Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fair Access to Banking

usips.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Fair Access to Banking

#11

Post by idle_zealot »

ethan_smith wrote: post #9
bediger4000 wrote: post #3

This situation (Visa and MasterCard determining what's acceptable or not commercially on the internet) is a side effect of having privatized electronic money. The US federal government runs the ACH system for free, and it works fine. The feds could have done electronic money, and it could have been more secure and less costly, But noooooo, we had to have a market based solution. The consequences include a few unelect…

Government-run electronic payment systems would face enormous technical scaling challenges, security vulnerabilities, and implementation costs that likely exceed private systems when accounting for taxpayer burden and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Oh, dang, really? I'll have to go inform every country that uses a government epay system that actually they should let MasterCard take over.

Re: Fair Access to Banking

#13

Post by coolestguy »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #5

Consortia of credit unions and national postal services all need to offer universal p2p and electronic payment methods that do not depend on the patronage of fickle, moralizing corporate crooks. Banking and ability to make purchases and receive funds are human rights, not privileges to be dictated by technofeudal overlords.

That's exactly what ethereum is - you're able to move funds without permission, trustlessly, instantly.

Re: Fair Access to Banking

#15

Post by bediger4000 »

ethan_smith wrote: post #9
bediger4000 wrote: post #3

This situation (Visa and MasterCard determining what's acceptable or not commercially on the internet) is a side effect of having privatized electronic money. The US federal government runs the ACH system for free, and it works fine. The feds could have done electronic money, and it could have been more secure and less costly, But noooooo, we had to have a market based solution. The consequences include a few unelect…

Government-run electronic payment systems would face enormous technical scaling challenges, security vulnerabilities, and implementation costs that likely exceed private systems when accounting for taxpayer burden and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Security vulnerabilities on the scale of the "carding" market? There's entire cybercrime sectors based on various forms of credit card fraud. Given the UK's "phantom withdrawal" situation 25-30 years ago, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear of a credit card issuing bank or two being entirely fraudulent.

Re: Fair Access to Banking

#16

Post by AlotOfReading »

coolestguy wrote: post #13
burnt-resistor wrote: post #5

Consortia of credit unions and national postal services all need to offer universal p2p and electronic payment methods that do not depend on the patronage of fickle, moralizing corporate crooks. Banking and ability to make purchases and receive funds are human rights, not privileges to be dictated by technofeudal overlords.

That's exactly what ethereum is - you're able to move funds without permission, trustlessly, instantly.

A payment system people actually want to use is not just the system to move funds. It also needs ways to move funds back and meet the onerous compliance burdens anything financial eventually has to deal with and a thousand other little things at the boundary between the perfect little world of the system and the messy, complicated world of a modern economy.

Re: Fair Access to Banking

#17

Post by x-complexity »

martey wrote: post #12

It is important to note that the author of this article (and the founder of this organization) is also the owner of notorious harassment forum Kiwi Farms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms

The parent comment is an ad hominem attack, plain & simple.

Nothing has been said by the parent about the message: Instead, the messenger is marked as the target in order to take down the message via association.

"Give me the man and I will give you the case against him"

------

About the legislation itself:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...

It's mainly 3 semi-related parts stapled together. If the person/business/bank is complying with the law:

- 1a) Banks with > $10 billion are blocked from (i) the Fed's discount window lending program, & (ii) the Automated Clearing House Network, if they refuse to do business with them,

- 1b) Banks are required to accept deposits from them & law-complying member banks,

- 1c) The board of directors of banks/credit unions have to notify the state/fed if said access blocking happens,

- 2) (Section 5) Payment networks can't refuse service to them, &

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...

- 3) Banks & payment networks have to give them access to financial services

The middle part (2) is what's being focused on in the article.

I'm mostly in agreement that (1) the penalty's too low, & (2) restricting dispense of the law to only the Comptroller renders it ineffective.

(1) is easily solvable with regards to editing the text alone: raise the limit to 50% & $100k respectively.

(2) is also solvable, by striking out "by the Comptroller of the Currency".

Re: Fair Access to Banking

#20

Post by greyface- »

x-complexity wrote: post #17
martey wrote: post #12

It is important to note that the author of this article (and the founder of this organization) is also the owner of notorious harassment forum Kiwi Farms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms

The parent comment is an ad hominem attack, plain & simple. Nothing has been said by the parent about the message: Instead, the messenger is marked as the target in order to take down the message via association. "Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" ------ About the legislation itself: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401... It's mainly 3 semi-related parts stapled togeth…

The message is an important one, and it deserves advocacy. I have advocated for this specific legislation myself in recent comments. But we've seen in the past what happens when this individual is given attention, and it is difficult to, in good conscience, assist him in attracting more of it.
Post reply on HN