Community

I want to know: how does tinkering with money (which I don't really see as a real problem) help contribute to improving the 14 SDGs that contribute towards a future for my children?

I can't see how the bank account can be identified from the first 8 digits. The bank maybe - and then it would make sense if it provids a link to the banks internet payment method.
The article had me confused at first - this is not in-store, only internet "checkout" (I assume)

And this happens under a conservative government, after Brexit. They say it is the liberal left that wants to control everything - but this is patently not true.
Privacy is a non(bi?)-partisian issue. Hopefully this is not the start (or continuation) of a very slipery slope

@Andrai, I have thought about this in the past. With an account based scheme, you need to address various trust issues from the ground up. How does the consumer know they are paying the merchant and not someone else? How do you identify that the consumer is allowed access to the account making the payment?

A "card" scheme addresses these and the rails are in place - a new wheel might not be justified

Russell, "unless they're relevant to the industry". We are in the industry of payments. You well know that the means of payment and how it is enforced can benifit one party over another. Any company involved in this process takes a stance.
Coinbase is saying "we don't care as long as we are making money". This is prioritising one thing over another - namely: integrity.
Let me ask you: what is the basis of trust?

Companies impact peoples lives. As such, they have an obligation to make peoples lives at the very least NOT worse by their existence (here I mean suppliers and the communities in which those suppliers operate as well as customers and the impact of the use of the companies producs and services have in their communities). It is not OK to say "I am here to make money, not to get involved".
You ARE involved and you must take social responsibility for your impact.

The reason the PIN is so well trusted is because it is securely encrypted right from the device through the whole payment chain - enforced by scheme and banking rules and regulations.
With internet payments, an untrusted user device is involved, which makes using the PIN on it a bad idea as there is too much potential for the PIN to be exposed.
The introduction of cards with built-in fingerprint readers or cards with in-built display/PIN entry capability can alevieate this challenge - but ubiquitous consumer devices are needed to interface to these cards (e.g. laptops/keyboards with built-in contactless reader or external PIN entry devices etc.).
Apple's refusal to allow developers access to the NFC chip does not help in this space - forcing them to think of other solutions that works across multiple platforms.
There are many solutions thought of, but they are all different - which confuses consumers and makes it hard for them to be safe. This is the main challenge currently

Just to clarify my statement "seems very biased" - I am niether for or against moving the deadline, but this particular piece of reporting is biased towards the party that has the most to gain by the status-quo.
Discussion should be based on merits and values from both sides, not just merchants

Seems very biased towards merchants - "kicking the merchants while they are down?". In the mean time, we can kick the consumers while they are increasingly dependent on trustworthy online services, and allow fraud
I say: bring it on

I am glad that the financial risks of climate change are being identified.
There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Reducing emmisions is only one of them.
I am concerned that "focusing on ways to strengthen banks’ resilience against the adverse effects of climate change." is like trying to stop a dyke from breaking by putting a finger in it from the outside.
Resilience needs to be built from the inside - which requires addressing all 17 SDGs.