If the cash machine knows the serial numbers of your banknotes that its issued, and you then go and spend some of that money with someone, when those bank notes come back into the banks hands, they can use this to build up a map or pattern of behaviour. Are you comfortable with your bank knowing who you hand cash to?
In another situation, most on here will be familiar with FIFO and LIFO for buffers, and whilst most cash registers take a serialised bank note and hand it back out in a LIFO manner, sometimes the register operator will take bank notes and put them at the bottom of the pile.
This creates a new state, LILO as its gone to the bottom of the pile of bank notes. In addition why did the shop or business engage in that activity with some people and not others?
Is there something shady taking place or are they displaying knowledge to others?
How does that mess around with the banking systems ability to build payment networks what central banks would call the velocity of money?
A cashless society would make some crimes less possible like muggings, but could it also escalate the extremity of muggings? For example if fingerprints are required with a card or smartphone, would muggings evolve becoming more extreme with events like cutting off peoples fingers?
It also highlights the fact that's society is not configured/setup properly because such events like muggings are taking place.
I think coinage should be dropped (ie non serialised money) and banks should start displaying the serial numbers of bank notes much like the blockchain, so that people can track and trace where all the money is going.
For example, celebrities helping out less fortunate people with autographed products including things like NFT's could evolve, because a celebrity could hand out cash to someone which has its immediate utilitarian value as currency, but just like collectors demonstrate, that bank note could actually be worth more to a collector willing to pay x times more for that celebrity bank note which the less fortunate currently has in their possession.
Ergo could poverty be reduced with this method or would human behaviour change and less celebrity worshipping occur?
And would less celebrity worshipping be a bad thing or not?
> when those bank notes come back into the banks hands, they can use this to build up a map or pattern of behaviour. Are you comfortable with your bank knowing who you hand cash to?
I am comfortable with it, since by the time those bank notes come into the bank, they do not know how many times, and between whom, they have changed hands.
There is also plausible deniability: the suspect guy bringing cash into the bank with numbers I had might have gotten them from me spending them at the supermarket, or from me getting change at the restaurant, and the restaurant owner doing business with him.
Arguably democracy as we know it in its current form is a forced form of democracyn if not a dictatorship, purchases are a more natural form of democracy by voting with your money and purchases, ergo some activities would not be hidden away and science would have a more accurate picture of human behaviour than is currently on display.
On the point of they do not know, humans are creatures of habit, it is possible to know where money is being laundered and its not a single step process.
But a simpler example would be looking at the reCaptcha I'm not a robot process.
So google dont know what these random images are when they present them to people in recaptcha. The user does not know who these images have been presented to previously if at all. Users treating it as a hurdle will click the right images, the malicious user trying to mess up the image recognition will deliberately tick the wrong image. Over time, google gets to find out what images are a bike or plane or traffic lights, helping to train their visual recognition AI models, or at least clean their streetview dataset, they also get to know who are the deliberate malicious users.
So with money going into a supermarket, periodically money is taken from tills and sent off outback for the bank. This is a snapshot of the serial bank notes during a period of time in the supermarket. The checkouts also know what amount of money was handed over. If money is being laundered as cash in a supermarket, or pub, its possible to identify who these people are from cctv, over repeat visits. You see not everyone will be making a monthly food shop, some are just buying lunch so might only hand over £10, someone laundering money will do a monthly shop handing over £200 or £300 pounds.
As these places tend to receive cash and hand out coinage, its possible for the banks to work out the cash trail of money from spending habits. Same goes when money laundering is taking place around an area, like weekend holidays paid with cash. What these money launderers dont know is how many other people from their base area are also on holiday in the same place like a weekend away a few hundred miles away?
There are so many ways to track cash but I dont think most people think about it. The fact people are using cash is a deliberate red flag for a start. Sure some jobs are best done using cash like taxi firms, fast food outlets and pubs, but these are also red flags for scrutiny as well. Arguably its just another form of intellectual surveillance.
> So with money going into a supermarket, periodically money is taken from tills and sent off outback for the bank. This is a snapshot of the serial bank notes during a period of time in the supermarket. The checkouts also know what amount of money was handed over. If money is being laundered as cash in a supermarket, or pub, its possible to identify who these people are from cctv, over repeat visits. You see not everyone will be making a monthly food shop, some are just buying lunch so might only hand over £10, someone laundering money will do a monthly shop handing over £200 or £300 pounds.
The original concern was
> Are you comfortable with your bank knowing who you hand cash to?
You moved the goalposts to money-launderers, but let's assume only money-launderers, which I am not, because it is fun thinking about these things.
Your hypothesis only holds if at least some pubs, supermarkets, record serial numbers, or if we assume that "money launderers" always pay in 200 or 300 pounds and there is an active investigation of cctv cameras.
Now, going back to the original question:
> Are you comfortable with your bank knowing who you hand cash to?
This is not a concern at all, because the bank does not know who I hand my cash to. Cash that the bank recorded as given to me can travel many many times before the bank gets to see it again, thus proving nothing about who I handed to it.
I didnt move the goal posts, unless you are trying to distance a banks involvement and thus reduce the legal ramification of the legal concept known as joint enterprise?
In another situation, most on here will be familiar with FIFO and LIFO for buffers, and whilst most cash registers take a serialised bank note and hand it back out in a LIFO manner, sometimes the register operator will take bank notes and put them at the bottom of the pile.
This creates a new state, LILO as its gone to the bottom of the pile of bank notes. In addition why did the shop or business engage in that activity with some people and not others?
Is there something shady taking place or are they displaying knowledge to others?
How does that mess around with the banking systems ability to build payment networks what central banks would call the velocity of money?
A cashless society would make some crimes less possible like muggings, but could it also escalate the extremity of muggings? For example if fingerprints are required with a card or smartphone, would muggings evolve becoming more extreme with events like cutting off peoples fingers?
It also highlights the fact that's society is not configured/setup properly because such events like muggings are taking place.
I think coinage should be dropped (ie non serialised money) and banks should start displaying the serial numbers of bank notes much like the blockchain, so that people can track and trace where all the money is going.
For example, celebrities helping out less fortunate people with autographed products including things like NFT's could evolve, because a celebrity could hand out cash to someone which has its immediate utilitarian value as currency, but just like collectors demonstrate, that bank note could actually be worth more to a collector willing to pay x times more for that celebrity bank note which the less fortunate currently has in their possession.
Ergo could poverty be reduced with this method or would human behaviour change and less celebrity worshipping occur?
And would less celebrity worshipping be a bad thing or not?