cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4262252

A combination of good high-speed internet coverage, high digital literacy rates, large rural populations and fast-growing fintech industries had put the Nordic neighbours on a fast track to a future without cash.

[…]

But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and a subsequent rise in cross-border hybrid warfare and cyber-attacks blamed on pro-Russia groups have prompted a rethink.

[…]

The Swedish government has since completely overhauled its defence and preparedness strategy, joining Nato, starting a new form of national service and reactivating its psychological defence agency to combat disinformation from Russia and other adversaries. Norway has tightened controls on its previously porous border with Russia.

[…]

[Norway’s] justice and public security ministry said it “recommends everyone keep some cash on hand due to the vulnerabilities of digital payment solutions to cyber-attacks”. It said the government took preparedness seriously “given the increasing global instability with war, digital threats, and climate change. As a result, they’ve ensured that the right to pay with cash is strengthened”.

[…]

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    13 days ago

    Cashless can only work if you adopt a digital cash such as monero, other wise you are taking away privacy, control and possibly small transactions (depending on what fees are common in your country)

    In a cashless society banks and credit companies become your rulers as you have no real way to bypass them.

    I suspect that any country that tries to go cashless without a real cash alternative, will just find itself with a new form of cash (gold, silver, etc) since eventually there will be enough people trying to avoid fees and taxes

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      Cryptocurrency has basically many of the same problems as traditional banks, it’s just a matter of who is controlling it. Monero is slightly different from most, because it is much more anonymous, but it’s really only a matter of time before even that advantage is lost.

      There is no substitute for physical currency if you want privacy and anonymity.

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 days ago

          From what I understand, which honestly, isn’t a lot - the method used to anonymize transactions and balances is more like obfuscation than anything else. The system uses various techniques to fuzz up the data in such a way that it becomes impossible to trace.

          It’s a bit like if you wanted to send a bank transfer for £200 but anonymize it somewhat, you could transfer that money around between a bunch of other bank accounts, before sending it on to the final source. And if multiple people are doing the same thing, it becomes essentially impossible to determine where the money entered and left.

          The problem is though that such systems aren’t true encryption in the same way that RSA is, for example - the data isn’t unreadable, and it’s not impossible to reverse, it’s just that there’s so much junk data and it’s such a mess that it makes the true transactions difficult to identify and the end user has extremely strong plausible deniability. However, it’s likely just a matter of time before some state actor finds a vulnerability in the technique that allows them to trace transactions - if they haven’t already done so.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            What if it bounced through multiple peers between sender and recipient, encrypted on each hop like Tor? Then they’d need to actually break the encryption, or compromise every hop.

            • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 days ago

              The transaction data itself does need to be publicly readable, because otherwise the whole consensus mechanism that the blockchain relies on wouldn’t work.

              • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                13 days ago

                Not every transaction, just the ones that open and close payment channels. This deletes data that would be needed to reconstruct an overwhelming majority of transactions.

                (This is how Bitcoin’s lightning network works.)

          • arrakark@10291998.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            Hmm gotcha. Yeah this stuff goes over my head haha but it sounds similar to a Bitcoin mixer/tumbler. I wonder if the anonymity scales with the number of users using the network. I also wonder if you happened to send a transaction at a “bad” time (no-one else is using the network) then it’s easier to trace.

            • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              13 days ago

              Yeah, totally - I think it’s designed to be hard to understand, both tech stuff and financial stuff is often made intentionally confusing, in my opinion. It’s not dissimilar to the bitcoin mixers, but it’s still much stronger - the system is automated, you can’t mess it up as a user, you’re less reliant on a single-point-of-trust, and so on.

              You might be on to something about quiet periods - I don’t really have the knowledge to say either way. There might be a bit of stuff that goes on in the background for wallets even if they’re not actively conducting “real” transactions. But, I don’t know, really.