check to.