Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MasterCard Rails Against Bitcoin's (Semi-)Anonymity

Posted by Soulskill on from the we're-mad-because-we're-slow dept.

angry tapir writes: MasterCard has used a submission (PDF) to an Australian Senate inquiry to argue for financial regulators to move against the pseudonymity of digital currencies such as Bitcoin. "Any regulation adopted in Australia should address the anonymity that digital currency provides to each party in a transaction," the company's told the inquiry into digital currencies. MasterCard believes that "all participants in the payments system that provide similar services to consumers should be regulated in the same way to achieve a level playing field for all."

65 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Decentralization, do you speak it? by Megane · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should go after Bitcoin Inc. and force them to comply, amirite?

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you are wrong.

      Bitcoin is already mostly decentralized, and Bitcoin 2.0 will be completely decentralized with no outside dependencies at all. Mastercard just wants to maintain their Bankster monopoly.

      Sorry about their luck, but it's already been decided that most of us in Cyberspace are not going to allow banks to get control of this currency, and we are not going to comply with any regulations regarding it.

    2. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by mcelrath · · Score: 2

      The non-anonymity of MC transactions is a huge liability. Not only does my MC payment for my coffee allow me to pay for my coffee, but it also allows the merchant to perform future transactions (whether valid or not). It's an authorization not a one-time transaction. This price is just too high and is the source of all CC fraud. There is no reason why any merchant needs to know who I am. If customers choose to disclose their identity to sign up for their email spam, that's their problem, but I should not have to pony up my identity to perform most consumer transactions. The only reason merchants check ID's on transactions is as a flawed fraud protection measure. It protects them, but at my expense.

      Anonymous transactions are be better.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    3. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2
      Nope. You authorize that one and only one transaction. This has been tested in court with the car rental places that have you sign and authorize a final bill, then charge you later (without specific authorization) for parking tickets or speed cam tickets sent to them later.

      If you didn't authorize that transaction, it's fraud. If Starbucks uses your card info later, they committed fraud. And you, as a cardholder, is 100% "safe" from those charges.

      The only reason merchants check ID's on transactions is as a flawed fraud protection measure.

      That's a violation of the merchant agreement for all merchant agreements I've read. When you only deal with merchants acting illegally, you get a bad picture. Where are you going where they check ID and charge you later for things you didn't buy, didn't want, and didn't authorize? It's never happened to me, or most people with cards.

      They may check your signature on your card. That is the only "ID" they are allowed to check, to keep the process simple and fast, and encourage users to use it.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by mcelrath · · Score: 1

      Because the courts are the best way to reverse transactions. I've had the scenario you describe regarding road tolls and car rentals, and I challenged it with my bank. Got me exactly nowhere. I suppose I could go to court for a $75 fine, but who has time for that?

      Legally some jurisdictions may consider it a one-time charge, but technically they have everything they need to perform a second charge, and it's your blood sweat and tears to challenge the fraud. That waiter skimming cards will not be deterred by your long, expensive, legal-system charge reversal plan.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    5. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Ah, so you were lying for effect. The "coffee" example was to hide the real reason. The *only* people who routinely charge without authorization are rental agencies, and if you read the contract, they gives them permission to charge you. That's (often, perhaps not always) a breach of their merchant agreement. And you shouldn't need to fight them in court. Just reverse the charges. "I never authorized that charge" should be sufficient.

      And that's not fraud. And certainly not the "major source" of credit card fraud. That's skimmers.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by mcelrath · · Score: 1

      Coffee shop employees are perfectly capable of skimming credit cards so they can perform illicit transactions also. I've had that happen to me too. The technical ability to so easily skim numbers is what enables fraud. There's no encryption there.

      "I never authorized that charge" was not sufficient for my bank. So then it's off to court...

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    7. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've never had any problem with sending a letter by certified mail (some companies seem to ignore any letter from you unless you have legal proof they received it) and challenging a transaction.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Decentralization, do you speak it? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This has been tested in court with the car rental places that have you sign and authorize a final bill, then charge you later (without specific authorization) for parking tickets or speed cam tickets sent to them later.

      The law, or rental company policy, may differ in your country to mine, but every time I've hired a car (lesseeeee.... 5 countries on 3 continents) I've read the contract before signing it and seen the authorisation for such charges. (OK, in Russia I had to get it translated for me, but that only took an hour or so.)

      I have never had such a charge made against me though. "Not getting caught" being the first rule of driving, at least in my book.

      That is the only "ID" they are allowed to check, to keep the process simple and fast, and encourage users to use it.

      Again, country and time dependent. In Russia, because I couldn't provide my internal passport (didn't have one ; not Russian) I had to pay with cash. But I gather that is just what happens when you're not in Moscow or St Petersburg - if you're the first non-Russian they've seen, you expect weird things.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. they must hate cash, too by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    since that's the ultimate anon payment system.

    of course, we know what's going on. they hate having to compete against another company.

    poor babies!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:they must hate cash, too by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. One of the benefits of a cash is anonymous transactions, one of the rights people reserve unto themselves.

      Making everything electronic so government can track it is just another sad cog in the panopticon the government is building, a precursor to a 1984-like dictatorship.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:they must hate cash, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, it's ALREADY 1984.
      Both bitcoin's and your job is to bring us OUT OF IT.
      That means restoring our natural rights to anonymity.
      You know, that stuff that got stolen from us by corps and govs.

    3. Re:they must hate cash, too by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      since that's the ultimate anon payment system.

      of course, we know what's going on. they hate having to compete against another company.

      poor babies!

      They absolutely hate cash... but seeing as the same forces who issue cash also grant them license to operate, they cant do jack shit about it.

      But Bitcoin... there's people they can sue.

      Seriously, if it were legal for MasterCard to punish businesses who accept cash, they would.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:they must hate cash, too by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They already do try to punish businesses for accepting cash. They require merchants to suck up the cost of accepting Credit cards and not allowing a company to charge more to cover the credit card merchant fees. Of course 'cash discounts' can be done but that's uncommon. Most places just suck up the %3 as part of the cost of business so anyone paying cash does essentially pay more.

    5. Re:they must hate cash, too by mjwx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They require merchants to suck up the cost of accepting Credit cards and not allowing a company to charge more to cover the credit card merchant fees. Of course 'cash discounts' can be done but that's uncommon. Most places just suck up the %3 as part of the cost of business so anyone paying cash does essentially pay more.

      First I'll say that this little gem in the T&C is illegal in Australia (and anywhere else with semi-sane consumer protection). Hell, even in the United States I've negotiated better prices with cash because of merchant fees.

      But this rule does not discriminate against cash accepting businesses. Everyone who accepts credit cards has to pay, even if they have no cash facilities what so ever.

      In fact, it helps businesses that do accept cash because they have a percentage of transactions that are not subject to merchant service fees so they make more profit by giving a slight discount meaning a business has no incentive to refuse cash.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:they must hate cash, too by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      In fact, it helps businesses that do accept cash because they have a percentage of transactions that are not subject to merchant service fees so they make more profit by giving a slight discount meaning a business has no incentive to refuse cash.

      Depends on the business. Small businesses do see the discount since the amount of cash is small enough that the cost of handling cash is basically nil.

      Larger businesses can find the cost of handling cash is larger than the merchant fees - cash handlers get special training because they need to know how to reconcile their cash box, then there's actually making the cash deposits. Those can be big enough that whoever's carrying the wallet is a nice target of robbery. A big game release or something can easily mean a $50,000 take in cash in a single day, requiring hiring guards and armored vehicles to transport it to the bank.

    7. Re:they must hate cash, too by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Larger businesses can find the cost of handling cash is larger than the merchant fees

      Sorry, but this is utter bollocks.

      I've worked deploying EFT systems both large and small. I can tell you there is a large American petroleum distribution company who's merchant fees utterly dwarf their staff costs. I'm sure they're not the only ones. A large Australian supermarket chain has stopped buying card only automatic checkouts because they aren't being used enough.

      Cash and debit are far cheaper than credit. The problem is banks have addicted people to credit using rewards programs and charged the merchant to accept cards (which well and truly pays for them and some).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:they must hate cash, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My only note here is that a cash transaction requires the physical currency representation to change hands. This means the people must be in the same room with each other, or through some proxy. Either way, you lose a little anonymity there.

    9. Re: they must hate cash, too by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they hate MasterCard gift cards too.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re: they must hate cash, too by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the cash discounts are about taxes. Places that have them usually have them well above the fees.

      Large businesses have other ways to avoid taxes, so they don't need to preferentially accept cash.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    11. Re:they must hate cash, too by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I often use credit because it gives me extra protection, beyond what consumer law and the merchant offers. The merchant should view it as the cost of getting business from me, because I wouldn't buy something expensive from them if I had to pay in cash. In fact only accepting cash or debit on high value items screams scam to a lot of people in the UK for this very reason.

      For cheap things or small retailers I'll use cash or debit though. No way I'm paying for a car in cash and missing out on that extra protection though, because even if it does add a few percent to the cost it's worth it. People have been known to claim tens of thousands of pounds back from the card issuer when the dealer went bust, having paid only a £100 deposit on their credit card.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:they must hate cash, too by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Larger businesses can find the cost of handling cash is larger than the merchant fees

      Sorry, but this is utter bollocks.

      I've worked deploying EFT systems both large and small. I can tell you there is a large American petroleum distribution company who's merchant fees utterly dwarf their staff costs. I'm sure they're not the only ones. A large Australian supermarket chain has stopped buying card only automatic checkouts because they aren't being used enough.

      Cash and debit are far cheaper than credit. The problem is banks have addicted people to credit using rewards programs and charged the merchant to accept cards (which well and truly pays for them and some).

      The cost of attendants/clerks/etc (who don't go away when credit is used) is not the only factor. Getting enough denominations for each day (small coins/bills from the bank are only fee-free when you ask for small quantities), reconciling the drawers, counting the cash, cash theft and counterfeit bills, etc all add up quick. Merchant fees and fraud chargebacks are certainly non-negligible but cash is not the silver bullet. That would be using silver (or gold). What could possibly go wrong with having an ultra-high precision scale at each register?

    13. Re:they must hate cash, too by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Cash and debit are far cheaper than credit. The problem is banks have addicted people to credit using rewards programs and charged the merchant to accept cards (which well and truly pays for them and some).

      People are "addicted" to the idea that some fraction of the increases in productivity show up as increased income. That hasn't been true for a long while. Cheap credit has been used to mask this robbery of the working class, but now the ride is over and the bill is in the mail. And since middle-class buying power is no longer supporting the economy, it's slowly collapsing.

      Oh well. At least future historians should find it interesting to compare this collapse to the collapse of communistic economies, seeing how they happened just a few decades apart, and were caused by failures to keep up the opposite sides of a complete economic system, supply for communism and demand for capitalism.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:they must hate cash, too by ZipK · · Score: 1

      They require merchants to suck up the cost of accepting Credit cards and not allowing a company to charge more to cover the credit card merchant fees. Of course 'cash discounts' can be done but that's uncommon.

      Not any more:

      Beginning January 27, 2013, merchants in the United States and U.S. Territories will be permitted to impose a surcharge on consumers when they use a credit card. Historically Visa has not permitted retailer surcharging, but allowing surcharging was a key provision required by merchants to settle long-standing litigation brought by a class of retailers in 2005.

      There are states in which a surcharge for credit card usage is illegal, but these states typically allow for cash discounting.

    15. Re:they must hate cash, too by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This is MasterCard complaining about how they're business model is threatened by BitCoin. Interchange is what keeps them printing money.

    16. Re:they must hate cash, too by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court recently overruled this in the US. Now you see many more businesses (especially gas stations) giving a cash discount.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  3. I agree by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . "Any regulation adopted in Australia should address the anonymity that digital currency provides to each party in a transaction," the company's told the inquiry into digital currencies. MasterCard believes that "all participants in the payments system that provide similar services to consumers should be regulated in the same way to achieve a level playing field for all."

    For the first time in my life I totally agree with the credit card industry!
    Mastercard, please immediately start providing anonymous transaction services so we can level this playing field ASAP!

    1. Re:I agree by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sure they would like to, but they can't. Have you heard of something called financial regulations?

    2. Re:I agree by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      no thanks, I like knowing I have a way to reverse transactions for scumbags that scam, I also like to know their is financial obligations on places like mastercard to reimburse me for fraudulent transactions, all of the protections disappear with bitcoin type anonymity. I have no need of anonymous financial transactions for credit cards.

    3. Re:I agree by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I'm sure they would like to, but they can't. Have you heard of something called financial regulations?

      Can you cite a financial regulation that prohibits anonymous financial transactions? Since cash, bitcoin, and anonymous prepaid debit cards are all legal, I doubt if any such regulation exists.

    4. Re:I agree by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sure they would like to, but they can't. Have you heard of something called financial regulations?

      Can you cite a financial regulation that prohibits anonymous financial transactions? Since cash, bitcoin, and anonymous prepaid debit cards are all legal, I doubt if any such regulation exists.

      I can, In Australia it is the financial transactions reporting ACT, meant to prevent money laundering and it is imposed on all financial institutions. As I understand it many other countries have similar financial regulations for both money laundering and "terrorism" finance tracking. It kicks in at various amounts.

    5. Re:I agree by Pax681 · · Score: 2

      Money Laundering Laws... pretty much EVERYWHERE

    6. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can, In Australia it is the financial transactions reporting ACT

      Close! It's the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (C'th).

    7. Re:I agree by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      meh, been a while since I had to deal with it, close enough though :-) thanks.

    8. Re:I agree by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they would like to, but they can't. Have you heard of something called financial regulations?

      What's your point?

      Do you think that the credit card industry had nothing to do with how regulated financial transactions are?
      Do you seriously believe the biggest competitor they could possibly have... Walmart... just so happens to be hamstrung by those very same regulations and unable to compete?

      No no... I'm sure it's all a coincidence and they aren't actually angry at Bitcoin because it found an endrun around the completely unlevel playing field the credit card companies themselves designed. Visa and Mastercard are all about fair play and not just glorified loan sharks.

    9. Re:I agree by gox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      all of the protections disappear with bitcoin type anonymity

      Reversing transactions requires arbitration, which is quite possible with or without anonymity (although, you wouldn't want to provide delivery receipts for physical items if you need to remain anonymous).

      Actually, decentralized & pseudonymous systems like OpenBazaar which work with Bitcoin provide trustless (i.e. the notary can't steal your funds, unlike a trusted escrow) arbitration services. This sort of opt-in protection is better than what you get with Mastercard, but considering the technology is immensely more complex than what is used in centralized systems and that it is mostly open source (negligible funding), more time is needed until it matures.

      I have no need of anonymous financial transactions for credit cards.

      I would agree with this. Most of the problems with credit cards is because they are pull payments. The fraud levels would be immense if it became anonymous.

      It's very convenient to not be required to give out personal info to prove you are not a fraud, though. It's also good for security: no "pull payment" info to steal when one of the companies you work with has a data breach. So I think from the consumer's perspective it is better in the case of push payments.

    10. Re:I agree by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      Right... transaction reporting. The bitcoin register is public. Everything is reported to everyone. That's how the system works.

    11. Re:I agree by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      transaction reporting requires you to be able to identify both parties, not just report a transaction took place.

    12. Re:I agree by purplie · · Score: 1

      Yeah! When I purchase something, please make sure my account can't be identified as the one to subtract from!

    13. Re:I agree by Jahta · · Score: 1

      Money Laundering Laws... pretty much EVERYWHERE

      Mod parent up! In fact, in many jurisdictions payment processors are required by law to monitor for and report "suspicious" payments. Individual staff can be held liable, and go to jail, for not doing it.

      And cash is no answer. Large cash withdrawals count as "suspicious".

    14. Re:I agree by u38cg · · Score: 1

      They are not illegal per se. However, there are plenty regulations around how these things are used. Try depositing £20k cash in a UK account and see how anonymous the source of that cash becomes.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    15. Re:I agree by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You probably have regulations regarding gaming winnings, too. We do here in the USA at the federal level, because gambling houses have often been used to launder money. Take it into the casino, convert it, play a little, convert it back, claim it as gambling winnings, pay the taxes. So any person who converts $5,000 or more (or has a slot win of that amount) will have their identity recorded, and the amount of their winnings for the day.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:I agree by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Casino's fall under the same laws. The laws aren't specific to banks, they apply to all businesses that deal in money exchanges. even bookies, cash transactions with lawyers, transferring money in and out of country, any transaction that may be deemed as suspicious etc etc. unlike the US though we don't tax casino winnings so from experience the US is actually a lot harsher on controlling casinos.

    17. Re:I agree by T-ice · · Score: 1

      With cash I have to authorize every single transaction by reaching into my pocket. With credit/debit card transactions, I only need to have reached into my pocket at some time in the past to pay. Cash and bitcoin put the power over payment back into your hands, instead of the merchant. You, (or someone who stole your key) has to authorize every single transaction. It is true that it makes takesee backsees harder to pull off. But, they're already a pain anyway. Mastercard doesn't provide any recourse for unauthorized transactions, you have to take that issue up with the merchant. They just make it easier for their paying customer to withdraw your money.
      Some form of crypto should be used for ALL digital transactions. The fact that when I make a purchase with my MasterCard provides the party that I'm paying enough information to continue making charges whenever they like absolutely infuriates me. It means I have to trust both the integrity as well as the security practices for every place where I use my card. If only we had a technology that could fit on a credit card that could digitally sign a transaction so that a register never sees the key. Maybe that kind of technology will be made available 10 years ago or so.

  4. Wait, a level playing field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't hear them complaining when it's tilted their way.

    18-21% and higher interest rates? Obscene late fees on top the the obscene interest rate?

    Yeah, I don't feel sorry for them. Not even a little bit.

    1. Re:Wait, a level playing field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Look up transaction fee. Visa/Mastercard name is not free. They get a cut from each transaction done.

      Smaller retailers refuse to swipe a card if it is less than a particular amount. Because that fee eats their margin.

    2. Re:Wait, a level playing field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look up transaction fee. Visa/Mastercard name is not free. They get a cut from each transaction done.

      Not actually true. Fees are established between the banks. Different pairs of institutions have different agreements. Sometimes the merchant's institution and the card holder's institution are one and the same. In that case it makes no sense for the bank to use an outside processor, or to charge itself anything. The merchant bank will however charge the merchant for the convenience of the transaction. The card branding company (MC or Visa) never even sees that transaction, let alone charges a fee for it.

      Card brand companies typically get revenue from three sources. Licensing fees charged to banks, processing fees (where they compete with tons of other processors, not just MC, Visa and Amex) and additional financial services mostly to financial institutions. MC and Visa only get a "transaction fee" if they act as the processor for the transaction, and they have plenty of outside competition from other companies and even some governments. If they do process the transaction, their cut is a tiny portion of the total fees charged by the issuer to the acquirer, and is competitively priced, given that many other companies exist that could offer to do it for less if they wanted.

      The payment card industry is a lot more competitive and nuanced than most people think.

    3. Re:Wait, a level playing field? by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      Okay, that was a lot of talk about people being raised in shitty situations, which totally happens.

      I still say that you don't need a financial education to know that you shouldn't buy something you can't afford, or that you should read the credit card application that you're filling out. A much better argument could be made about extreme emergencies that can hit poor people ("my kid broke his arm, we have no health insurance, no cash on hand, but there was this credit card...").

  5. Awww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    MasterCard believes that "all participants in the payments system that provide similar services to consumers should be regulated in the same way to achieve a level playing field for all."

    How cute, how cute.

  6. Re:Deregulate rather than Regulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bitcoins aren't "fee-less", really. If you don't pay a fee, your transaction sits in limbo for however long, leaving you and your vendor standing around like dopes high-fiving one another over how great and practical Bitcoin is. Then you pay a cut to whomever exchanges your Bitcoins into adult dollars for buying groceries and paying taxes. Fee-less. Hah.

  7. Huh by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    If both sides agree to accept Bitcoin and both sides are fine with the anonymity, why does MasterCard's care? Oh right, they want the government to step in and make it illegal (tried it, didn't work), put in a bunch of regulations that send Bitcoin out of business (obviously they don't understand what Bitcoin is as that won't work either) or at the very least force people to use MasterCardCoin. (why would anyone?)

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  8. The right to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well the right to privacy is a basic right, yet Mastercard is flipping that on its head and requiring the removal of privacy with this claim.

    Does Mastercard hand its data to marketers? Does it hand it to NSA? Does it hand data on European transactions to USA? Does it spy for a foreign power? The transaction data for Germany, is that handed to the UK? Does the UK get Merkels transaction information, and the transaction information on other European politicians, and businessmen?

    Why is the right to privacy such a problem for Mastercard???

  9. "Bitcoin's (Semi-)Anonymity" by mmell · · Score: 1
    s/Semi/Pseudo

    FTFY. Incidentally, we all remember what "pseudo" means, right? Ersatz? Imitation? Fake?

  10. can be anon with a little hassle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    by default no it isn't. With a little work it can be.

    Spoof a MAC, connect to some open wifi, and / or use a privacy oriented VPN from some random country send coins through any of the mixing services or send to one exchange, bounce to another and destroy any taint between addresses. If you want to get more creative convert to an alt coin,or multiple alt coins, bounce those around the globe, reassemble in some location to pay for whatever you want.
    New alt coins are being made to do this sort of thing automatically

  11. But according to the ATO, bitcoin is not currency by vagsuki · · Score: 1

    Since the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) put out their 30 September statement saying that Bitcoin is not a currency and is actually a good (thus attracting the 10% GST) I don't think MasterCard have a solid argument. Until I can pay my Australian tax in bitcoin (or other crypto currency) I don't think MasterCard has much to worry about.

  12. Standard 3 phases by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    From Gandhi

    1. First they ignore you
    2. Then they laugh / try to discredit you
    3. Then they get a clue and join you

  13. "Help wanted" by tlambert · · Score: 1

    cash handlers get special training because they need to know how to reconcile their cash box

    "Help wanted. Must be able to add. No English majors, please."

    Give me a break...

  14. Re: bitcoin is NOT anonymous by tlambert · · Score: 2

    And you do it with a unique MAC address, duly recorded by the ISP that provides service where you slurp your caffeine.

    The AC already stated that the MAC address was spoofed. Good luck finding the hardware device that has 0a:0b:0c:0d:0e:0f.

  15. Re:stupid laws and payment processors -mastercard by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    "Setup" (one word) is a noun. The verb is "set up" (two words).

    They're even pronounced differently: This is a sétup. I'm going to set úp the router.

    (Doing the grammar Nazi thing since the parent is basically insensible.)

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  16. Digital by Meneth · · Score: 2
    MasterCard writes:

    Consumers have no recourse if a digital currency loses its value or if the digital currency system fails.

    Consumers have no recourse if a national currency fails either.

    Also, national currencies are mostly digital nowadays. MasterCard themselves do nothing but digital transactions.

    1. Re:Digital by countach · · Score: 1

      True, although national currencies are unlikely to fail. Governments will tax their citizens in the local currency, so there is incentive for people to earn the local currency, which means there is incentive to work for the local currency. Only gross incompetence by a government can screw up this natural system. The basis for bitcoin having value however is much more tenuous.

    2. Re:Digital by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      HA !!!!! "national currencies are unlikely to fail". You never took history in high school? Major national currencies failed in the last 120 years, and the fallout of that HUGE, world maps rewritten for one particular case

  17. they made their bed by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Let's back up about 2 years. Mastercard said they were going to create a bitcoin-backed credit card. Then they pulled out of the project unexpectedly after getting everyone in the community excited about it. So now that bitcoin grew to huge popularity, they get exactly what they deserve for stabbing us in the back.

  18. Re: bitcoin is NOT anonymous by Eevee · · Score: 1

    0a:0b:0c:0d:0e:0f.

    0a:0b:0c:0d:0e:0f?

    Yes!

    That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

  19. I call bullshit. by rs79 · · Score: 1

    "the company's told the inquiry into digital currencies. MasterCard believes that "all participants in the payments system that provide similar services to consumers should be regulated in the same way to achieve a level playing field for all."

    That would imply bitcoin have have to adopt predatory practices.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?