241–250 of 305 posts
That's a good question, since Stripe backed out at the VERY last minute for a customer of mine who sells alcohol over the internet, despite repeated assurances it would be fine.
Stripe can typically support alcohol businesses (assuming they hold the appropriate licenses). Could you get in touch at edwin@stripe.com and we can take another look?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we need the financial industry Do we, though? I don't know whether the answer is distributed blockchains, or the Department of the Treasury creating an API for USD, or both; but the current banking system seems to me like the legacy code of feudal landed aristocrats. (I will never stop being disappointed that we didn't let the financial system crash in 2009.)
An API for USD centrally controlled by the Treasury? Kiss your financial freedom goodbye. You gotta demand it be distributed blockchains or you'll be living in chains.
The problem is the account. I do not want an account in the federal reserve or anywhere so closely coupled with the government. Nor do I want an account with a public ledger or any way distributed which doesn’t allow for transaction reversals (theft) which rules out blockchain.
Actual banks are necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how to use Stripe to only store cards and let other processors make the charge 1) Have the user submit their card info on your payment page 2) Simultaneously send the card info to the 3 processors 3) Then process the charge through just 1 of the 3 processors, leaving the others open to be used later (At least with Stripe) the process of saving a credit card to Stripe and actually charging the card are 2 independent…
To pull that off, they'd have to (technically) process the card info, which puts them in the scope for PCI compliance. By that point, I don't know why they'd send card info to 3 processors especially when they know, at that point, which processor they're gonna process it with. It would just make more sense to send it to the 1 processor the code ends up deciding to use.
With stripe.js, you send the cc info directly to stripe from the browser. Stripe returns an identifier which you can use in the future to charge the card.
Assuming other payment processors work similarly, you could easily send the credit card details to multiple payment processors directly from the browser to the payment processors, and then store the card identifiers from each processor (not the card number) in your database to charge it at a later date.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the CVV you can't store it even if you have passed PCI compliance. You are only allowed to collect it for a specific transaction, and are required to forget it when that transaction is complete.
That can't be right. I entered my credit card information once into uber eats and I can buy food whenever without entering a CCV and my credit card is immediately charged. If this were true 1000s of large companies would not be PCI compliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misinterpreting the scale of Wellsfargo. The CEO probably doesn't even know what onlyfans is, and they manage almost 2 trillion dollars.
The CEO knows their business model; it's to scratch out every last penny they can, however they can, just to fulfill some quarterly earnings report. Almost every public company is now a growth company, so it doesn't matter how much they already profit–what matters is that they profit more in the next 90 days. He/She doesn't need/care to know about onlyfans–they simply care about hitting their targets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alabama, Georgia, and Texas have laws restricting the sale and possession of sex toys.
Seriously? I'm genuinely mind blown by this. What are the ownership restrictions? Is it blanket or just to certain categories or sizes of toys?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alabama, Georgia, and Texas have laws restricting the sale and possession of sex toys.
Seriously? I'm genuinely mind blown by this. What are the ownership restrictions? Is it blanket or just to certain categories or sizes of toys?
> State Representative John Rogers of Birmingham has repeatedly introduced legislation to repeal the ban, but each bill has been defeated.
> Exemptions exist for "bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial or law enforcement purposes."
It looks like they're sold as educational devices or something equally absurd, fake pretext and all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute
> In Burleson in 2004, Joanne Webb, a mother of three and a former schoolteacher, faced up to one year in prison for selling a vibrator to two undercover police officers posing as a married couple at a private party.
> In 2007, a lingerie shop in Lubbock was raided, and items "deemed to be illegal by the Texas Penal Code" were confiscated. The clerk on duty at the time was arrested and may have had to register as a sex offender.
What the fuck?
Texas one seems like it was ruled unenforceable in 2008.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand the motivation behind this puritanism. I get why respectable institutions don't want to touch things like selling weed or prostitution since that's not legal everywhere and they could get in trouble. But sex toys? Who cares? Like, that's not a rhetorical question, literally "who cares?" Are people going to stop using Wells Fargo because they very indirectly help in the commerce of sex toys?
Alabama, Georgia, and Texas have laws restricting the sale and possession of sex toys.
Looks like its never been enforced though. Really though laws that are not enforced are a bad thing because some day they could selectively be enforced. Also because they are not enforced and hence not affecting anyone, no one cares to get rid of them.
"The Obscene Device Law is a Texas statute prohibiting the sale of sex toys. The law was introduced in 1973, and was last updated in 2003. While the law was never formally repealed, in 2008 a U.S. District Judge released a report declaring it to be "facially unconstitutional and unenforceable"."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a reason ISPs want to charge extra/differently for high bandwidth streaming video: It's the vast majority of what's loading up their networks. Why not just charge by the byte and be done with it?
That's actually more or less my preference: Straight metering. People who use the network less pay less, people who use the network pay more. And ISPs could then deliver all users access at the highest speeds their network can handle, rather than artificially speed throttling traffic. Internet billing should look more like your electric and natural gas bills.
Utility systems in most countries work on a grid system: natural-gas and electricity is pumped into the grid by supplier/producer companies, managed by the grid-infrastructure people, and measured at the point of consumption. This works because both natural-gas and electronic-potential are both fungible and do not originate on your utility-grid company's premises (assuming your utility-grid company is not also an energy-producer). Bytes transferred over the internet are not fungible, so it is incorrect to compare residential gas and electricity billing to residential Internet billing.
Also consider that just as data itself isn't fungible, the value of that data varies tremendously: A high-quality VOIP connection is probably 128kbps and needs modest latency needs, but it absolutely has to always work - whereas Netflix et al. is high-bandwidth but not latency sensitive and occasional outages and poor routing is acceptable; disregarding network QOS, I'd still gladly pay far more per-byte for a hyper-reliable VOIP 128kbps connection than a 1Gbps link for Netflix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To pull that off, they'd have to (technically) process the card info, which puts them in the scope for PCI compliance. By that point, I don't know why they'd send card info to 3 processors especially when they know, at that point, which processor they're gonna process it with. It would just make more sense to send it to the 1 processor the code ends up deciding to use.
No, I don’t think that’s accurate. With stripe.js, you send the cc info directly to stripe from the browser. Stripe returns an identifier which you can use in the future to charge the card. Assuming other payment processors work similarly, you could easily send the credit card details to multiple payment processors directly from the browser to the payment processors, and then store the card identifiers from each proc…
They would be upset or bring you into PCI scope if you were modifying or tampering with their single input SDK to send cardholder data elsewhere.