In Fifty Days, Payments Innovation Will Stop In Silicon Valley

Post by 18pfsmt » Wed, May 11, 2011, 12:56 PM UTC

chokma wrote: post #24

robflynn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, thank you for explaining that to me. I some how missed that from reading the link. Though, it was quite verbose and I am, admittedly, partially into a celebratory post-coding-session bottle of wine. I agree. The system most definitely appears to be flawed. Isn't Paypal forced to operate as a bank in Europe as opposed to the way they exist in the U.S.?

Yes, Paypal operates with a Luxembourg banking license in Europe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Bank_status ). Note that banking in Europe is in part regulated by national law of the member states. To operate as a bank in Germany, you need not only 0,5-5 million € as starting capital (depending on the type of financial transactions you are getting into), but you also need two reliable* executive managers who h…

Post by 18pfsmt » Wed, May 11, 2011, 1:02 PM UTC

dublinclontarf wrote: post #26

And so we have one more reason to use Bitcoin.

Post by tptacek » Wed, May 11, 2011, 1:06 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #62

jrockway wrote: post #48

Doesn't all regulation stifle innovation? If I wanted to sell a homes in a skyscraper made of papier-mâché, building codes would prevent me from doing that. But that's not necessarily a bad thing: the first time someone leaves their soldering iron on while they're not using it, the building burns down and we have five hundred dead families on our hands. "Innovators" tend to think about the good aspects of their ideas…

No I don't think most regulations are good for society in aggregate, including building codes. What if we had software codes to make sure we write secure software, would that be a good or a bad thing? Take this payments law for example. Its intended objectives are admirable but I don't believe it will accomplish them nor benefit consumers in the long run. By artificially imposing a high barrier to entry (licensing fe…

Post by bugsbunnyak » Wed, May 11, 2011, 1:16 PM UTC

dpatru wrote: post #70

potatolicious wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't go as far as to say all regulation stifles innovation. A completely unregulated market may very well stifle innovation also - i.e., when consumer trust of that market is so low as to discourage economic activity. That is a rather extreme case, though. I think the more relevant point is that all regulations have overhead - even ones that don't charge a $500K bond. This is something governments sometimes see…

An unregulated market will spawn entities that provide the services it needs. This includes security and trust. Insurance companies, for example, are entities that people trust to protect them against loss. Rating agencies are entities that people trust to provide risk assessment. The difference between non-coercive (private) entities and government is that non-coercive entities adapt better. So, for example, if you'…

Post by olalonde » Wed, May 11, 2011, 1:19 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #85

olalonde wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I don't think most regulations are good for society in aggregate, including building codes. What if we had software codes to make sure we write secure software, would that be a good or a bad thing? Take this payments law for example. Its intended objectives are admirable but I don't believe it will accomplish them nor benefit consumers in the long run. By artificially imposing a high barrier to entry (licensing fe…

It doesn't impose a large fee. It requires a bond. The details matter.