4 ms·

"ACH moved to same-day settlement (rather than next-day settlement) in 2018" Thailand, and most of Asia has had instant transactions and no concept of over draf

by smoovb 5y ago

"ACH moved to same-day settlement (rather than next-day settlement) in 2018" Thailand, and most of Asia has had instant transactions and no concept of over draft fees. And since 2017, nearly all bank to bank transactions are free, and irreversible*. So why is the US behind? Seems one of the biggest hurdles for US banking are the guard rails on financial products. The ability to pull back funds and reverse transactions creates the excess fat that keeps banking expensive and processes slow. 'Get paid, stay paid' as seen in blockchain, resolves this.

petesergeant 5y ago
> nearly all bank to bank transactions are free, and irreversible ... 'Get paid, stay paid' as seen in blockchain A key difference here is that if you screw up your payment in Thailand, you have legal recourse to reclaim your funds. If I fat-finger my rent to the wrong Khun Somchai, and he thinks he wants to keep it, I can use the legal system to get the money back from him (and he knows that), and what's more I know full well that his bank will know who he is and where he lives. If I send money to the wrong Bitcoin address, nobody can help me with that.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > A key difference here is that if you screw up your payment in Thailand, you have legal recourse to reclaim your funds. The legal systems are pretty important pieces of technology that solve real practical problems. > If I send money to the wrong Bitcoin address, nobody can help me with that. Bitcoin is a bit like introducing an electric car without seats, seatbelts, or a windshield. Sure there's some innovative bits there, but the hype forgets it's missing very important features. It's even more astounding that the hype men sometimes try to spin the lack of those features into a selling point.
- Kranar 5y ago
  This is simply false. Legal recourse is always available, whether sending money using Bitcoin, or any means whatsoever (by mail, by dropping a suitcase full of cash). Your legal rights don't vanish just because you used one medium over another.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    No they're right. How would you have legal recourse against someone you don't even know? Bitcoin addresses are anonymous. Sending to the wrong address is not sending to a wrong KYC bank account. There are no mechanisms in place to rectify that with Bitcoin, which is a bug, not a feature.
    - knownjorbist 5y ago
      Bitcoin addresses are pseudonymous. There are ways to make transactions safer for all parties involved such as escrow and social recovery.
      - bduerst 5y ago
        Yes, which means Bitcoin addresses are anonymous as far as this conversation about disputes is considered. It's even being generous considering the probability that it could accidentally go to a dead address and be lost forever. Third party escrow isn't unique to bitcoin, and on top of not being competitive can be painful.
pcwalton 5y ago
> The ability to pull back funds and reverse transactions creates the excess fat that keeps banking expensive and processes slow. For the victims of, say, Madoff, the ability for the authorities to intervene was very much not "excess fat".
- smoovb 5y ago
  This is just the "think of the children" argument. Think of credit card fraud and the $25 billion lost to it every year(half a Madoff). Then countless start ups, engineers and customer service employees that all deal with the excess fat of correctly routing payments. All these resources to put guard rails on a flawed process, funded by the 3% skim off the top. Blockchain for finance demands high user accountability, a refreshing change for anyone who's been on the other end of a reversed payment.
  - pcwalton 5y ago
    The entire justice system is a "think of the children" argument. I do not in fact find "high user accountability" "refreshing" any more than I would find the necessity of defending myself if robbery were legalized "refreshing". Yet again: I would like to see a defense of cryptocurrency that doesn't require me as a precondition to subscribe to the policy positions of the Mises Institute.

by smoovb 5y ago

petesergeant 5y ago

> nearly all bank to bank transactions are free, and irreversible ... 'Get paid, stay paid' as seen in blockchain A key difference here is that if you screw up your payment in Thailand, you have legal recourse to reclaim your funds. If I fat-finger my rent to the wrong Khun Somchai, and he thinks he wants to keep it, I can use the legal system to get the money back from him (and he knows that), and what's more I know full well that his bank will know who he is and where he lives. If I send money to the wrong Bitcoin address, nobody can help me with that.

tablespoon 5y ago
> A key difference here is that if you screw up your payment in Thailand, you have legal recourse to reclaim your funds. The legal systems are pretty important pieces of technology that solve real practical problems. > If I send money to the wrong Bitcoin address, nobody can help me with that. Bitcoin is a bit like introducing an electric car without seats, seatbelts, or a windshield. Sure there's some innovative bits there, but the hype forgets it's missing very important features. It's even more astounding that the hype men sometimes try to spin the lack of those features into a selling point.
Kranar 5y ago
This is simply false. Legal recourse is always available, whether sending money using Bitcoin, or any means whatsoever (by mail, by dropping a suitcase full of cash). Your legal rights don't vanish just because you used one medium over another.
- bduerst 5y ago
  No they're right. How would you have legal recourse against someone you don't even know? Bitcoin addresses are anonymous. Sending to the wrong address is not sending to a wrong KYC bank account. There are no mechanisms in place to rectify that with Bitcoin, which is a bug, not a feature.
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    Bitcoin addresses are pseudonymous. There are ways to make transactions safer for all parties involved such as escrow and social recovery.
    - bduerst 5y ago
      Yes, which means Bitcoin addresses are anonymous as far as this conversation about disputes is considered. It's even being generous considering the probability that it could accidentally go to a dead address and be lost forever. Third party escrow isn't unique to bitcoin, and on top of not being competitive can be painful.

pcwalton 5y ago

> The ability to pull back funds and reverse transactions creates the excess fat that keeps banking expensive and processes slow. For the victims of, say, Madoff, the ability for the authorities to intervene was very much not "excess fat".

smoovb 5y ago
This is just the "think of the children" argument. Think of credit card fraud and the $25 billion lost to it every year(half a Madoff). Then countless start ups, engineers and customer service employees that all deal with the excess fat of correctly routing payments. All these resources to put guard rails on a flawed process, funded by the 3% skim off the top. Blockchain for finance demands high user accountability, a refreshing change for anyone who's been on the other end of a reversed payment.
- pcwalton 5y ago
  The entire justice system is a "think of the children" argument. I do not in fact find "high user accountability" "refreshing" any more than I would find the necessity of defending myself if robbery were legalized "refreshing". Yet again: I would like to see a defense of cryptocurrency that doesn't require me as a precondition to subscribe to the policy positions of the Mises Institute.