[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Taler] age-restriction is about coins, not currencies

From: Schanzenbach, Martin
Subject: Re: [Taler] age-restriction is about coins, not currencies
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 05:28:06 +0000

> On 8. Sep 2021, at 03:21, Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281@gmail.com> wrote:
> Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
>> I think use cases such as "soft binding" of pocket change to certain 
>> products/services could still make sense.
>> Eg. 10% for candy, 20% for games etc.
>> Even that would be quite difficult to consolidate properly for businesses.
> This type of "budgeting aid" could be implemented entirely client-side and 
> transparently with respect to the Taler protocols.  Users configure their 
> wallets to set certain amounts aside for certain categories and indicate the 
> category to associate with each transaction.  The wallet rejects the 
> transaction (and offers access to revise the user's budget to permit the 
> transaction) if the funds allotted to that category would be insufficient 
> within the user's budget.
> No other entity need even be able to see the user's categories or budget 
> outline; the "restriction" is entirely in the user's wallet and can be 
> effectively overridden if the user so chooses.  Businesses would receive only 
> the standard tokens, with no indication that token X was budgeted for use 
> with them.  The "soft binding" use case is entirely client-side, requiring 
> only some additional metadata to preserve the budgeting information when 
> synchronizing wallets.

I think I would agree with you. I did not put time into finding those examples, 
I just wanted to illustrate a use case which is not as highly regulated as age 
The problem with age restriction is that it will happen if you agree with it or 
not, because it is regulated. So if the Taler technology does not support it, 
merchants will have to implement it in another way.
As a user, you will not be able to "opt out" just because Taler does not 
support this feature for its transactions, and merchants (this is my 
assumption) will not be fully compliant by relying on the proposed incarnation 
of the feature.
Mostly because the restricted goods and the legal age for them are defined by 
the state and its laws.
If you advocate from the perspective of a libertarian society, I fully agree 
with you that this feature is unnecessary and if at all should be implemented 


> -- Jacob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]