[taler-marketing] branch master updated: some comments; minor text additions/changes

[gnunet]

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.

martin-schanzenbach pushed a commit to branch master
in repository marketing.

The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
     new de9b745  some comments; minor text additions/changes
de9b745 is described below

commit de9b74599020dc4c6d66f6bc47647f8bf6489398
Author: Martin Schanzenbach <schanzen@gnunet.org>
AuthorDate: Sun Jan 16 12:14:58 2022 +0100

    some comments; minor text additions/changes
---
 2022-privacy/privacy.tex | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/2022-privacy/privacy.tex b/2022-privacy/privacy.tex
index 537b6a3..e2925fd 100644
--- a/2022-privacy/privacy.tex
+++ b/2022-privacy/privacy.tex
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 \usepackage{enumitem}
 
 \title{Accounts are an Unnecessary Evil \\ A critique of two papers}
-\author{Antoinne Aligny \and Emmanuel Benoist \and Christian Grothoff \and 
\"Ozg\"ur Kesim}
+\author{Antoinne Aligny \and Emmanuel Benoist \and Christian Grothoff \and 
\"Ozg\"ur Kesim \and Martin Schanzenbach}
 \date{\today}
 \begin{document}
 
@@ -83,7 +83,12 @@ permissioned blockchains does not inherently prevent such 
manipulations as
 long as the participating operators are colluding.  Thus, if European
 democratic ideals and personal freedoms are to prevail, we clearly cannot
 ignore this danger and must reestablish the principles of personal
-self-reliance, personal independence and subsidiarity in the design processes
+%MSC: Question: Is "self-reliance" supposed to mean "autarky" or "personal 
responsibility"?
+% Autarky sounds a bit odd as a principle in the European or democratic 
context.
+% Hence change it for now, feel free to change again.
+% Unless referring to some defined EU principle it is better as it ties in with
+% the idea of being responsible for your tokens just like cash.
+responsibility, personal independence and subsidiarity in the design processes
 for critical infrastructure created by European institutions.
 
 Here the wording of the French report is confusing, as it suggests that
@@ -95,21 +100,25 @@ as fact, for example when they write that ``the 
centralization and data
 tracking of central bank digital currency projects leads to a loss of privacy
 that coupled with the programmability of the currency can have serious
 consequences.''  Using the indicative here is a serious mistake, as it is
-understood that any CBDC would leads to a loss
+understood that any CBDC would lead to a loss
 of privacy, when this is false.
 
-Since this far-fetched assumption is taken as true, the conclusion of the
-first part of the French report is obviously flawed. The authors ask ``Should
-the objectives, mandate and governance of central banks be redefined?'',
+Since this far-fetched assumption is taken as true while counterexamples
+exists, the conclusion of the first part of the French report follows a 
logical fallacy.
+In it, the authors ask ``Should the objectives, mandate and governance of 
central banks be redefined?'',
 implying that the management of a CBDC would be impossible in the current
-state. This is likely wrong. They should have written that central banks
-should limit CBDC issuance corresponding to their mission, and not that their
-missions must be adapted. Especially adaptations of central bank missions to
+state.
+But adaptations of central bank missions to
 include complete control over money via the issuance of a CBDC (as envisioned
 by Agustin Carstens of the Bank of International Settlement\footnote{ See
 speach given on October 19th 2020 on ``Cross-Border Payment -- A vision for
-the future''}) are dangerous and must be firmly rejected.
+the future''}) are dangerous and must be firmly rejected. %MSC: Citation 
needed? Unfounded claim?
 
+% MSC: I removed a strawman here (This [the implication] is likely wrong).
+% I replaced it with "our belief", not sure if that is better...
+Instead, we believe the question should be if central banks
+should limit CBDC issuance corresponding to their mission instead of adapting
+it.
 
 
 \section{Harmful coupling with identity}
@@ -122,6 +131,13 @@ without first creating a reliable, secure digital identity 
offering the
 necessary guarantees''. The statement is hard to defend, since current
 cryptocurrencies work perfectly well without depending on a ``trusted digital
 identity''.
+%MSC: Yes, but they are not (used as) CDBC (yet). They do not say that 
cryptocurrencies
+% do not work iwthout the ID. They say CDBC does not work.
+% Hence, this is another strawman argument.
+% They work as part of their current use cases without
+% the ID. Maybe better would be an argument limited to the _use_ (payment) and 
then make a bridge
+% to cash and how its use does not require an ID?
+% Otherwise, I would simply remove the sentence above.
 
 Naturally, it is understood that institutions working with a Digital Euro will
 at times be legally required to establish the identity of actors. However,

-- 
To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
gnunet@gnunet.org.