Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I don't personally, but there's lots of accounts in these comments about systems in other countries that have free or nearly free near-instant wire transfers provided bank account number and name. Charities soliciting donations include their account number in ads.

This is currently expensive with american banks because use of checks is so wide spread - that might work.

> If you don't have a bank account you can make a deposit into the account at the post office. It doesn't get much simpler.

I guess.... and yet, I prefer checks for A) having something physical to document, B) being able to give people non-cash physical money. I guess something like a cashiers check would also serve this purpose, and C) avoid using online banking software, which is atrocious. I can't use more than 10 characters per password, and my default one is 26 characters. I don't trust billion dollar companies with securing my banking information. If people want to take my money, they'll have to make an effort and go through my trash.



You don't trust your bank's online systems, but you trust them to properly verify that cheques drawn against your account are valid?


Yes, I do. Checks are a more tried and true technology, for one, and check verification is a relatively open technology; we know it's weaknesses. On the other hand, there is no guarantee passwords are even hashed, that backend communication is encrypted, that the horrendous security questions allow easy access to anyone who knows my mother's maiden name (which is a matter of public record). Finally, I can chargeback/cancel/reverse checks, which require a physical item, but though the web interface I can initialize a on-reversable wire transfer.

So I do trust cheques more, and I have more options if a bad check is charged.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: