91–100 of 109 posts
Whatever Pcketbase is (or does), we should all understand that the difficulty here has nothing to do with the merits of the project nor any decision made by FLOSS about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
Whoah, everyone here who has a bank account - which I assume is pretty much everyone -- has gone through "standard KYC paperwork", and I've never been asked to send personal financial documents to an email inbox. I've opened several bank accounts online and do online banking as well as brokerage and other accounts. Financial documents like this should be uploaded via secure portals and directly stored in encrypted da…
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/kyc-and-aml-beyond-th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These are very reasonable requirements Sure, but they weren't the original requirements under which he accepted the funds. He accepted the funds assuming GitHub was going to be the mediator. The new requirements require him to disclose significantly more information about himself. Maybe he isn't comfortable doing that? I wouldn't call it unprofessional.
Exactly. I don't understand why so many people think the maintainer has some obligation to accept the funds even when they aren't comfortable doing so. The terms of engagement changed. The decision changed. If they want to forgo the money, they have every right to forego the money.
This isn't a simple grammar mistake by someone who may not use English as their first language. There is a blame game going on here which is the only unethical thing going on in the situation.
I think this submission should be re-titled. From the post, it seems that the author voluntarily declined funding from FLOSS/Fund because they "don't trust them, nor the India government, with processing and storing personal sensitive data"
I think it shouldn't. The funding source was dropped by Github, and the terms Pocketbase accepted for funding include being paid through Github by FLOSS Fund. FLOSS Fund refused to follow the regulatory requirements to continue funding projects through Github, and Github dropped them as a funding source. What the Pocketbase maintainer decided was to drop FLOSS Fund after they tried to renegotiate the contract in dang…
Author is just being silly.
Such a shame. I so love Pocketbase, used it when I was trying out HTMX for a side project. I get the sense that ganigeorgiev is feeling the thanklessness of open source work, and I so wish that he had an easier time of it. That said, it's a shame that a FLOSS fund being based in India is reason enough for it to be avoided. Like, I understand that Indians might be overrepresented in the scam space right now, but avoid…
NO, It is no INSULT to India at all. Present regime even has problem using the term "INDIA" for the country, if you observe they are representing it in political / non-political spaces as "Bharat" at least inside India. They don't have guts doing the same in international platform. For Indians living outside a very Rosy picture of India is portrayed. People living in India know that, instead of REAL WORK that is supp…
You can keep dreaming. I actually lived under the previous administration where there were power cuts every day for about 6-9 hours in summer.
Better keep your delusional politics to reddit.
Just to rub it in. Compared to the regime before 2014 where Prime Minister used to report to a foreign lady. I am pretty happy with the where the country is going.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar and even they have strict KYC requirements for larger sums. If you want to move large amounts of money outside of the regular financial networks and oversight it is possible but (1) it will cost you (2) you will be breaking the law and (3) you may cause o…
> You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar Preeetty sure this is something explicitly supported via standard SWIFT messaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just transfer money to a person that has no account. That's not an 'edge case' that just isn't how it works unless you want to use WU or something similar Preeetty sure this is something explicitly supported via standard SWIFT messaging.
That the protocol (which predates a lot of legislation) supports it does not mean that your bank supports it. Give it a try though, I'd love to hear about it.
I have no need for this, but have witnessed some pretty exotic swift messaging in my life and I wouldn’t be surprised if e.g. some banks in Africa have to regularly deal with this exact kind of situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[dead]
This is false. I just did an international wire transfer a few weeks ago with no KYC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Coming from a neighboring country with similarly strict rules on outgoing dollars, I've had many situations where sending money outside of the country, even for business purposes required an insane amount of paperwork, bureaucracy and sometimes bribery.
Cool, I think its perfectly alright to not accept funds from nations where this type of thing is happening.