Unlike regular debit cards, the Eagle Cash is managed on-base, using batch processing which ensures that the cards remained useful even when connections to banks and credit unions State-side are severed.
This is really the whole point, but it's buried in the third paragraph. These cards work when the internet and all other communication with the outside world are down.
Replacing physical currency in that scenario is really difficult.
The US military has had some innovative payments ideas.
An occupying force prefers to use a money that 1) doesn't dollarize the nation they are occupying 2) can be tracked, thus thwarting black marketeers 3) is lightweight 4) if they lose, the enemy can't reuse it
Unfortunately, dollar bills are bulky, infiltrate local economies, and aren't enemy-resistant.
So we get innovations like EagleCash, which solves a lot of these problems.
That's right. In the US's case, if it was protecting a weakened friendly country or trying to rebuild a not-so-friendly one, dollarizing the economy would have undermined the occupied government and interfered with the US's overall goals. Using cancellable paper certificates like MPC or a closed loop electronic system like EagleCash prevented leakage of US dollars into the local economy.
The US Army shipped 12 _BILLION_ dollar in cash, multiple cargo flights to Iraq filled with pallets of nice fresh stacks of cash.
but they care to avoid dollarizing conquered countries? LOL.
They just want control over soldiers finances, so that there are no black markets, no soldiers buying drugs and paying hookers, becoming targets for petty crime, or selling weapons/ammo/info.
Dollarization of other nations is in the US national interest, read up some congressional transcripts.
Those cash shipments to Iraq were the Iraqi central bank withdrawing funds from accounts in the US. The money was Iraqi money, mostly from oil sales. They asked for it back. The US handed it over to the Iraqi central bank officials. Most of it was used to pay Iraqi government employees during reconstruction.
Yes. Very much so. In the beginning of my first deployment, the provisional government of Iraq rejected the BSA, so we pulled out and I redeployed to Afghanistan. During my second deployment, the Karzai government significantly reduced the BSA, and all regular forces pulled out around me. Both times, one of the biggest issues was dollars coming into the economy through US contracts and on-base merchants. This is good for them at first, but it turns the country into an import economy, and kills internal business. You can see this effect visually in the buildup of trash from imports replacing sustainable practices. 1000-year-old family farms gone fallow and covered in trash mixed with human waste. We tried to fix this with teams of Americans going around teaching Afghans how to do all the things they used to do before the onset of foreign aid.
There are a couple of things. The simplest one is that dollars leave the economy as soon as you deposit them in a bank because they get lent internationally versus local currency loans that stay local. The other is that imports are generally preferred in developing economies. It’s also hard for the government to tax transactions made in a foreign currency because they only really see local bank transactions and foreign exchanges.
I don’t really buy that. USD is still sufficiently used (in cash) in high denominations. Reducing that usage to the point that it deters counterfeiting would presumably reduce the impact of the dollar globally, which is likely against the US’s national interest.
Wait until you guys see the prices for the "AAFES POGS" on ebay ...
Basically while you can use cash, coins are too heavy to justify shipping into country. AAFES instead prints "gift certificates" in the shape of a pog, in 0.05, 0.10, 0.25 denominations.
The resale value on these is hilariously high ... these are federally issued mediums of exchange being currency except in name only. And only useable in deployed locations.
> I’m ESL, how far should the “thou should pluralize a loanword as it was in the original language” rule go? It seems to be not universal.
The basic rule of thumb is: assume it doesn't apply. That is, for most foreign words, -(e)s is usually an acceptable plural word, and even if it isn't, people will understand what you mean.
Just curious, is your mother tongue a language where borrowed words are pluralized consistently?
I'm a native English speaker but also speak German and Russian and all three languages pluralize loanwords inconsistently.
e.g. in Russian, some loanwords are treated like native words, like "computer" or "restaurant", while others don't seem to have plurals at all, like "cafe", "coffee", "radio" and "coat" [0].
And in German, it depends a lot on the original language [1], just like English.
If your language is different, I'd be curious to hear how it works.
In Russian, some loanwords are not pluralized, because in order to make a plural, we need to know the word’s declension first, judging from words’ ending, gender and sometimes stress. So for loanwords, it can be hard for the “language feeling” to choose a correct declension form, because no nouns with similar ending and gender can be found. And if no form is found, the word is not declined at all. I think that’s the reason some loanwords in Russian have no declension.
This means that no nouns, except for a limited amount of old native irregular nouns, can “bypass” Russian declension tables - loanwords are never loaned together with their plural forms as it happens in English, they are either pluralized as native words or not pluralized at all. So it’s probably a little bit more consistent. (Ukrainian also works this way, declension tables are just different.)
Do you happen to know why there's no plural form for the borrowed nouns ending in "o", like "radio"? Russian treats these words as neuter, which usually replaces the "o" with an "a" to form the plural (e.g. window), why doesn't it do it here?
But it's probably because of a declension choosing process which I described. Take "ра́дио", for example - it has this "ио" thing in the ending that is really not typical to Russian, so it made people think "hey, this word is weird, we probably shouldn't touch it when speaking", and since a lot of people thought this way, this became codified.
Now, some other loanwords are not that weird, for example "пальто́" - it's not that different from "окно́", or "весло́", or "ремесло́", and in fact, rarely people do decline it, like "пальта́", "у меня есть два пальта́", "у меня есть пятеро па́льт" - but it's rare, and "officially", it also has no declensions, probably to make things simpler.
Borrowed plural forms are most likely to happen with French, Latin, and Greek loans, and also those from languages that don't change words to make them plural, e.g. Japanese and Maori.
Sometimes it happens with other languages, like the use of Hebrew plural rules for cherub/cherubim, but there's the best approximation.
> Sometimes it happens with other languages, like the use of Hebrew plural rules for cherub/cherubim
For what it's worth, the few times I've seen the plural of cherub in the English language (mostly in song lyrics), it was always "cherubs", not "cherubim". Not saying the latter wouldn't be acceptable: Wiktionary lists both.
phenomenon/phenomena, criterion/criteria (2nd declension neuter)
analysis/analyses (3rd declension, I think proper Greek and Latin would actually be 'analyseis')
Latin and Greek were the classical languages that were expected to be spoken by the educated upper class in 19th century Anglo-Saxon world (the British Empire and the US). Most of the present day language conventions we have were gradually developed throughout the 17th to 19th centuries, as a result of print becoming established. Before that, English spelling varied greatly from text to text and the even the English plural themselves were determined by the writer's dialect, as in this example by William Caxton (England's first printer) in 1490 (in modernized spelling):
In modern spelling:
"And specially he asked after 'egges'. And the good wife answered that she could speak no French. And the merchant was angry for he also could speak no French, but would have had 'egges' and she understood him not. And then at least another said that he would have 'eyren'. Then the good ife said she understood him well.
The original splling was[1]:
"And specyally he axyed after eggys. And the good wyf answerde that she coude speke no frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry for he also coude speke no frenshe but wold haue hadde egges and she understode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she understood hym we."
During the period of standardization, it was the educated class I mentioned before that influenced spelling the most. Up to the 19th century they were expected to have a good grasp of Latin (and sometimes Greek) grammar, which is why "Grammar Schools" existed (originally meant to teach Latin grammar). Latin remained a requirement in some Elite schools and universities (like Oxford and Cambridge) well into the mid 20th century. This explains why the standard setters were quite pedantic about pluralizing Latin (and sometimes Greek) nouns correctly, but gave themselves a free hand in mutilating plurals (and even the words themselves) in other languages.
Since most of the educated upper class didn't know Ancient Greek as well as Latin, you find that Greek plural usage is not as systemic as Latin. That's why we're missing the first declension (we do not pluralize catastrophe as catastrophai, we say dogmas and not dogmata, atlases and not atlantes) and second declension masculine (cosmos is pluralized as cosmoses, not cosmoi). On the other hand, the high classes in the 19th century often spoke French and Italian, which is why it used to be fashionable to have some pluralizations such as -eau/eaux (bureau/bureaux) and -o/i (virtuoso/virtuosi). I feel like this is not so faddish anymore.
It's also important to note that the words we're covering here are _learned words_ - which are more influenced by elitist tendencies, since they first appear in print in academic publications and newspapers, before finding their way into everyday speech (if at all). Early borrowed words from Latin that have long become colloquial by then like wine (vinum/vina), pillow (pulivnus/pulvini) dish (discus/disci) and pound (pondus/pondera) don't even much the Latin singular form and are sometimes barely recognizable.
tl;dr: The explanation has to do mostly with elitist tendencies and the particular languages the elite during the time of standardization knew well and happened to care about.
There are many exceptions.
The best rule of thumb is that learned Latin words are mostly pluralized as in Latin, Greek words are pluralized as in Greek only with certain suffixes (-on/a and -sis/ses) and very rarely with any other language.
The second rule of thumb to remember is that once a Latin or Greek word becomes colloquial, the foreign plural is often used in conjunction with a native English plural or becomes abandoned completely. To use medium as an example:
Academic usage:
* means of communication (media) - 'mass medium' is almost always pluralized 'mass media'
* material conductor (e.g. air as medium) - usually 'media'
Colloquial usage:
* average, in the middle - usually mediums
* someone who communicates with spirits and ghosts - always mediums
The word "media" has become shorthand for "communications media". While correct in the original Latin, trying to use "media" as the plural for "medium" in any other context in English is jarring.
The word medium identifies a mean of communication. The commenter uses it to identify a mean of exchanging value. IMHO the word was both misused and misspelled.
Here in Italy (that is where the word was invented in the first place) that is considered a bad common mistake. Forgetting about the etymology or misusing a word is not what I would define as "evolution". We say multi-media, mass-media ecc. for a reason, for the same reason we don't say multi-mediums or mass-mediums.
To be pedantic, the correct grammatical rule in italian is that foregin words (including latin) are kept invariant between singular and plural, so the plural of medium would still be medium.
This rule is of course often misapplied, especially for latin words.
Though English has two plural forms "media" and "mediums", are they interchangeable? If you say "media" I think of more than one medium of communication, but if you say "mediums" I think of a group of humans who engage in necromancy and talking to spirits and stuff (being a medium as a job)
> This method allows soldiers to purchase goods and services at U.S. military posts and canteens, without carrying cash, or manage their personal bank accounts while on deployment or in training. The program reduces the amount of American currency required overseas, reduces theft, saves thousands of man-hours in labor, helps reduce the risk of transporting cash in combat environments, and increases security and convenience for service members.
It also prevents soldiers from being able to trade easily with anyone who isn't an authorized card terminal user.
Famously instant ramen noodles is the currency of choice for people in prison: small, uniform and non-perishable.
Just like every other society, in the absence of cash I'm sure soldiers have developed a bartering economy. Likely including to acquire drug/alcohol/tobacco products that may be otherwise banned. You sell me your old Nintendo Switch and I'll use my EagleCash card to buy you 100 packs of instant ramen at company store [1] prices.
Also, if anybody has a somewhat-trusted human network, it's possible to do Hawala [2] transfers across different financial systems without any actual foreign exchange transactions across the boundaries.
Hard to get much of your US bank account contents as USD cash when you're off on a military base enclave in some foreign land. It's less hard (but still expensive and inconvenient) to get it in the local currency.
You're also capped at relatively small amounts (a few hundred bucks of local currency per day).
It's possible to still use cash on deployed bases. But this reduces the need to use cash for things like: buying from random morale things, like the Fox at the 'Deid.
Microsoft uses something similar for their on-campus cafeterias. All Microsoft employees are issued a RFID card with a chip that functions as a door access card, visual ID (it has your photo/name/employee number on it), smartcard for 2FA (this is being phased out in favor of TPM-based device registration), and cafeteria payment system. You can elect to have some percentage of your paycheck automatically loaded on the card. I used it for a bit early on in my employment, but then switched to paying with credit card (like almost everyone else I know).
I think the core difference is that "Eagle Cash" is not centrally managed - the balance is actually on the physical card itself. I imagine the MS cards is more of a "central account" that is accessed when you swipe.
I guess each "Eagle Cash" terminal has a certificate, and whenever you credit/debit the card, the terminal adds/subtracts the amount on the card, signs the new balance with the certificate, and then this can be verified at any other terminal.
In other words, you can't modify the balance on the card unless you have the secret certificate, which is only present on the authorized terminals. If you try to modify it yourself, you can't do it, because no other terminal would accept the card unless the balance was cryptographically signed with the cert.
That's my guess for how this works, at least. I wonder if each terminal has a unique cert that can be revoked if it is compromised.
Huh. I was in the Air Force from 2005-2010 and I literally never saw this. I was at LSA Anaconda in Iraq too (mentioned in the article) ... must be an Army thing?
I'm not denying it exists (it's obviously a thing) but when I went through basic, they had us bring a voided check to set up direct deposit. We never had anything like this. Also I used my USAA debit card with zero issues while deployed in Iraq/Afghanistan/Kyrgyzstan. Very strange!
Back in the days when public phone booths were still a thing, the local telecom introduced pre-paid chip cards that you used for paying for your call. They were widely advertised as “fraud proof” because the chip physically burned polyfuses on the silicon as credits were used up. You can never restore a card that ran out of credits that way, they said.
It was simple to make a card insert and a circuit that just lied to the phone that a fuse was burned. They switched to a different system soon after.
This sounds like a better alternative to bitcoin! I guess it requires a trusted central authority, but for most users that's a feature not a bug, and it sounds like it has a load of advantages:
Stored value cards are different from debit cards: Their value is physically stored on the chip, rather than the card just being a reference to some centrally maintained account.
As a consequence, they are usable completely offline and with very low latency.
How does this thing solve the "double spend problem" [0].
Without needing network access?
You usually need server communication in electronics payment systems to confirm payment & update account balances. How does Eagle Cash solve this problem?
Similar to many Mastercard/Visa cards. The electronic chip on the card is capable of actually storing the balance and then syncing it back when it reaches a terminal machine that’s connected to the internet.
In my experience, many (most) chip-card based transport systems for busses or trains (eg tap n go) operates in this offline mode where it only syncs when you go to the kiosk to top it up.
It uses cryptographic methods to securely store and update the balance. The chip itself is an embedded processor.
Those cards typically store the last few transactions (e.g. [0] is an Android app that can display transit card usage history), so it should be possible to code idempotency into the card firmware.
Technically FLP impossibility only applies to deterministic algorithms, not randomized ones, otherwise no consensus protocol would work. So you could imagine a complicated technical solution that could work (eg. treating everything as a big Raft cluster and using Raft's membership changes every time a device is connected / disconnected).
In practice the solution is to realize that failures are rare (especially compared to events like the soldier simply misplacing the card), and to have a trusted human available to resolve any issues that do occur.
You trust the secure element, and if you think that's not enough, you reconcile spending logs and bring the wrath of the federal government on whoever was dumb enough to try.
This uses the same flow as many transportation cards (which in some countries can also be used to purchase goods).
Essentially the card chip holds the debit amount it has (the user makes an initial transaction to load it, debiting the money from a debit/credit card or paying for directly with money) so that every time a transaction occurs, the value in card is altered directly.
This system also has the potential of making transactions fully anonymous as no-one needs to know who the holder of the card is or where he spends his money.
I think that's the entire point of any army :). In this instance I guess the military police would be responsible though.
It's a centralized system, and every account holder is fully identified to the government (even with DNA samples IIRC). The kiosks likely keep the logs and upload them when a connection can be made. Then the data get collected and compared centrally, and any discrepancy would show up. At least that's how I understand the "batch processing" remark in the wiki page.
Not sure a whole book is needed, it seems fairly straightforward to show that society is based on threats of violence.
If you don't pay someone, that someone can go to a judge. If you indeed did something illegal (e.g. if you did a double spend, money forgery, whatever) you should be declared guilty and ordered to pay the damages plus perhaps a fine. If you don't do that, the amount due will increase and eventually you get ordered to jail. If you don't go voluntarily, they will make you. Of course everything comes down to force and eventually violence in the end. Why else would you comply with things that don't please you? (Because you're an honest party, okay, and the vast majority of people are, but not everyone is in the privileged position where they have what they want without applying dishonesty.)
Even if you think to solve it with technology, preventing a crime is indeed better than detecting and punishing one, but let's say it's impossible to detect the double spend ahead of time and your technological solution only finds out that there was a double spend after the fact. What's it going to do, block your card from now on? In the end, it will still have real world consequences for you. Taking away someone's card, through physical or technological means, it's all more or less the same thing.
It doesn't prevent from physical torturing that can be used to steal your coins. I've already seen a bunch of news about missing or killed people in this field. The creator is also probably dead.
In Germany, there's GeldKarte. Still relatively widely supported on public transportation ticket machines and cigarettes vending machines, so they can be used offline.
I found it awesome to use with at-home recharging (with an appropriate card terminal) and use on trains. Often, the ticket machine would refuse coins or not have change. Electronic payment to the rescue! :)
Unfortunately, its fate is already sealed with basically all banks having announced their withdrawal from the system.
Many countries have (or used to have) similar stored-value cards. They are really useful for some use cases: Given that they are very cash-like (transferable, anonymous unless registered), they are usually available to foreigners and minors without any formalities.
Japan‘s version could at one point even be used to purchase games in Nintendo‘s eStore by tapping a transit card on a game console – genius, given that a big part of their target audience doesn‘t have a credit or debit card.
Yes not only bus or metro, but almost everything. Taiwan put a considerable amount of effort to have a 1 card to rule them all. And it makes life so much easier[1]
This was a common practice in the 19th century, paying workers in company chit that was only good at the company store. The practice might come back if the economic conditions are right.
With upcoming satellite internet projects (see Starlink), I think it will be highly unlikely to disconnect any army base totally from the internet. In such scenarios, any centralized service would be much more efficient, secure and convenient. Soldiers can also use cryptocurrencies for trade among themselves, without needing to carry cash.
So what about during war when the enemy may have shot down your sats? Your soldiers are still going to want to buy goods on base during their down time and morale will suffer if you just tell them the internet is down.
How many will they shoot down? SpaceX is launching them by hundreds every month. The end goal is 45000 satellites. And by shooting just a few, the enemy will maybe only slow down the internet, not turn it off completely.
Let that sink in. They'll need 45000 missiles up shoot down every starlink satellite. Also, SpaceX will definitely be launching new ones as they are being shot down. So it's a very impractical approach.
This is really the whole point, but it's buried in the third paragraph. These cards work when the internet and all other communication with the outside world are down.
Replacing physical currency in that scenario is really difficult.