what's the difference between "There is a similar technique using markov chain. The author don't seem to be aware." AND "There is a similar technique using markov chain! :) "
He doesn't get it. Someone else replied to his comment stating the same thing you did, i think he is selectively blind to the word "Markov", he missed them in the article and in the replies.
>it is the view of some senior bank people that I speak to that PSD2 will make such clauses in banking terms illegal
If that is close to explicitly as you have stated then either 1) The senior bank people you talked to are lying to you 2) the senior bank people you talked to really don't know anything about PSD2 3) They mistated to you how PSD2 changes will affect this 4) You misunderstood what they mentioned about PSD2 changes.
If a bank mentions in its clauses as per PSD2, that only authorized persons/firms are use an API and their acccess, they are authorized to negate any liability if it was given/accessed by an unauthorized party. Banks are required to make API's available (not same as accessible) to any SaaS or other developer as long as it is authorized by the bank.
Banks are not required to give access to any developer or SaaS, but to authorized third parties.
Authorized in this context means that the third party obtained an authorization from their local financial authorities, and that the authorization is for the type of service they are requesting (Payment Initiation or Account Information).
this is the main challenge startups in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia will face when trying to launch financial service alternatives; Fear and distrust of the young and unknown and subservient loyalty to the mature and known.
What an obvious realization that I hadn't thought about, lol. I guess I could wait, but I am thinking of pushing him (lol) to developing interests for possible occupations that I know that can be reliably done independently where verbal expression of language is not primarily essential, but not manual labor. I can wait too and see if he bites or drop hints to see whether he develops slow interest.
Between the two of us, you're not the first one to want to push their child toward something at age seven. For me that was about a decade ago. What I know now is that in a decade your child will still be a child and in that intervening decade they will have many interests and pretty much all of them will pass. Of the few of them that stick, maybe one or two will be constant and the rest that stick will come back occasionally for brief periods and then disappear for a few years.
In terms of occupations, who knows what programming will be like in fifteen years? In 2002, most people would not have expected pair programming and two pizza teams or Github's social coding to be mainstream methodologies.
As far I am concerned the core skills for programming (and the fascination) have not changed much in 40+ years, when my mum 'ran' my first ever typed-out Fortran program pretending to be what we'd now call a VM!
Writing a Z80 assembler space-invaders game for an MZ-80K then ... and 10 years of school and then AI+CS honours and then a MSc in theoretical CS and then 20 years of banking and Y2K type nonsense etc etc ... and now I'm writing code for something of about the same power as that Z80 again, though developing with nice compilers and GB of storage on SSDs rather than kB cassette tapes so can get rather more useful loc working.
If they had reported you to the feds through the BSA e-filer system, you would never know. It is a federal violation to inform the party on which you have made a report. Just because you haven't received knock on the door does not mean you haven't been reported.
>He engaged in nothing resembling money laundering
I happen to know what money laundering is, being a certified money laundering specialist (CAMS) and all, and what he allegedly engaged in was money laundering. However, the judge was being completely fair in her statement as the prosecution did a lot of flippity flop and kept switching back the defendant's position from what is a business and a payment instrument seller. This was a relatively easy case to win for the prosecution, but pretty astounding as to how a very ill prepared prosecution and well prepared defense can go a long way.
> I happen to know what money laundering is, being a certified money laundering specialist (CAMS) and all
One would hope that you are, in fact, a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist, since what you initially labeled yourself as implies that you routinely engage in illegal activites.
Let's say person X has lots of bitcoins (potentially mined from the early days, when it was very easy to obtain). They go and sell it for $30,000, in cash. Let's assume X has the intention to declare the gains in their upcoming tax returns.
Why this would be money laundering?
Basically X is selling a property in the form of a mathematical equation, that was obtained legally. Of course they'll have to pay taxes like in any other profit-generating transaction, but other than that I'm failing in seeing the issue.
ps: it seems that in this case they were trying to entice the guy with stolen credit cards. As that didn't work, they tried switching to money laundering.
>Let's say person X has lots of bitcoins (potentially mined from the early days, when it was very easy to obtain). They go and sell it for $30,000, in cash. Let's assume X has the intention to declare the gains in their upcoming tax returns.
it's not what's happening here. i haven't seen where that was implied either.
>it seems that in this case they were trying to entice the guy with stolen credit cards. As that didn't work, they tried switching to money laundering.
no, they didn't entice him stolen credit cards, they, undercover, purported the sale of bitcoins/cash to him for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of the crime ( stolen credit card). Therefore, if he engaged in that sale knowingly, he willingly engaged in the laundering of proceeds of crime, i.e: money laundering. What they were weak or unable to demonstrate substantially was that his transactions thus far before the sting, were largely derived in the operations of aiding and abetting the laundering of the proceeds of crime.
They did try to entice with him with bullshit stolen credit cards. If you read carefully the first two pages, nothing was technically illegal, other than the fishy part where the defendant said he would "think about it" when offered to be paid with stolen credit cards. Had he said "No way Jose", it would have been a perfectly clean transaction, that could have happened to anyone on HN.
Still, he allegedly didn't accept the credit cards, and the detective tried to proceed with counterfeit money. In the end the defendant was charged with money laundering simply because he was selling bitcoins, which is utterly absurd. The judge was spot on to throw the case out.
I have no sympathy for crooks using bitcoins to cover their illicit actions, but I have equally no sympathy for law enforcement burning taxpayer dollars to chase ghosts.
I did the read the case, your premise and understanding of what money laundering is, in this case incorrect. When something is illegal it does not have a binary state of technically illegal, and nontechnically illegal. It is or it isn't. Knowing and willingly, aiding and abetting laundering proceeds of crime is considered in the same case of money laundering, whether you stole the cards, or got money for stolen cards you sold, or you helped the guy who got money for the cards he sold, or you helped the guy who helped the guy that got money for the stolen cards he sold.
It's not easy to understand the vague and imprecise world of money laundering because the laws were written to be broad.
This is not the first time stings are carried out, this is also not the first time a prosecution fails at a case that by all indications of the allegation should have been easy to close.
