>> I just found a major limitation with this thing. It blocks payment from any prepaid Visa/Mastercard - even reloadable cards attached to virtual checking accounts that support ACH (payroll cards, Netspend, etc). That eliminates payments from a huge section of the population.

.. Aaand it's not an accident either.

Is that to meet the money laundering/auditing requirements?

Sounds like this is probably more of a security feature. Prepaid cards are harder to track, and would be more suspect to fraud.

You know what's at least as hard to track and prone to fraud? Actual cash. I really dislike the idea that e.g. children shouldn't be able to pay for things over the internet because their identity can't be verified. Let's see some more support for prepaid cards.

Are pre-paid cards the only option for children in the states? I'm in the UK and I've had a debit card (attached to a bank account) since I was a young teenager.

I had a checking account under my Dad with a debit card when I was a minor. When I turned 18, I just called them, and they made it my current checking account. I'm not sure what the difference was.

Actual cash is nearly impossible to fraud/counterfeit.

Are you a parent? I do not have want to my kid buying products unfettered.

I hate to break this to you, but they can already buy things in physical stores.

And if you legitimately have a $20 bill, I can walk into a store, represent that it's mine, and buy things with it, never encountering an obstacle along the way. That's the same fraud you're worried about in prepaid cards.

I also wish the limitations would disappear, but there are two reasons keeping them in place:

1) Government wants to ensure it can track all digital transfers (many pre-paid cards require activating with SSN)

2) Failing to approve certain transactions is the equivalent of a financial firewall because banks and payment processors know they haven't hardened their servers enough to prevent another one of these: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-...

Now, if policy-makers were convinced the online-children-purchases market were bigger than the drive-by-ATM fraud, we would see the rules changed tomorrow.

Of course they can, but as a parent, I find it easier to supervise their store purchases than their online purchases, because they have to physically go there, and I can notice it.

Frankly, if you're that interested in tracking what your children have and haven't bought, online purchases are likely to be easier, in that they come to your home through the mail.

The general categories of things that children are commonly restricted from buying:

- Drugs. These are all black market, so availability of prepaid cards is unlikely to change how they're bought.

- Alcohol. I've never tried to buy this online; I know eBay Now wanted to sell it and concluded that the cost of legal compliance was too high. Even assuming they could find mail-order booze, it would arrive in the mail, easily detectible.

- Pornography. This can be consumed directly on the computer, raising possible detection issues. However, if you're afraid of children buying it over the internet, I've got some very bad news for you...

- Birth control pills? I'm running out of ideas.

Are you afraid they'll buy digital goods? Why?

> - Birth control pills?

Exactly the kind of thing teenagers should be able to buy without their parents' consent.

You won't find me disagreeing with that, but the fact is birth control pills are controlled.

you need a prescription from a doctor to buy that ;)

> in that they come to your home through the mail.

Says who? Who says they couldn't send a package to a friends house, or a workplace?

If they have a workplace, all hope is lost.

How would you react to receiving a package in the mail for your son's friend?

Oh I know how I would react, but that doesn't mean every parent would react that way.

> with no way to cancel the mistaken one.

I see a "cancel" link in the email Square Cash sends me.

I did notice that there is a cancel link in the original email - a very small link at the bottom - but they should make it possible to remove any of the transactions it tries to compile together on the sending screen. Having to go back, find the email, and hit the cancel link after you realize that they are including transactions that you had no intention of completing isn't exactly intuitive. There is also nothing anywhere that says that this is the procedure required.

" and hit the cancel link after you realize that they are including transactions that you had no intention of completing"

Why are you starting transactions you don't intend on completing anyway? I haven't tried it, but from what I've read so far the workflow seems perfectly reasonable for the vast majority of transactions. It's not like when I pay a friend the 10$ back he fronted me last week in the bar when I forgot my wallet, that I give it to another friend first and say 'hold on to this for a bit while I ponder whether to actually go through with this 'transaction''.

I didn't even bother trying. I knew it wouldn't do what it said because I'm not in America. I've sent cash to other countries before but this isn't cash so it can't possibly work. IT would be nice if they clearly listed who can't use it to save people's time.

Just a note, for most countries, the best non-cash way to send money is an international wire transfer (sometimes called a telegraphic transfer). This is _not_ western union. which is ludicrously expensive, it's done bank to bank.

Every international wire transfer I've seen offered by my banks has costs at least $15 - $25.

Here in NL, its so much each to use send someone money: They tell you their IBAN, you grab your Random Reader and enter you pin and get a secure code to authorize the payment, and it's done. There's not even a market for companies like Square, since the banking system is designed to handle these typical situations. People here look at me like I'm crazy when I say that if I want to give someone money I either have to use PayPal/Square or just cash.

>" It blocks payment from any prepaid Visa/Mastercard - even reloadable cards"

This is to prevent money laundering and tax fraud.

It also doesn't work with pure ATM cards that lack a Visa/Mastercard logo. Maybe I am a bit over-paranoid, but I don't like the idea of staring at a zero bank balance while some fraud department promises to fix things up real quick now if I just stay on hold.

If you don't trust your bank to fix fraud, than you need a better bank.

I actually laughed at that. Every bank here is the same and we supposedly have some of the safest banks in the world. Im limited to an 8 character password, and the other banks here are little better. New Zealand.

Really? I've been impressed with Kiwibank's balancing security and usability. Rabobank NZ have two factor authentication too.

Of course if you're with one of the four majors, well... they're owned by Australians, what did you expect?

It's safe in NZ because even with access to your internet banking, a thief can only transfer money to another NZ account and they're fairly reliable at verifying the identities of account holders.

Which bank are you with? Having had accounts with 4 major banks here (Kiwibank, ANZ, Westpac, ASB), I can confirm that you are allowed passwords more than 8 characters. Also, several of them offer a second protection level for logging in.

ASB. How did you get a long password? It just deleted the characters at the end when I tried (6 months ago).