[HN Gopher] US central bank payment system down for 'hours'
___________________________________________________________________
US central bank payment system down for 'hours'
Author : alexrustic
Score : 66 points
Date : 2021-02-24 21:37 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| mudlus wrote:
| Bitcoin is never down
| fabianhjr wrote:
| What is the current median transaction fee?
|
| Also, Bitcoin could drop a transaction if a fork occurs and you
| were tracking the one that fizzled out; that is why people wait
| for roughly 5 confirmation blocks before proceeding and that
| takes roughly 1 hour.
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| The bitcoin-qt client will require 6 blocks before a
| transaction is considered confirmed, typically 60 minutes.
|
| At currently network congestion, a high priority tx (next
| block) is 102 sat/vB ($6.95). A low priority tx is: 53 sat/vB
| ($3.61)
|
| Fees depends on network congestion, check mempool.space for
| current estimated fees and survey of recent block fees.
| tyingq wrote:
| Down for hours isn't super interesting for a system that has SLAs
| measured in days :)
| ipnon wrote:
| If only there was a way to handle transactions on a decentralized
| ledger using distributed computation.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| Scaling Bitcoin to handle the Feds volume of transactions will
| probably require us to harvest energy from a black hole.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| Two words: Lightening Network.
| RinTohsaka wrote:
| One word: Monero
| ipnon wrote:
| There are other ways to validate transactions besides proof
| of work, which is what Bitcoin uses, that can prove that a
| transaction is valid without using extreme amounts of compute
| power. Proof of stake is a good example.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > Proof of stake is a good example.
|
| Except when the creators want to rerverse all txs and exit
| scam people that is, hence Ethereum/Classic/DAO BS saga...
|
| Proof of stake is like saying 'a square tire works,
| sometimes...'
|
| As an environmentalist and a Bitcoiner: I agree Bitcoins
| energy use is significant, but it's carbon footprint is the
| detail that is being ignored as most of its energy sources
| are renewable and Jack Dorsey, the guy whose company just
| bought another 150 million, has also put a bounty on making
| it even more clean.
|
| Whereas nothing in the alt space comes close doing what
| Bitcoin did back in 2013 when China started to move its
| miners to mainly hydro and to Iceland that use geo-thermal,
| despite these alts absurd overly valued market cap and
| valuations that make no sense to anyone given it's lack of
| utility.
|
| We may be on 'Team crypto,' but PoS is so absurd for
| security that it should be made clear to the non-initiated
| the many pitflls of centralized system, eg the Foundation
| and founders like Vitalik, that we all fought so hard to
| solve with this tech only to see so many projects revert to
| the same legacy model.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, and certainly
| not on classic flamewar topics.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ipnon wrote:
| Sorry dang. I am getting lazy. I appreciate your moderation
| and will refrain from making bad comments in the future, if
| it means making your job easier.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| Using as much energy in a day as the US central bank system
| uses in a year.
|
| A decentralized payment system might be a good idea, but
| Bitcoin isn't a viable implementation.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > Using as much energy in a day as the US central bank system
| uses in a year.
|
| Source? I know you are wrong, but I just want to see you talk
| your way out this...
|
| > A decentralized payment system might be a good idea, but
| Bitcoin isn't a viable implementation.
|
| Try maybe realizing Bitcoiners, and other alt users have been
| in trying to circumvent the many issues these legacy systems
| created in Colorado [0] alone for some time, I know and met a
| few in the meetups we had in Boulder and some from the early
| days in Denver that spearheaded lots of these initiatives
| that would have proven that the election results in Biden's
| favour were valid. Instead we got this system and people died
| when idiots stormed the capital.
|
| I think before you even try to make that claim you should
| consider coming and meeting some of us Bitcoiners in person
| that have already actually changed legislation and Industry
| before you say such blatantly wrong things like that behind a
| keyboard.
|
| Just look at the malaise and the suffering the unemployment
| debacle has cost our economy and added to the homelessness
| especially in Denver where it's horrific and has only made a
| mental health crisis that much worse; and all of this could
| have been solved with DLT and token system in less than a
| week if they spent even a fraction in proper work to get all
| those records in order. Not including the countless amount of
| money that was lost in fraud...
|
| You want to talk? My fee is $250/hour with 3 hour minimum
| paid up front, discount available if paid in Bitcoin.
|
| 0: https://coingeek.com/denver-to-apply-blockchain-
| technology-i...
| beambot wrote:
| Bitcoin isn't the only decentralized ledger system, just the
| one with the largest current market cap.
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| The person you responded to didn't say Bitcoin and may have
| been referring to one of many other decentralized payment
| systems that don't use proof of work.
| blake8086 wrote:
| How much energy does the US central bank system use in a
| year?
| deft wrote:
| No matter how slow bitcoin gets it never goes down. Absolute
| worst case scenario is a steep difficulty curve that takes awhile
| to fall back down, only slowing block production.
|
| Edit: in order for it to get "so slow its stopped" more than half
| of the miners would need to go offline and not rejoin for hours.
| p1necone wrote:
| After a certain threshold "slow" and "down" are effectively the
| same thing though.
| capableweb wrote:
| ACH takes "business" days. Bitcoin takes hours, 24/7.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| It takes days to a week to clear a Bitcoin transaction
| unless you want to pay a much higher fee than you would for
| a small or medium sized ACH. And that's with still very few
| Bitcoin transactions (single digit transactions per
| second). If everyone started trying to use base Bitcoin,
| transaction fees would skyrocket but transaction rate would
| remain just 7/second.
| dralley wrote:
| ACH is in the process of being replaced with a system that
| handles transactions within a couple of seconds.
| grey-area wrote:
| Faster payments takes seconds, 24/7.
| quesera wrote:
| ACH costs $0.20 for next-BD settlement, or a little more
| for same-BD settlement.
|
| Bitcoin costs 50-100x that: $10-15-20 for "small number
| hours" settlement.
|
| A Bitcoin transaction with a fee of $0.20, _might_ settle
| after several days, but would more likely expire from the
| mempool before confirmation. And the really fun part is the
| unpredictability!
|
| ACH isn't perfect. But Bitcoin is completely inappropriate
| for the common ACH use case.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > After a certain threshold "slow" and "down" are effectively
| the same thing though.
|
| Except when you realize the mempool has a complete record of
| every pending tx, unlike the central bank whose system is
| completely down and cannot and will not have a record of any
| of these transactions and it's services cannot be reached.
|
| A part of me wants to be elated, but another part realizes
| that the end of US empire may allow the CCP to continue
| unabated, and that has incredibly horrible consequences given
| all the sabre rattling and their focus on Taiwan after
| illegally annexing Hong Kong and enslaving Xianjing.
|
| The West will continue, and the lack of the US hegemony may
| allow it to prosper in other ways, but this will be an
| incredibly rough patch as it loses its status on sole Super
| Power, I don't think the CCP's China qualifies as a super
| power as it cannot unilaterally impose the world to operate
| on its own standard in anything but trade reliance, something
| it can and should lose. As creditor it cannot really do much
| except in a close sphere of emerging African countries, of
| which Bitcoin is actually flourishing, or the Russia/Iran
| block, and Iran is a hotbed of Bitcoin influence with state
| sponsored miners.
|
| I hope the US takes the lead once more without the need for
| overt militaristic, police-state tactics as the petro-dollar
| loses its gravitas, I just don't want to be here when it
| happens.
| noizejoy wrote:
| If you zoom in/out far enough, the difference between down and
| slow isn't always clear
| partiallypro wrote:
| I'd take cheap/fast/(won't go down 99.99% of the time) vs
| expensive/slow/can't go down
| xirbeosbwo1234 wrote:
| Correction: expensive/slow/is down literally all the time
| because it can't be used for its intended purpose even if
| it's theoretically running
| capableweb wrote:
| They are not even targeting/hitting 99.99% in availability,
| see https://www.frbservices.org/resources/financial-
| services/ach...
| partiallypro wrote:
| Even if it's only 99.9% vs 99.99% it's still more
| efficient.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| There was a plausible scenario in the earlier days that an ill-
| timed crackdown of Chinese miners could effectively cripple the
| Bitcoin network. If one of the big mining pools went down early
| in the "2 week" cycle, it could potentially be months before
| the difficulty readjusted and in the mean time, the Tx
| throughput would crater and the unconfirmed transactions would
| just pile up. I assume that's less possible now, but trouble
| can come from surprising places even in robust systems.
| Klwohu wrote:
| My suspicion is the "SolarWinds" hack, which is of course more
| than just that piece of software now, has infected practically
| every noteworthy computer system in the nation.
| balozi wrote:
| It's starting to feel like everything in America is held together
| with duct tape and chewing gum.
| orf wrote:
| Obligatory "I can transfer money instantly and for free within
| the EU/UK and have been able to for years" comment.
|
| Also what the hell is up with cheques and using your signature
| for card payments? I can only remember these from my early
| childhood. It's so... backward. Why hasn't it been improved?
| What's been blocking progress for all these years?
| noizejoy wrote:
| In the US: More banks, less regulation
| orf wrote:
| But isn't "regulation destroys progress" a common argument?
| noizejoy wrote:
| Common argument <> correct argument
|
| Killer flaw of overly binary thinking.
| sodality2 wrote:
| Yes.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| I use a chip with no signature. Checks because venmo is gross,
| but most people I know use venmo.
| bigodbiel wrote:
| With more and more central banks pushing their digital
| currencies, this occurrence really seems inopportune. To feel
| schadenfreude is inevitable.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| It is fascinating to watch and so shortly after Yellen's tone-
| deaf speech about how btc is inefficient compared to traditional
| banking system. I almost spat out my coffee. Has she tried
| sending a wire outside of US lately?
|
| edit: Almost makes you wonder if it was a targeted attack.
| notyourday wrote:
| > Has she tried sending a wire outside of US lately?
|
| Costs at most about $35 for any size wire, shows up in a
| corresponding bank within a day. If the corresponding bank is
| not the ultimate destination, takes whatever the amount of time
| it takes for the end transaction to complete. In event of a
| bank mess up on a transfer, the wire gets rejected/credited
| back.
|
| What, exactly, is the problem?
|
| P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a _feature_ and not a _bug_.
| centimeter wrote:
| This is 10000% bullshit. Everyone on here says "oh yeah, it's
| easy to send a wire anywhere in the world", but as someone
| who's actually spent decades living abroad as a US citizen,
| this couldn't be further from the truth. International
| banking _never_ works the way it 's supposed to. Shit always
| inexplicably gets delayed, or canceled, or fails for some
| obscure reason that requires spending 9 hours on the phone
| with clueless customer support monkeys.
|
| There have actually been a few times where non of my bank
| cards (chase, bofa, credit union) work for cash withdrawal
| and I've used a Bitcoin ATM to get cash until I could get
| something figured out.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I don't want to presume, but what you are describing is a
| theory of how it is supposed to work. That theory holds up
| for a majority (~80%+ depending on an institution - I am not
| willing to make more specific statements ) of wires, but
| remaining 20% can be held up for a variety of reasons ranging
| from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those 20% the
| banking system as it is right now, is a problem.
|
| edit:
|
| "P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug. "
|
| That may have been true/acceptable before - back when time
| span between order and payment was greater. If it is a
| feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.
| notyourday wrote:
| > but remaining 20% can held up for a variety of reasons
| ranging from fraud investigation, AML, or OFAC. For those
| 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem.
|
| AML, OFAC will absolutely take time and no interbank
| transfer would bypass it in any US chartered bank as they
| are triggered during a match in the FedWire or any other
| system that uses the Fed.
|
| KYC and fraud investigations are triggered by the
| originating bank, most likely because the account has been
| flagged. Until the account is cleared any transfers out of
| the account would trigger them and delay them.
|
| KYC-type and fraud investigations could also be triggered
| by the receiving bank if the account is either flagged or
| the activity is matching certain parameters - it is less
| likely but possible. Should that happen, no matter what is
| the method that was used to credit the account is likely to
| trigger it.
|
| > For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a
| problem.
|
| That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to
| be the case.
|
| > That may have been true/acceptable before, where time
| span between order and payment was greater. If it is a
| feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.
|
| It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an
| easy rollback of journaling mistakes.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| 1 in 5 seems like a high proportion to me. I will admit
| that I find it mildly aggravating that people wave away a
| genuine complaint with 'it only happens in 1 out of 5
| cases'. Is it an acceptable ratio? Would we accept a
| plane that lands for non-routine issue 1 out of 5 times?
|
| >> That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely
| unlikely to be the case.
|
| I don't think I could honestly qualify 1 out of 5 with
| adverb extremely. Even unlikely feels like a stretch. Let
| me give you an example, if you submitted your taxes
| online and before you submitted it, it gave you a chance
| percentage of an audit, would you roll the dice at 20%?
|
| >> It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for
| an easy rollback of journaling mistakes.
|
| Having dealt with those mistakes, I still maintain that
| it is there cover the bank.
| packetlost wrote:
| If you need to send payments instantly, there are _many_
| other options out there, not the least of which is credit
| /debit card which is virtually instant and used...
| *everywhere*. What exactly do you want here?
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| What I want.. what I want is for people to stop accepting
| the world as it is just because it is in this set up in
| this particular configuration. I want people to realize
| that they can actually shape the world to fit their
| needs.
|
| That is what I want.
|
| And if you really tried to use credit/debit card for
| those purposes, you quickly understand their limitations
| ( amounts come to mind ).
| partiallypro wrote:
| Your comment would make sense if the global banking system went
| down, instead it was just a tool the Fed uses with Banks.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| You are right. I will keep the edit as is.
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| Reddit also went down. GME is also going parabolic this PM
| along with AMC
|
| coincidence?
| mullingitover wrote:
| Bitcoin holders are of course having a field day with this,
| especially after Yellen's comments. However, this is a false
| equivalency. For regular retail banking customers your deposits
| have FDIC protection, not a thing you can get with BTC. You can
| use Coinbase, which does offer insurance, but then you're back
| under a centralized system with the same single point of failure
| issues.
| thebean11 wrote:
| > with the same single point of failure issues
|
| Well, with different issues. FDIC insurance is probably better
| than whatever Coinbase has. You are also open to technical
| f-ups on Coinbase's end, which can move the price down if they
| are bad enough.
|
| On the other hand, Coinbase cannot print BTC. This
| characteristic is what draws a lot of people to Bitcoin, beyond
| just "nobody can take my keys".
|
| Agree it's a false equivalency, disagree that holding BTC in
| Coinbase defeats the purpose.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| As someone who sends wires frequently for work... way to
| complicated and unnecessarily so as compared to moving
| cryptocurrency. I would MUCH rather enter an address and memo
| field (Eg. XLM-Stellar) to move USD -> EUR then go through the
| IBAN/SWIFT, etc. headache; let alone the fees.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I'm skeptical of Bitcoin as-is for any purpose (except
| Venezuelan digital gold) and cryptocurrencies generally as a
| "store of value", but I can see the value cryptocurrencies
| could provide by offering some method of getting around the
| unnecessarily bad transaction systems we have in place today
| at least in the US.
| BelenusMordred wrote:
| FDIC protection being invoked will still have anyone holding US
| dollars to rush for the doors trying to put it into anything
| else. There's absolutely no guarantee of protecting the value
| of assets, simply the number of them.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| What would happen if suddenly (on news from some exploit or a
| scheduled banning by the vast majority of governments)
| everyone tried to pull their Bitcoin and put it into anything
| else? The blockchain can only do 7 transactions per second
| regardless of demand.
| tobylane wrote:
| The mempool queue would increase, iiuc.
| https://bitcoinqueue.com/#1,24h
| quesera wrote:
| That's correct, if the "into anything else" transaction
| required a cross through (any) blockchain.
|
| And the clearing feerate, which correlates to mempool
| queue depth, incoming transaction velocity, and cohort
| feerates, would increase _dramatically_.
|
| But if there was a run to convert BTC to USD, the
| exchanges would not be able to cover the USD required.
| They'd limit or suspend withdrawals immediately. At some
| point someone would have to start buying with fresh USD
| for the exchanges to be able to pay out the sellers. With
| big enough news, there could be tens of thousands of
| dollars gap between bid and ask, which would take a long
| time to ease.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Yup, and the transaction fee would be bid up by people
| desperate to make transactions. To say nothing of the
| bottom falling out of the value of Bitcoin ...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The FDIC is regularly invoked.
|
| https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102384.
| ..
|
| > But on the other hand, check these FDIC folks out. They
| know what they're doing. And every week they get more
| experience. In the 10 weeks since the FDIC took over the Bank
| of Clark County, 18 more banks have failed. That brings us to
| a grand total of 20 since the start of this year -- a number
| that will likely grow tomorrow.
| babyshake wrote:
| You could actually have something similar with blockchains. It
| depends on the specifics, but you would essentially have FDIC-
| style insurance on one blockchain in the event it goes down,
| and this would need to be facilitated on a different (and more
| stable) blockchain. For example, when Ethereum does a major
| upgrade I could imagine some people wanting this kind of
| insurance it case it goes down.
| rtrdea wrote:
| What does insurance have to do with sending money?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Insurance potentially protects people from fuckups with the
| sending of the money, like "we sent $900M to the wrong person
| and they won't give it back". If the bank collapses, the
| individuals holding accounts at the bank are covered (to a
| point) by the FDIC.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Funny you should mention that. If the money is sent, and
| there is a clear record of it having been sent ( especially
| via wire ), I am not sure how easy would it be to claim it
| under FDIC umbrella if the bank collapsed. FDIC is for the
| money in the account.. although I am sure that is a
| fascinating question for a lawyer.
|
| edit: The reason wire fraud is so popular is basically,
| because once the money leaves the account, the recipient
| has to agree to return it. You can imagine fraudster likely
| will not.
| capableweb wrote:
| Indeed, FDIC is not something that you need in the case of BTC
| as it's fluid and is not locked to one "bank" / "exchange" /
| new future entities. It's interoperable between many systems
| today too.
| tw04 wrote:
| If you think the people that exchange BTC wouldn't lockdown
| immediately in the event of a run on BTC, I think you're
| being naive.
| xirbeosbwo1234 wrote:
| That is good news for the users of Mt.Gox, Bitcoin7,
| Bitcoinica, Bitfloor, Vircurex, Inputs.io, Picostocks,
| Flexcoin, Poloniex, MintPal, Cryptsy, Bitstamp, BTER,
| KipCoin, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Bitcurex, Yapizon,
| LocalBitcoins, Coincheck, BitGrail, Coinrail, Bithumb,
| Bancor, Zaif, MapleChange, Cryptopia, Coinbene, Bitrue,
| BITPoint, Upbit, Eterbase, KuCoin, Livecoin, and the DAO.
| Their money can never be lost because it is secured by logic
| itself.
|
| EDIT: It appears I forgot to list a few dozen exchange hacks.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| It is if you use an online wallet.
| capableweb wrote:
| If you use an exchange/"bank" like Coinbase, then yeah.
| What do you mean with online wallet? It's either only you
| have the keys, or you don't/someone else also does.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| If I have a soft wallet and I have automatic updates
| enabled on my OS, do only I have the keys or do
| Microsoft/Apple/Google/Samsung/Canonical have them as
| well?
|
| EDIT: For clarity, I was referring to an actual online
| wallet, a wallet on a website, but it's not too different
| to ask the same question about a software wallet on a
| computer-connected device that does automatic OS or
| wallet software updates.
| miguelmota wrote:
| Only you have the keys, otherwise it'd be like saying if
| you purchased and downloaded a movie, then
| Microsoft/Apple/Google/Samsung/Canonical have ownership
| of them as well.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| If you're not using a cold wallet and doing the
| transaction signing completely offline, then you're
| trusting Microsoft/etc not to steal your keys. It's not
| just you who could have access to the keys if your keys
| are stored on an Internet-connected device somewhere that
| can have its software updated.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Yes and no. You have a point about certain level of protection
| for customer, but it does not address ineffciency ( which is
| the accusation Yellen placed against crypto ). In other words,
| it is not false equivalency at all. When looking at the
| features that are compared, the analogy is more than apt.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-24 23:00 UTC)