3 ms·
The bank example is terrible. The inconsistency is an absolute PITA for the consumer. The delays are are a terrible, terrible user experience, and the consumer
by 4ad 10y ago
The bank example is terrible.
The inconsistency is an absolute PITA for the consumer. The delays are are a terrible, terrible user experience, and the consumer has to spend more money in the end.
It's extremely expensive, both in money the bank has to spend on auditing and in the legal framework that has to be put in place.
The bank example is the perfect argument for consistency, not against.
- vidarh 10y agoIt's a perfect argument for shorter transaction processing times. The bank inconsistency is there because historically it was impossible to guarantee consistency without making the processing times far worse. E.g. want to make a payment via check? Sorry, need to send a courier to the branch holding your account to verify the funds are there, and then afterwards send a courier to inform of the updated account state before another payment would be allowed. But the shorter you make the processing time, the less benefit you get from introducing consistency requirements, to the point where the thing that is important to address is the remaining cases where processing transactions take time, not the consistency (at least as long as banks also don't take the piss by taking advantage of the lax consistency to charge unwarranted overdraft fees).