GNU Taler begins operating in Switzerland, distributed by the Taler Operations AG. Gnu Taler aims to be a “digital wallet” and has been used by the swiss national bank as well as the european national bank as a example for how a digital currency handed out by the state could work. It aims to be as privacy preserving as cash for the buyer while not allowing the seller to evade taxes.
Currently the Taler is brought out by a special organisation, the “Taler Operations AG”, and not the national bank, although both the national bank as well as the Taler Team have shown interest in a official digial currency by the national bank based on the Taler. But we need to relativate as the national council has stated that the introduction of a digital currency would probably take relatively major legislative changes and therefore take a bit of time.
I rarely wish for an opensource project to fail, but Taler is an exception. Offering a digital currency system for the government to use is like sending an efficiency improvement proposal to Auschwitz.
I don’t even know what you’re saying. Is this anti-money, anti-government, anti-technology…
most tactful .world user
You say that as if the majority of currency transactions worldwide weren’t already digital.
Yeah, but at least those are handled by capitalist overlords instead of government overlords. I hear capitalist boot tastes better
A lot of cross payment system between countries already handled by government due to dedolarization, moving away from American overlords
At least, this seems provide a better solution for them.
Physical or digital does not really matter. Gving such a powerful tool to a central bank seems too dangerous. If implemented, it’s not really a question of IF it’s going to be abused, but WHEN it’s going to be abused.
The digital currencies were supposed to give more power to the people, but the Taler is working in the oposite direction.
You might actually like Taler, it’s fundamentally different from blockchain based systems, to the point of being a cryptocurrency only in the technical sense, but not having any of the properties people associate with that word culturally.
Taler doesn’t use any kind of proof of work, and so doesn’t consume excess power or other resources, at least not more than, like, visiting any normal webpage. It’s also not decentralized, and only partially anonymous, so I can acquire money anonymously and no one can trace the money I got to a particular spend, but the only place I can reasonably spend it has to be registered to the centralized issuer and is firmly not anonymous. And the only things they can do with the tokens they receive is redeem them, which means there’s no place for tax evasion because the issuing authority can track every dollar the registered vendors redeem with them. And you can’t really transfer money from random person to person, so there’s no black market opportunity, etc.
So basically the only thing Taler “protects” is that the buyer’s identity can be anonymous, but any vendor accepting Taler must not be and are highly trackable.
These are things I actually don’t like about Taler, but we may be on opposite sides of a few issues, which is fair.
How would one acquire tokens anonymously but in a way that you can verify that you acquired genuine tokens, and what keeps those tokens from being given to multiple people? This is really where the privacy aspects fall down. It’s a hard problem to solve in Bitcoin, but at least you can have Bitcoin ATMs that you can verify that you received the funds.
A Taler ATM it seems could issue invalid tokens or issue the same tokens to every client and there would be no way to know until you tried to spend it or deposit it in your account (thus defeating the anonymity).
You’ve pretty accurately described everything that’s wrong with it.
Thing is, most money is already digitised and tracked. Taler has the genius of giving (hopefully) enough accountability on the receiving end to satisfy tax and counter-fraud, whilst at the same time giving privacy and anonymity to the spender.
That’s my main problem. They had a chance to make it fully anonymous and fungible, yet decided to implement an intentional vulnerability to reveal the receiving party.
I don’t think they really had that chance. It’s there in the docs about it: they implemented receiver accountability deliberately so European governments might be willing to accept it.
Uh what?
can you explain your train of thought here? GNU taler is finally an open source payment system buisnesses can actually use without needing to jump through a bunch of legal loopholes and headaches