Re: Transferring money between two bank accounts across borders

Here is a run at comprehension:

So, the token in the news story was "the money". If had been a
"message about the money" and the money was associated with the
identity (the individuals in question) the "message about the money"
could be lost, but the "money" would be intact.

Stealing Bitcoin is possible because holding a private key to the
wallet is all that is needed to steal the money. If the crypto was
also associated with an identity then someone could steal the private
key, but they would not be able to spend it since they are not the
identity. This would be akin to stealing someones plane seat just
because you have the ticket.
-Brent Shambaugh

GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
Skype: brent.shambaugh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
WebID: http://bshambaugh.org/foaf.rdf#me


On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> RE: "Perhaps electronic transfer is better since there is not a check that
> can be physically lost"
>
> Well, a digital token can be lost too -- there are some rather spectacular
> Bitcoin and Ether stories in that vein.
>
> The dual issue is:
> 1. Is a token "the money", or is it "a message about the money"?
> 2. If it's "a message about the money", is it "a unique instantiation of the
> message", or is it "just a convenient method for communicating the message"?
>
> In that news story the bank is treating the token (here a paper bank draft,
> but just as easily a crypto-coin) as a unique instantiation of the message,
> analogous to those old IATA airline tickets. Loose it and you're outta-luck
> -- it may still "your" seat on the plane, but you can't get there from here.
> The bank's customer was led to believe (by the bank, apparently) that the
> token was just a convenient method for communicating the message, analogous
> to printing your boarding pass before heading to the airport in case your
> phone connection or battery fails at the boarding gate.
>
> Web payments ought to efficiently associate money directly with user
> entities (the elegant-to-manage approach in my view, building upon a
> soverign ID, say like https://sovrin.org/   https://sovrin.org/indy/ )
> instead of associating the money directly with token entities (the
> really-hard-to-manage approach in my view). Back at the inaugural conference
> of W3C Web Payments in Paris, I expressed the view to a few over lunch that
> the correct monetary value of any of the digital tokens is effectively zero,
> like the sheet of paper upon which I printed my airline boarding pass to get
> there. Had I lost the paper, and had my phone also cut out, probably I could
> have proven my identity with another device or with other documents and have
> gotten on my scheduled  return flight home.
>
> Joseph Potvin
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks all for the comments and suggestions. From reviewing the links,
>> it looks like there are much more inexpensive ways to send money from
>> bank account to bank account than a wire transfer. Thanks Joseph for
>> the link to the news article about the lost inheritance check. Perhaps
>> electronic transfer is better since there is not a check that can be
>> physically lost.
>>
>> -Brent Shambaugh
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Gerard P. Hammarlund
>> <gerard.hammarlund@endresultsgrp.com> wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > Check clearing is definitely not free and in most cases would not give
>> > you
>> > immediate use of funds.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > gph
>> >
>> > Gerard P. Hammarlund
>> >
>> > On 14 Dec 2017, at 19:39, Stephane Canon <stephane.canon@scarlet.be>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > TransferWise is definitely among the best option. Much cheaper than
>> > banks. I
>> > also made a comparison with similar products and TF is the cheapest.
>> > I would be surprised however if a check drawn in a bank in country A and
>> > remitted to a bank in country B would be free.
>> >
>> > Le 14 déc. 2017 à 17:26, Sebastian Durandeu
>> > <sebastiandurandeu@gmail.com> a
>> > écrit :
>> >
>> > Probably TransferWise is a good option. It's not free, but cheaper than
>> > a
>> > wire transfer.. Notice it does not support all currencies.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:13 PM, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> the "paper check."
>> >>
>> >> These things, aside from predating computers, actually predate paper
>> >> money, at least in Europe, having their origins in schemes relying on
>> >> trusted account-holding entities (primarily, AIUI, in Amsterdam) to
>> >> avoid
>> >> hauling a lot of silver around in sailing ships.
>> >>
>> >> A paper check allows transfer of money across borders between two bank
>> >> accounts, and is inexpensive or free.
>> >>
>> >> The clearing of the check may take multiple days, but that isn't one of
>> >> Brent's criteria here.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Brent Shambaugh
>> >> <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I am wondering. Is there a financial product that allows for transfer
>> >>> of
>> >>> money across borders between two bank accounts? The answer I know of,
>> >>> but do
>> >>> not prefer, is a wire transfer due to its expense. Is there
>> >>> inexpensive or
>> >>> free?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The Information in this Internet email is confidential and may be
>> > legally
>> > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
>> > Internet
>> > email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
>> > recipient,
>> > any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to
>> > be
>> > taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions
>> > or
>> > advice contained in this Internet email are subject to the terms and
>> > conditions expressed in any applicable governing End Results Group terms
>> > of
>> > business or services agreement. Although we attempt to sweep e-mail and
>> > attachments for viruses, we do not guarantee that either are virus-free
>> > and
>> > accept no liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses.
>>
>

Received on Monday, 18 December 2017 11:46:09 UTC