3 ms·

How is it a bad example? Not everyone uses IBANs. And besides, big banks still have to deal with checksum-passing iban typos on a daily basis. IBANs only have

• user-the-name 5y ago
  > And besides, big banks still have to deal with checksum-passing iban typos on a daily basis. That's the thing - they can deal with it. There are fallbacks. In crypto, your money is just instantly destroyed.
  • rosndo 5y ago
    You’re mistaken, they usually can’t deal with it. They’ll ask the other bank if they’d like to return the money, and that bank will maybe ask the recipient if they’d like to return the money. The recipient doesn’t want to return the money? You’re SOL. You can go to court, but they can trivially evade civil action by transferring the money overseas.
    • user-the-name 5y ago
      Those are all things you can try, though. In crypto, again, the money just instantly disappears.
      • rosndo 5y ago
        You could still appeal to the developers, it has been done successfully in the past.
        • user-the-name 5y ago
          Once.
          • rosndo 5y ago
            Which indeed proves that it can be done.
            • user-the-name 5y ago
              Ok, you are definitely not arguing this is good faith any longer. Get lost.
              • rosndo 5y ago
                What do you mean? If you can convince a sufficiently large share of the community, you can in fact roll back transactions.
                • user-the-name 5y ago
                  This is a massively disingenuous argument, and you know it.
• ciupicri 5y ago
  > big banks still have to deal with checksum-passing iban typos on a daily basis Citation needed.
  • rosndo 5y ago
    This is elementary school level math, no citation needed. The modulo 97 checksum offers known guarantees.
    • ciupicri 5y ago
      I think there's a misunderstanding here. If the customer mistypes the IBAN account number, the bank (website, app etc) will automatically reject it as invalid immediately, he won't have to deal with the customer service.
      • rosndo 5y ago
        Yes, but the misunderstanding is on your side. This is overly simplified so not entirely accurate, but if 100 customers typo their destination IBAN the modulo 97 checksum will probably let 3 of them through.
        • ciupicri 5y ago
          Wikipedia says that "where used, IBANs have reduced trans-national money transfer errors to under 0.1% of total payments", although there's no source for the claim.
          • rosndo 5y ago
            0.1% of total payments, i.e 1 in 1000 payments. That’s not 0.1% of typos but all payments.
• 7steps2much 5y ago
  > And besides, big banks still have to deal with checksum-passing iban typos on a daily basis. IBANs only have two check digits. Actually the checksum was designed especially to deal with typos. As such, dealing with typo errors is usually not an issue at all. What they do have to deal with is maliciously created IBANs though. However, if the account an IBAN should point at doesn't exist then the transaction usually just bounces.