2 ms·

Right, because as long as the USA has a system for them, all is good for everyone else in the world. /s Anyway, even FedNow is not enough. Europe has SEPA, Bra

Right, because as long as the USA has a system for them, all is good for everyone else in the world. /s Anyway, even FedNow is not enough. Europe has SEPA, Brazil has Pix. India has NPCI... and yet, they still haven't solved the side for micropayments and transactions still can be reversed and are not anonymous.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Anonymous digital payments cannot coexist with government KYC and AML regulatory requirements. You're asking to solve for violating financial regulatory mechanisms with technology. It's a data privacy and governance issue. Perhaps you use some sort of fiat tumbler like privacy.com enabled for instant payments, where the merchant doesn't know who you are, but the money transmitter will still be required to keep records of the transaction and have a license. (disclosure: i work in risk/compliance at a fintech)
- rglullis 4y ago
  And pretty much like every over-reaching policy, it will be circumvented by the bad actors and be used to oppress law-abiding people and to keep the status quo. Still, crypto could be used for the payment and KYC be done through other means.
tablespoon 4y ago
> ...and transactions still can be reversed... That's a feature. I have no idea why people think irreversible transactions are a desirable feature. It's like a credit card where you're responsible for all charges, even if your card was stolen.
- rglullis 4y ago
  not for the merchant.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > not for the merchant. So: 1. Bad for consumers (who merchants also are). 2. Bad for people who make mistakes. 3. Good for merchants-as-merchants, including unscrupulous ones. 4. Good for thieves.
  - criddell 4y ago
    Merchants are also consumers. Reversible transactions are an important feature for everybody.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > I have no idea why people think irreversible transactions are a desirable feature. Reversible transactions come at a cost. There are times when the cost of the insurance from the transactions being reversible is higher than the cost of the transaction itself. For those times, it would be very desirable to have a way for irreversible transactions. (Also, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534 before continuing with any other false dichotomies. I am tired of "playing the tape" in regards to crypto discussions)

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Anonymous digital payments cannot coexist with government KYC and AML regulatory requirements. You're asking to solve for violating financial regulatory mechanisms with technology. It's a data privacy and governance issue. Perhaps you use some sort of fiat tumbler like privacy.com enabled for instant payments, where the merchant doesn't know who you are, but the money transmitter will still be required to keep records of the transaction and have a license. (disclosure: i work in risk/compliance at a fintech)

rglullis 4y ago
And pretty much like every over-reaching policy, it will be circumvented by the bad actors and be used to oppress law-abiding people and to keep the status quo. Still, crypto could be used for the payment and KYC be done through other means.

tablespoon 4y ago

> ...and transactions still can be reversed... That's a feature. I have no idea why people think irreversible transactions are a desirable feature. It's like a credit card where you're responsible for all charges, even if your card was stolen.

rglullis 4y ago
not for the merchant.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > not for the merchant. So: 1. Bad for consumers (who merchants also are). 2. Bad for people who make mistakes. 3. Good for merchants-as-merchants, including unscrupulous ones. 4. Good for thieves.
- criddell 4y ago
  Merchants are also consumers. Reversible transactions are an important feature for everybody.
rglullis 4y ago
> I have no idea why people think irreversible transactions are a desirable feature. Reversible transactions come at a cost. There are times when the cost of the insurance from the transactions being reversible is higher than the cost of the transaction itself. For those times, it would be very desirable to have a way for irreversible transactions. (Also, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31463534 before continuing with any other false dichotomies. I am tired of "playing the tape" in regards to crypto discussions)