Which is irrelevant for my point, what's relevant for the comment chain is that a person can quickly make a direct transfer and the second person receives it instantly most of the time. The inner workings of the functionality are not relevant when talking about the use case.

You make it seem like I need to send a request email to the target bank, then wait until their certified postal mail reaches my bank, then my bank sends them money. This is a hyperbole, what I mean is that you make it seem way more cumbersome than it is for the end user.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's absolutely important. Because pull based transactions are less secure.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

I agree that it's important from a security standpoint, but it's not relevant from a usability standpoint.

They originally said:

In the US you really could not send money from one Person to another?

And you answered:

It's actually the same in Europe. You can only authorize someone else to take money out of your account.

You are describing how the process works internally to someone in a chain that describes usability from the end user. In Europe we can send money, we tell the bank which amount and where, and then they use their incredibly shitty security methods to perform the transaction. That's agnostic to me from an usability standpoint. That's why I said that you were not saying relevant information.