The doc won't point it out explicitly and I apologize if my explanation offends anybody, but the intention is basically leftist, state-friendly bitcoin. The authors took a look at the anarchy of real cryptocurrencies and realized they don't actually like anarchy, so instead they want to make something "wholesome" that governments would be willing to go along with (since they can tax it).
They are funded by EU and banks in an attempt to claw back some market share from cryptocurrencies which are slowly getting banned.
> The doc won't point it out explicitly and I apologize if my explanation offends anybody, but the intention is basically leftist, state-friendly bitcoin. The authors took a look at the anarchy of real cryptocurrencies and realized they don't actually like anarchy, so instead they want to make something "wholesome" that governments would be willing to go along with (since they can tax it).
While this is correct, I want to add a point:
Many hackers are not per se opposed to taxation (how else should public services be financed), but deeply distrustful about the red tape involved (the taxation laws in Germany are insanely complicated). Basically, their attitude is: if the government wants to tax "my" cryptocurrency, it is the government's responsibility to make the taxation laws as elegant, privacy-conscious and hassle-free as humanly possible.
In other words: if the government does not create taxation laws that are as hassle-free and privacy-conscious as possible (in a very strong sense: if in terms of effort (including the time to understand and apply the laws), it is much easier to ignore the laws than to turn in your taxes, the government failed its job), the government failed its job, so it does not deserve a concession from the cryptocurrencies' developers side.
Unfortunately that's accurate. From the SNB whitepaper linked at https://www.taler-systems.com/en/digital-currency.html you get to https://www.snb.ch/de/publications/research/working-papers/2... and then to https://www.snb.ch/public/asset/de/www-snb-ch/publications/r... :
> In addition, charging an exchange fee would allow the central bank to implement negative interest rates, if deemed necessary. The central bank could also impose a conversion limit per customer for AML/CFT (“cash” limits) or financial stability reasons (to prevent hoarding or bank runs), if desired.
Well goody.
The idea of blind signatures is cool, as is the fact that the merchant doesn't need to identify the customer, as is the fact that you could deploy neat local currencies with something like this, but AFAIK you still can't give 20€ to your friend without the exchange knowing and approving, or it becoming a race to see who spends the tokens corresponding to the 20€. And that's not very privacy-preserving.
IIRC isn't part of the idea that there are multiple central banks, you can choose which one you want to use, and currencies are exchanged automatically when needed?
Good summary.
To others reading, it's just gimped Chaumian ecash, as the privacy is removed for the receiver. It actually seems like it could be useable now (was just terrible for a long time) but Cashu (bitcoin based ecash) is streets ahead.