|
Hi,
I have actually written some ACH[^] transaction software many years ago (circa 2003).
I believe if the ACH transaction from your bank to Pay Pal was still in the PENDING state... when you logged into Pay Pal and refunded... the ACH transaction was cancelled.
In other words... the money never left your account. The transaction was cancelled by the receiver and the funds were immediately available because the transaction never took place.
Trust me... if that transaction would have completed you would have been waiting several days.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I was gobsmacked - according to my bank the money first left my account on the 3rd...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
OriginalGriff wrote: according to my bank the money first left my account on the 3rd...
You (the account holder) do not see the true date/time of the ACH transactions.
Here is probably what happened:
1.) The money is deducted immediately (by your bank) even while the ACH transaction is in the PENDING state.
2.) The ACH transaction was cancelled. The PENDING was changed to CANCELLED and the funds were immediately made available because the transaction did not COMPLETE.
Pal Pal most likely leaves the transaction in the PENDING state for this very reason... to make it easier for purchase cancellations.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! That makes sense.
Bet the bank hates it though...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It's been that way for at least a couple of decades in the USA.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
It's been like that since late last year (I think). Most bank transfers occur on the same day. It all started when the government told the banks to stop putting our money on deposit for themselves, rather than straight into our accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow!
I'm used to it between the deposit and current accounts - both with the same bank so no excuse for it not to be immediate - but it's the first time I've seen it between banks.
That's the way it should be!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
You can thank the EU for that, one part of SEPA is that transfers has to be done "promptly". This has been interpreted as within a business day (since 2015). This means the banks can't sit on the money to earn interest on them, so it can just as well be done immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: You can thank the EU for that Which means the UK will shortly be going back to the old system of having to wait a week for anything to happen.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Karma and bitch are two word coming in mind.
But honestly, I have quite strong doubts the banks would be that stupid, unless they are on a punishing crusade, considering they are among those having most to lose on a brexit.
My two cents are that the UK will get the same agreements as Norway and Switzerland. Which means they will pay a bit less then before but lose the input and quite some benefits.
More on yhat here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: My two cents are that the UK will get the same agreements as
no, no, no.... brexit means brexit
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Pass the popcorn will you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOD BLESS TRUMP AND MICROSOFT!!!
No, wait! I'm not ryandev!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And then you have this[^].
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Someone found the variable that wasn't being re-initialised, and hey presto!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
In Germany, Paypal withdraw to bank account takes atleast 24 Hours
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
I've wondered about this for quite some time and now I stumbled upon while reading this interesting book:
Kerckhoffs’s Principle/Shannon’s Maxim
Kerckhoffs’s principle is an important concept in cryptography. Auguste Kerckhoffs’s first articulated this in the 1800s, stating that “the security of a cipher depends only on the secrecy of the key, not the secrecy of the algorithm.”
Shannon rephrased this, stating that “One ought to design systems under the assumption that the enemy will ultimately gain full familiarity with them.”3 This is referred to as Shannon’s maxim and states essentially the same thing Kerckhoffs’s principle states.
Let me attempt to restate and expound this in terms you might find more verbose, but hopefully easier to understand. Both Kerckhoffs’s principle and Shannon’s maxim state that the only thing that you must keep secret is the key. You don’t need to keep the algorithm secret. In fact, in subsequent chapters, this book will provide intimate details of most modern algorithms, and that in no way compromises their security. As long as you keep your key secret, it does not matter that I know you are using AES 256 bit, or Serpent, or Blowfish, or any other algorithm you could think of.
I would add to Kerckhoffs’s principle/Shannon’s maxim something I will humbly call Easttom’s corollary:
You should be very wary of any cryptographic algorithm that has not been published and thoroughly reviewed. Only after extensive peer review should you consider the use of any cryptographic algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting article. Hadn't seen that before.
BBC News Wrote:
The algorithm has been included in the code libraries and software of major vendors and industry bodies, including Microsoft, Cisco Systems, RSA, Juniper, RIM for Blackberry, OpenSSL, McAfee, Samsung, Symantec, and Thales, according to Nist documentation.
...
Moreover, the algorithm had been shown to be insecure in 2007 by Microsoft cryptographers Niels Ferguson and Dan Shumow, added Mr Clayton.
"Because the vulnerability was found some time ago, I'm not sure if anybody is using it," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
His brother Hank had some interesting books too.
All seriousness aside, this was what made PGP so good back in late 80's... If it's not open source, it's not secure.
|
|
|
|
|
Right PGP, it's Pretty Good...good enough.
Like, XOR encryption, probably nobody can figure that out.
Or, use ROT-13, no one can figure it out: Guvf vf haoernxnoyr nyy lbh unpxref!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A team of engineers has produced a material that shrinks when it's heated."
I've done that, too.
It's called "ice". I produced it in a freezer.
No matter how good your idea is, chances are it's been done before.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And I've been using heat shrink wrap for cables for decades.
Manufacturers routinely heat shrink plastic to wrap pallets, and boxes of product as well.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|