• bob_lemon@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yeah. It’s really a UI issue at this point. Just a simple frontend to facilitate SEPA transactions to contacts (which could just be a simple Name -> IBAN map stored locally)

    • gigachad@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I could imagine something like an IBAN protocol - open an IBAN link as in iban://AB26374838388 directly with your banking app and auto fill the bank transfer menu. Only add the amount of money you want to transfer.

      No idea what other implications that would have e.g. for security though

        • sergih@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Idont’t think that’s a good idea, too many peoplr quickly pressing pay and then they tealizef only afyer paying thay there’s an extra 0

          • rentar42@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            I thought about that, but I think it’s actually more error prone, because people might just be setting ?amount=32 and leaving out currency which might lead to unexpected behaviour. Implementors tend to interpret this differently and one app might take the default currency and the other might fail to accept it, and that kind of different behaviour is a common source of security issues. Having a single unified parameter that must always contain the value and currency “solves” that issue.

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Makes it a bit more annoying to parse, though I definitely see your point.

              However, you’re still proposing a standard: “has to include both the currency and the amount in the parameter”, so why not split them up at that point?

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Main problem I see is that as it stands it’s insanely easy to forge a SEPA mandate. Ever had to fill one out? It’s literally just a piece of paper saying “I, John Doe, allow XXX to take money for services rendered from my acount AB1234. [signature]”. The wonder of legacy processes built for companies with fax-based workflows…

        I believe only some “trusted” commercial customers are authorized to turn in SEPA mandates (I know my ISP went into some bankruptcy proceedings and lost their ability to use their SEPA mandates for instance), but still, that makes me somewhat wary about who I give my IBAN to. I’d certainly not put it up online for anyone to see.

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Didn’t know it was this simple, that’s stupid.

          I believe though that in today’s day and and of banking apps this should be very easily solvable with inapp confirmations

          Let’s hope the old way dies