Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
rockpapershotgun.com
Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#2Can Google Checkout (or any payment processor, really) be forced not to profit from transactions they refused to complete? Pass all the money either to the seller or the buyer, no fees, as they (rightly) refused to serve the transaction. Without delay, to ensure no revenue from interest either.
If there was no incentives in leaving transaction in such `limbo', the payment processors would be less hasty to lock up accounts.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#3This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area?
Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though.
As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current processors at least.
Perhaps bitcoin has a role to play to avoid such situations, Or would we just have the same problems over again? Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I could comment.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#4I don't get it. Google Checkout sweeps money to my account every few days. I was confused at first about how it was going to work, because I didn't see a 'transfer money' option, but it's done it automatically for me for two years.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#5This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area? Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though. As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current p…
> This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this?
While I agree that there is probably a market for a payment processor that doesn't punish TOS violations, I really doubt that's a market anybody would want to play in.
Google's TOS disallow the use of the word "donation" unless you are a non-profit organization. And "donation" is precisely the term used.
For every "benign" TOS violation, I'm sure there must be hundreds of malicious ones trying to scam google or consumers out of their money. Not making exceptions at least is fair and users know exactly where they stand.
Still. I think Google should maybe
a) warn users before just banning them (though even this might lead to people trying to game the system)
b) hand out the money either back to the buyers or to the just banned seller (after manual investigation which might be what Google doesn't want to do)
c) maybe provide an appeal process, though, again, this might lead to people gaming that.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#6This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area? Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though. As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current p…
Bitcoin _can_ solve this problem because it is totally distributed and doesn't depend on traditional banks which means transferring value directly between individuals and organization becomes much simpler.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#7This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area? Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though. As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current p…
> This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? While I agree that there is probably a market for a payment processor that doesn't punish TOS violations, I really doubt that's a market anybody would want to play in. Google's TOS disallow the use of the word "donation" unless you are a non-profit organization. And "donation" is precisely the…
It's the 'frozen without explanation' aspect I don't like. I didn't realise that this was a legitimate ToS violation, but agreed, they should have at least warned them first.
I suspect that evil people ruin it for everyone, money is just too tempting for people with 'flexible morality'.
EDIT: But still, these providers should do better, regardless.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#8This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area? Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though. As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current p…
Bitcoin _can_ solve this problem because it is totally distributed and doesn't depend on traditional banks which means transferring value directly between individuals and organization becomes much simpler.
Currency (at least metal coins) was, at first, distributed and did not depend on banks for transfer. Banks came about later on, as an additional help in some business and private money handling. Currently banks are pretty much necessary for two reasons: network effect -- everybody has bank account and expects you to interface with it, and better loan rates -- banks can give loans at lower percent than small time lenders, thanks to pooling of risk and economies of scale of processing.
It is expected some Bitcoin users (be it private or institutional) will become quite bank-alike in some future (as per various posts on blogs and HN in discussions of Bitcoin).
In short, Bitcoin doesn't remove banks -- neither need for them, nor ability to operate them. They just haven't moved into this space yet.
EDIT:
first episode of ``The Ascent of Money'' [1], `Dreams of avarice', explains how banking, as we know it, came to be.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin _can_ solve this problem because it is totally distributed and doesn't depend on traditional banks which means transferring value directly between individuals and organization becomes much simpler.
Currency (at least metal coins) was, at first, distributed and did not depend on banks for transfer. Banks came about later on, as an additional help in some business and private money handling. Currently banks are pretty much necessary for two reasons: network effect -- everybody has bank account and expects you to interface with it, and better loan rates -- banks can give loans at lower percent than small time lend…
>> Bitcoin doesn't remove banks
Yes, it does in this case. One can receive money electronically through Bitcoin, without account with a bank, PayPal or Google.
Re: Google, Can Indie Stone Have Their Money?
#10This is vastly disturbing. Surely there is a gap in the market here for a payment processor that doesn't do shit like this? Are there any startups in this area? Or is this just an inevitable result of working with money (having to be very careful to avoid scammers/criminals)? I really can't believe that's the case though. As @dexen said, perhaps there should be some provisions put in place to disincentivise current p…
the reason it hasn't happened is because money is hard to deal with.