I think the biggest obstacle is actually the bankers. They do not like adopting new functionality, especially new functionality that causes their processes to change. They have no problems with tech that lets them do exactly the same thing they were doing before, like say, mobile apps, but new = scary. For example, in the ACH file description, there are two file format types: One is called 'DISK' and the other is called 'LINE' - for dial up. They just send the disk format now, over the net.

In short, they do not trust technology to get it right, and so will only accept a process that's modeled after their actual pen-and-paper model, so they can manually validate the results and understand exactly how it works. Then, once it works, they won't change it.

You also have the additional barrier of existing legal structures in the US that force a 'float' time to all transactions, but that would change if the bankers (and I guess, the market) demanded it.

It's all moot though. There's not a big need for minute to minute liquidity except among those who are very bad at managing finance, and they do not make for good customers. I honestly don't see a real market need for that sort of feature, nor people who'd pay for it, and so no real ROI on implementing it.

We already use 'risk scoring' all the time; it's a fundamental part of our ATM software, and nowhere near as magical as it sounds. They're usually just fixed rules, like "no more than $500 dollars a day, or $200 per transaction" etc.

As for being available for business transactions, I didn't see that specified. If this is a replacement of ACH transactions, then it's likely that it works fine for people too. You know, most banks implement billpay via ACH transactions from a person (when they don't have to print and mail the check). It's just that things like payroll and issuing collections (like invoices), or transferring money to another account at a different bank are not standard end-consumer needs.

Side note: There are many other notes about realtime money transfers in other countries. In most cases, those are again, time delayed at some point, and subject to reversal, it's just hidden from the customer. In fact, even wire transfers/money orders are reversible! The countries involved simply have laws pushing the risk elsewhere than the customer - usually the FI, I'd bet. This is especially true of large international exchanges, like SWIFT. You might even be able to pay more to such an exchange to expedite your transfers, or even cover the risk - for a good customer.

Though, that said, there's no reason a bank in country A might not have an agreement with country B, to automatically honor requests, assuming both countries have lax or non-existent financial regulation laws. In reality though, all countries have those laws, and that's why we have international exchanges.

This is not just a semantic difference either; there appears to be no difference to the customer in most, but not all circumstances.

Disclaimer: I used to write banking software for a living, including implementing ACH management on both the customer-facing and backend processing systems.

The article is blatently misleading regarding realtime transfer of funds, but it takes some knowledge to understand why. Let's talk about ACH transactions.

ACH, or Atomated Clearing House, is the network that the majority of electronic funds in the US use. As the article points out, it's ancient and horrible, basically a 1:1 translation of the paper funds reconciliation to electronic format. In essence, a customer creates an ACH transaction, which is sent to two endpoints; the federal reserve a.k.a. The Fed, and an ACH operator. Just like a credit processor, the ACH operator is then responsible for delivering the funds to the destination financial institution (FI) and they make their money by charging the originating FI. The transfer only goes through once both The Fed and the operator finalize the transaction, which can take a day or more, and most of them are held for additional days to provide for reversals (effectively, cancellations).

Here's some important takeaways:
    - To perform bank-to-bank transfers, you must either engage a third-party processor, or you must have an agreement (and process) with each individual bank you wish to transfer to.
    - These transfers are subject to some very specific banking regulations, some of it relating to reporting to the Fed, who can block the transactions.
    - Laws provide for effective reversal (issuing a reciprocal transaction, not necessarily a reversal) for 2 days for corp-to-corp transaction (CCD) and up to 60 days for transactions involving people (PPD).
    - Just like most retailers, these are batch processed, not in real time, though the banks will reserve funds and adjust your balance accordingly. No one minds because legal protections result in at least a 2-day processing window anyway.

Okay, so what do we need to perform this transfer in realtime? Well, first, you'd have to get every bank in the US and the federal reserve to switch to a new system that actually supports real time transfers, instead of the ACH. Then we'd have to completely overhaul the 40+ years of recent laws that were written with a batch-based system in mind, including removing many of the funds reservations activities (and the legal protections that require them) in favor of a realtime system.

So how does this bank do it?

Based on the info from the article, it sounds like the bank is managing two accounts per individual account; the customer-facing one which serves the 'realtime' aspect, and the actual one that is used for the ACH transaction. The risk comes in when the bank accepts a credit or debit prior to it being authorized and completed, and thus the need for 'risk management' software, identical to the sort that ATMs use, especially when configured as a local authorizer (for branches too far from the main branch and others).

They just don't show the end user the reservation of funds like most FIs, and they assume the risk directly so there's no odd 'processing' credits or debits in their statement.

So, it's just smoke and mirrors. They have to use ACH if they want to talk to other banks, and they're not doing manual wire transfers. They just aren't telling their customers. Though if they hit the anti-terrorist check (I wrote the software that matches against the government list too, at one time), their customer is going to find out really quickly that it's really just an ACH after all, and they ~don't~ have those funds - it's illegal for the bank to provide them!

Basically what you're saying is that you've been brainwashed into "vinyl is better". People keep talking about the "experience".

I've listened to good music on vinyl. I've listened to good music on high definition digital audio.

I've also listened to good music compressed down to 128K MP3 files.

I'm VERY aware of the difference.

It's like kopi luwak coffee. It's not that the end product is really and truly better.
It's that there's a marketing ploy behind it. They're not selling a physical product. They're selling a story and a mindset.

If you want to buy into it, great. But you're pretty much going to have to put up with everyone else laughing at you.

There. Fixed that for you.

And some people buy Gold-plated Monster cables and Macs too. It just proves there's a sucker born every minute (at least).

That's mainly because most youngsters' "social experience" has been limited to school (see "Lord of the Flies") and texting. Actually, y'know, MEETING UP with someone is a HUGE novelty these days. The turntable's just incidental.

Doesn't much matter.

Only an idiot is going to try to land an occupying force in something as large as the United States, where any given citizen can be more heavily armed than an entire company of Infantry.

I fail to see Gilbert du Motier listed as a member of the Vichy Regime government.

In a word? Nope.

No. Because a vacuum would actually insulate the components. As there's nothing for heat to disperse through EXCEPT other components.

Oh boy! So, at this rate, someone would be able to drive coast to coast by...oh...3025?

Just in time for the 4th Succession War!

You obviously have forgotten that little scuffle between 1775 and 1783 we like to call "The American Revolutionary War".

So yes, we DID have a foreign army on our home soil.

So, where the Vichy government dropped trou, we rude Americans kicked the invaders in the nuts and sent them packing.

I will say this. While the French government was useless and emasculate, at least the French Underground had a collective set of big brass ones.

No, straight Helium is a lower density medium than normal air. This means less atmospheric friction and less driver motor friction while spinning a platter.
Since the individual platter assemblies run cooler, they can pack them closer together (and put more in a given drive casing).

Also, because they have to hermetically seal a platter assembly into the helium atmosphere, with some modifications, such drives can be used in full-immersion cooling, where normal air-cooled drives need to breathe.

As much as I think these people, for lack of a better term, fucking morons, I'm VERY leery of making this sort of thing "mandatory".

We could all be mentally ill! Let's make Prozac mandatory!

We have a population problem. Let's make injectable birth control mandatory!

Yes, we're not there yet. And YES, there's a BIG difference between chemically sterilizing someone and giving them a vaccine. But the very act of making the putting of a foreign substance in your body COMPULSORY is the big scary issue here. And it SHOULD be scary. You're being told you have no right to control your own body and what goes into it.