Maybe someone will invent it one day.
Do your banks not have 2 factor enabled?
Using the card not present should require a second factor, Visa Secure type of thing and in person should require your pin for non-frivolous amounts.
So who is pushing back against this? The networks already have it in place everywhere else, and since it's part of the transaction process there isn't a lot for stores or websites to do.
The Fed should be able to phase in requirements. They've had decades so far.
Merchant fraud doesn't appear to be a big problem. Probably because the merchant requires a Dutch bank account, which requires a lot of identifying paperwork
It's pretty awesome.
Many other European companies have a similar system, and I believe there are plans to join them into one system. Let's hope the credit card lobbyist don't manage to mess it up.
It also sucks that you have to provide strong identity to the payer or payee, sending or receiving payments should not require disclosing identity. That’s a bug, not a feature.
Maybe they just don't want all of their personal information to be stored in yet another database waiting to be leaked.
Maybe they shouldn't spend their time evangelizing and shilling cryptocurrencies online just because their own financial security depends on tricking as many new suckers as possible into investing all of their money into the same get-rich-quick pyramid schemes they put their own money into, so they can pump and dump and pull the rug on them the way somebody else did to them.
Your unhinged attacks are factually inaccurate, and contribute nothing to the discussion at hand (that is, about payment systems for individual use, which are usually denominated in fiat currencies, which usually get paid in stablecoins) besides anger and hostility. I’ve been using cryptocurrencies as an end user for more than a dozen years and have never done any of these things you list.
Perhaps you paint with too wide a brush.
This whole discussion thread was started by YOU, shilling and evangelizing cryptocurrency, which I just listed as something you should not spend your time doing:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37798582
And if you use crypto to buy illegal drugs and launder money, I fully expect you'd lie about that.
But when you evangelize and shill like you're doing now, you're certainly assisting, encouraging, supporting, and appealing to criminals who do.
And if all you use if for is gambling, that's still a stupid idea. Did you pay taxes on all of your winnings, or is your whole point of using cryptocurrency income tax evasion?
Do you have any idea how much coal has been burnt on your behalf in the 12 years you've been gambling with cryptocurrencies?
You do know there are other ways to gamble and evading taxes that don't involve burning so much coal, don't you?
Either you've had government requests since then during the intervening 8 years and you're dishonestly concealing them, or keytern.al is not a serious company, and you're just yet another cryptocurrency scammer trying to defraud people and get rich quick by shilling on Hacker News.
So stop shilling your crypto key stealing company on Hacker News as recently as 23 days ago, if you don't have the time to update your list of government requests for user data in 8 years, missing 32 quarters in a row, or honestly answer legitimate questions about your company, and provide objective proof of your outlandish claim about your own security and integrity.
No, it is a feature, just not a feature for the customer. It's also not a feature for the bank or fintech. The strict identity requirements are a feature for the GOVERNMENT, and if you want to avoid them you probably need to start your own government (which is notoriously difficult).
Also instant 100% certainty is a bit too much in the face of fraud.
It seems your information is quite a bit out of date. These hasn’t been true for a long time.
And okay, tell me about how I get some cryptocurrency in a practical way without big middlemen.
The incumbents successfully lobbied to get easy on-ramps to this competing system regulated basically out of existence. It’s a tragic story.
If you are innocent, but accused of a crime, paying a defense attorney is high on that list. The government attorneys would much prefer you not be able to do that.
Donating money to legal organizations that threaten the status quo is another case; you may remember the Wikileaks banking blockade, which happened without any charges being filed against anyone, in response to journalism that some people didn’t like.
The burden of proof for losing access to one’s electronic assets presently is approximately zero. It’s guilty until proven innocent. Proving one’s innocence, unsurprisingly, requires money.
In 2011 I gave a talk at the CCC about how censorship resistant payments are an essential prerequisite to a free society. If you lose the ability to make legal payments the state does not approve of, you lose your basic liberty. You may be interested in seeing it if you care about these things, which I of course think are relevant to everyone.
https://media.ccc.de/v/cccamp11-4591-financing_the_revolutio...