3 ms·

There are legal means to force the recipient to send back erroneously sent funds in bank payment systems, the transactions themselves are generally non-reversib

by t_mann 4y ago

There are legal means to force the recipient to send back erroneously sent funds in bank payment systems, the transactions themselves are generally non-reversible (some banks learnt that the hard way after accidentally sending money to Lehman Brothers after their collapse). The same rules apply to blockchains too, and people have successfully demanded refunds where the other party was known. It seems that the reason you're seeing a tiring amount of seemingly false claims is that your own information set isn't exactly correct.

echelon 4y ago
> your own information set isn't exactly correct My information is correct. I worked in fintech. > There are legal means to force the recipient to send back erroneously sent funds in bank payment systems, the transactions themselves are generally non-reversible (some banks learnt that the hard way after accidentally sending money to Lehman Brothers after their collapse). This is not evidence to the contrary. In fact, this bolsters my claim. > The same rules apply to blockchains too, and people have successfully demanded refunds where the other party was known. When the parties are known actors in jurisdictions you can reach. Crypto is a Wild West of anonymity, deception, rug pulling, scams, and hacks. It's constantly in the media for how often people are screwed by these systems. We wouldn't see frequent pleas for reversals if the system itself could actually restore victims. Banks are incredibly well regulated. You can't even start a bank without permission from the state, and applying for permits requires that you meet a multitude of criteria and have organizational and process maturity. Don't pretend crypto resembles banking. It's a shitty pasquinade.
- t_mann 4y ago
  > My information is correct. It isn't: https://www.thelocal.de/20080917/14357/ https://www.thelocal.de/20080917/14357/ "Officials at KfW frantically attempted to stop the transaction once they realized what was happening, however, they were unable to get their money back."
  - spiralx 4y ago
    Sending money to an entity that then declares bankruptcy before the transaction can be reversed doesn't is unfortunate, but it's not a counter-example at all - indeed, the fact that they tried to reverse it undermines your point that transactions aren't reversible! The same bank came under fire a few years later for sending about $5.4bn to four banks by mistake, however they were able to recover all of that because they hadn't done that literally hours before the recipients went bankrupt. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/this-german-bank-accidentally-transferred-5-4-billion-second-time-in-8-years/articleshow/57828748.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/busi...
    - t_mann 4y ago
      that they tried and failed is not evidence for transactions being reversible at the technical level, that's an extremely misleading interpretation on your part. we could build interbank payment systems with reversibility built in, but the matter of fact is that for the most part we haven't. payments in TARGET2 or equivalent systems are final. what guarantees reversibility is the legal system, from which crypto is definitely not exempt, contrary to what some people (including you) seem to believe. enforceability is a different question, but if you don't have a billion-dollar balance sheet like these institutions, you'll find that it's impractical for many fiat transactions too. think about it: when you sent some money in accident, who do you contact? the bank (which could simply revert the transaction if it was reversible), or the recipient (who will initiate a new transaction if they're acting in good faith)?

by t_mann 4y ago

echelon 4y ago

> your own information set isn't exactly correct My information is correct. I worked in fintech. > There are legal means to force the recipient to send back erroneously sent funds in bank payment systems, the transactions themselves are generally non-reversible (some banks learnt that the hard way after accidentally sending money to Lehman Brothers after their collapse). This is not evidence to the contrary. In fact, this bolsters my claim. > The same rules apply to blockchains too, and people have successfully demanded refunds where the other party was known. When the parties are known actors in jurisdictions you can reach. Crypto is a Wild West of anonymity, deception, rug pulling, scams, and hacks. It's constantly in the media for how often people are screwed by these systems. We wouldn't see frequent pleas for reversals if the system itself could actually restore victims. Banks are incredibly well regulated. You can't even start a bank without permission from the state, and applying for permits requires that you meet a multitude of criteria and have organizational and process maturity. Don't pretend crypto resembles banking. It's a shitty pasquinade.

t_mann 4y ago
> My information is correct. It isn't: https://www.thelocal.de/20080917/14357/ https://www.thelocal.de/20080917/14357/ "Officials at KfW frantically attempted to stop the transaction once they realized what was happening, however, they were unable to get their money back."
- spiralx 4y ago
  Sending money to an entity that then declares bankruptcy before the transaction can be reversed doesn't is unfortunate, but it's not a counter-example at all - indeed, the fact that they tried to reverse it undermines your point that transactions aren't reversible! The same bank came under fire a few years later for sending about $5.4bn to four banks by mistake, however they were able to recover all of that because they hadn't done that literally hours before the recipients went bankrupt. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/this-german-bank-accidentally-transferred-5-4-billion-second-time-in-8-years/articleshow/57828748.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/busi...
  - t_mann 4y ago
    that they tried and failed is not evidence for transactions being reversible at the technical level, that's an extremely misleading interpretation on your part. we could build interbank payment systems with reversibility built in, but the matter of fact is that for the most part we haven't. payments in TARGET2 or equivalent systems are final. what guarantees reversibility is the legal system, from which crypto is definitely not exempt, contrary to what some people (including you) seem to believe. enforceability is a different question, but if you don't have a billion-dollar balance sheet like these institutions, you'll find that it's impractical for many fiat transactions too. think about it: when you sent some money in accident, who do you contact? the bank (which could simply revert the transaction if it was reversible), or the recipient (who will initiate a new transaction if they're acting in good faith)?