pull down to refresh
64 sats \ 2 replies \ @btcschellingpnt 28 Oct \ on: JPMorgan begins suing customers econ
Classic misdirection by JP Morgan. Having worked on banking software at various points throughout the last 40 years I can attest that this isn't a "technical glitch" but a *business risk" decision where the bank decided to credit funds to the depositors account at time of deposit, rather than when the cheque cleared.
Was that a stupid decision in hindsight? Der, YEAH! Was it a technical glitch .. no .. it was a stupid decision and unscrupulous customers exploited it ruthlessly.
Of course, if we used bearer money (Bitcoin) rather than credit money (USD/Fiat), none of these issues would exist!
Onwards!
Maybe. But in this case we can’t entirely blame fiat. The problem is fraud. In this case they were depositing large checks and immediately withdrawing cash before they cleared. Checks represent settled funds in another account, it’s a simple transfer, settling over time. No credit or money was created, just fungible dollars moving through the system.
It’s analogous to replacing an unconfirmed spend or passing an already claimed Ecash voucher. If you don’t verify, (or wait in the case of mainnet), you can get burned if you redeem (eg: settle in LN sats). We may see “infinite sat glitches” as people find fraudulent ways to claim unsettled Bitcoin from the system(s) in the future too.
reply
They basically broke the softer harder payments rules. You can't give out harder money (cash) for softer money (check) without some additional measures. Usually it's a waiting period but here they took a risk and got caught out. They should win their suits but there's a kind of hubris behind it that shows that they don't value their customers.
reply