[Cryptography] Krugman blockchain currency skepticism

[Nemo]

Christian Huitema <huitema at huitema.net> writes:

> From there, he deduces that if the crypto-currencies are not used to
> pay bills, the main usage left is to stash cash, much like people
> stash $50 or $100 bills, and move them occasionally while hiding them
> from the Feds or other police forces.

Sure, assuming nobody legitimately values privacy for its own sake.

> Krugman then goes on to say that even for the "stash of cash" markets,
> crypto-currencies are inferior to alternative like wads of $100 bills
> or ingots of gold, because they are not "tethered" to something
> tangible, like paying US taxes with $100 bills or selling shiny
> jewelry.

What happens, exactly, when you want to move those wads of cash or piles
of ingots across borders?

Drifting on-topic... The "crypto" in crypto-currencies enables new
things. Nobody can seize them from you via a physical search, or even
determine how much you have. They travel anywhere in an instant,
undetectably, at zero cost. They can be exchanged between people who
never come anywhere near each other.

The exact combination of features offered by cryptocurrencies has never
existed before. This does not mean they are worth anything, necessarily,
but it does make Krugman's arguments sound pretty stupid.

Thought experiment: Would drug dealers use credit cards if the
transactions were untraceable?

 - Nemo