Yeah, decentralized ways that bitcoin and blockchain systems all around is the fix to all this problems, people could see the scam banks are getting away with and how much they are making with useless stuff like these and can opt for crypto if they knew what was going on.
Blockchain is a decentralized option that takes the trust away from both parties and that is the good thing about it, you do not have to trust anyone because its a trustless system that is open and anyone can see it whenever they want which allows people to be never scammed by contracts like these at all. I think the most important part of blockchain and crypto currencies is that they are bringing equality into peoples lives and that is why I really love it, there are more than 21 million people who are millionaires in the world but there are only 21 million bitcoins which means even millionaires can't have 1 btc each when we move to bitcoin completely.
Topic: Man who created own credit card sues bank for not sticking to terms (Read 330 times)
April 20, 2019, 03:34:23 AM
The blockchain smart contract took care of this long ago what the breach of trust with credit card which have result to this law suit can not happen in bitcoin and on the blockchain because there is no third party contract signing of documents in financial transactions done on the blockchain. The most problem we have in the traditional financial system is the centralized mode of operations which allow for third party involvement.
You have said it all already, there is nothing as blissful as the existence of the blockchain, many persons are just concerned about the price of bitcoin and not the technology itself which as always been a great concern to me, because the goal is of satoshi creating the blockchain is not just for us the focus on the price of the coin but the capability of the blockchain which is so massive and cannot be exhausted even in many years to come. 
April 19, 2019, 11:46:44 PM
This is such an obvious fraud.
In my jurisdiction that would be considered a void contract. Contracts not done in full voluntary agreement by 2 parties, with hidden clauses, are void almost everywhere.
Getting people to sign unwanted clauses because of ignorance is so 1800's.
In my jurisdiction that would be considered a void contract. Contracts not done in full voluntary agreement by 2 parties, with hidden clauses, are void almost everywhere.
Getting people to sign unwanted clauses because of ignorance is so 1800's.
I don't think so, full voluntary agreement - both of the parties signed on it. With hidden clauses - He altered the contracts on the same papers coming from the institutions then returned back to them. I think there is an offer by the bank and the guy made a counter offer by altering some sections on it, then the bank signed. That's why the court ruled to his favor. But there are somewhat limitations to the terms that he altered where the court should consider. With that, I think they can settle into a voidable, unenforceable, or invalid contract.
April 18, 2019, 09:23:59 AM
That's the law pretty much, the letter if not the spirit. As the article points out, it is often the clients who are on the other side of the "I didn't read it or understand it" stick, and I for one am pleased to see the courts decided to rule with what they'd normally do if banks were the ones suing. It'd be interesting to see what crypto companies would do as well, if, for example, clients would also be required to sign to terms and somehow alter ToC submitted in the [submit] form field.
No court would be able to intervene, however, if I accidentally signed a transaction spending my BTC to the wrong address.
No court would be able to intervene, however, if I accidentally signed a transaction spending my BTC to the wrong address.
April 18, 2019, 08:58:48 AM
I'm pretty surprised that the courts actually ruled in this favor.
As someone else had already mentioned in this thread, I'd assume that the contract would be declared void.
I don't think I'm a big fan of this, even if the 'victim' is a bank. It's just dishonest to do such a thing.
As someone else had already mentioned in this thread, I'd assume that the contract would be declared void.
I don't think I'm a big fan of this, even if the 'victim' is a bank. It's just dishonest to do such a thing.
April 17, 2019, 06:53:28 PM
I love seeing someone beat the system. If the underdog can play the game and win, I'm all for it.
I'm just so surprised there's banks that still do business in this archaic manner with paper documents and wet signatures. I have a bunch of credit cards. I've never had the opportunity to amend a credit card agreement. You apply, they send you a card with a boilerplate agreement, and if you don't agree to the terms you need to cancel the card. That's how any sensible bank should nip this problem in the bud.
I think that is not to be considered as a 'beating the system' when he secretly changed the terms to his own convenience. The laws called it 'fraud' for a reason and the contracts of such should be invalid.
April 17, 2019, 01:26:53 PM
Maybe in future cryptocurrencies can create a new form of the banking system. Less centralized and more flexible, where initiatives like that one cannot be easily suppressed.
we hope that way, even though the realization may be the generation after us. at the moment I just hope that bitcoin can be legalized in most countries in the world, and even then it has increased our assetsI learnt this morning when I was reading some post on this forum, where a forum user made us understand that France has already regulated cryptocurrency and doing everything possible to push the EU member into doing the same thing, wherein I really believe that they will be able to convince the member into following their own pattern, if all these can happen within a short time, then it is very possible it happens in our own generation.
April 17, 2019, 03:30:52 AM
He just took advantage of a system flaw, with the automation in the steps and others I am not surprised to read such a story.
Smart contracts have indeed their place but the thing is smart contracts are not only about cryptos. It can also be used (and it is) with the fiats system, insurance.. It's about IT protocols firstly. And to be an efficient smart contract the data needs to be accurate and this is where we have a limit with it.
Smart contracts have indeed their place but the thing is smart contracts are not only about cryptos. It can also be used (and it is) with the fiats system, insurance.. It's about IT protocols firstly. And to be an efficient smart contract the data needs to be accurate and this is where we have a limit with it.
Lol. A bank rep not reviewing an agreement with a customer at the same time the customer altered the agreement. The legalities involved here can make your head ache. Kinda admired how he got away with it in the first place.
April 17, 2019, 01:45:28 AM
Bitcoin is a much simpler system. However, if contracts are needed then that is what ethereum is for. It is basically a smarter form of bitcoin where contracts are embedded in code
April 16, 2019, 10:18:56 PM
I don't know whether to laugh or be pissed off. It's an obvious hax that will cost the bank money in the meantime unless they can sue back and win.
I'm just so surprised there's banks that still do business in this archaic manner with paper documents and wet signatures. I have a bunch of credit cards. I've never had the opportunity to amend a credit card agreement. You apply, they send you a card with a boilerplate agreement, and if you don't agree to the terms you need to cancel the card. That's how any sensible bank should nip this problem in the bud.
Same for me, they just sent a card, the only choice I got is to either use it or call them and tell that I don't want it. Obviously none of the terms is agreeable but I took em anyway since I need it to not have to bring cash with me.
I'm just so surprised there's banks that still do business in this archaic manner with paper documents and wet signatures. I have a bunch of credit cards. I've never had the opportunity to amend a credit card agreement. You apply, they send you a card with a boilerplate agreement, and if you don't agree to the terms you need to cancel the card. That's how any sensible bank should nip this problem in the bud.
Same for me, they just sent a card, the only choice I got is to either use it or call them and tell that I don't want it. Obviously none of the terms is agreeable but I took em anyway since I need it to not have to bring cash with me.
April 16, 2019, 04:17:17 PM
In our books, this could easily fall as fraud, though I don't know much about the Russian law and whether this could fall under the favor of Mr. Argakov. or the bank. Altering the contracts in to one's favor without the consent of the other party involved is already something fishy, though in this case it should be reviewed by the banks and knowing that this has been a practice of theirs for the longest of time, Mr. Argakov just found a loophole to exploit and make something out of it.
I love seeing someone beat the system. If the underdog can play the game and win, I'm all for it.
I'm just so surprised there's banks that still do business in this archaic manner with paper documents and wet signatures. I have a bunch of credit cards. I've never had the opportunity to amend a credit card agreement. You apply, they send you a card with a boilerplate agreement, and if you don't agree to the terms you need to cancel the card. That's how any sensible bank should nip this problem in the bud.
April 16, 2019, 10:42:53 AM
In our books, this could easily fall as fraud, though I don't know much about the Russian law and whether this could fall under the favor of Mr. Argakov. or the bank. Altering the contracts in to one's favor without the consent of the other party involved is already something fishy, though in this case it should be reviewed by the banks and knowing that this has been a practice of theirs for the longest of time, Mr. Argakov just found a loophole to exploit and make something out of it. Should the banks read the document before signing it, they could have saved all the hassles and all the negative publicity, but it seems like their legal counsel is not doing their job properly for it to come to this. It's an odd and silly case, but it just shows a weakness banks have when it comes to dealing with things like this.
April 16, 2019, 10:16:18 AM
Maybe in future cryptocurrencies can create a new form of the banking system. Less centralized and more flexible, where initiatives like that one cannot be easily suppressed.
If you think the banking system will ever change for the better, then you're wishful thinking. If they haven't changed in the last few decades, they will not change in a fundamental way in the next decade or two.The bank system is not easy to be changed because it's connected to the government. But we could hope that with the existing of cryptocurrency, it will help the banking system to integrate with the blockchain so the banking system will be better than before so they can change the traditional way to the new era.
April 16, 2019, 05:33:48 AM
Quote
This news story could illustrate one advantage crypto currencies have over conventional banking and credit platforms in terms of them being less trust based. Smart contracts in crypto would likely be deliberately designed to prevent this form of exploit. While credit card companies as trust based systems would more commonly fail to recognize the attack vector.
Every so often I see stories in the news where a bank and consumer get into a legal dispute and the bank loses in impressive fashion. Years ago there was a guy who wore fake vampire teeth in news interview that sued wells fargo and won(news clip below):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oIxBVhGubI
Perhaps we will see less of this occurrence as financial institutions like banks make a transition to more algorithmically regulated banking which relies less on trust. Until then, I hope everyone enjoys humor and entertainment from this, while it lasts.
Every so often I see stories in the news where a bank and consumer get into a legal dispute and the bank loses in impressive fashion. Years ago there was a guy who wore fake vampire teeth in news interview that sued wells fargo and won(news clip below):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oIxBVhGubI
Perhaps we will see less of this occurrence as financial institutions like banks make a transition to more algorithmically regulated banking which relies less on trust. Until then, I hope everyone enjoys humor and entertainment from this, while it lasts.
Certainly ironic considering that these fine print T&Cs are exactly what financial institutions use to sometimes take advantage of their customers.
I'm not exactly sure how suing this guy for fraud is going to turn out for the bank, especially considering that a previous ruling was already made in favour of the borrower. Though, I certainly don't think that the type of compensation the guy is asking for is going to be handed out either.
At the end of the day, as you say, an immutable ledger may be needed to eliminate this type of problem (even though it may not be widespread). Whenever you involve a human in a certain task, including verifying contracts etc., there are bound to be errors and potential exploits available.
April 16, 2019, 03:21:04 AM
I guess it is a bad thing from both sides, we can't really say banks are frauds for making that type of money from stuff that doesn't cost anything but than say kudos to the man for beating the bank at their own game. If something is bad than its bad for everyone not just the banks.
I think he did beat the system in a way and than got away with it but I really instead of making the bank lose a lot of money (which they will take from other people in return) it should just teach them a lesson and fix their own contracts for credit cards. I would rather see millions of people benefit from this instead of just one man who outsmarted the bank. This version only helps argakov and it is temporary, its not going to sustain, but what I suggested could change the lives of many.
I think he did beat the system in a way and than got away with it but I really instead of making the bank lose a lot of money (which they will take from other people in return) it should just teach them a lesson and fix their own contracts for credit cards. I would rather see millions of people benefit from this instead of just one man who outsmarted the bank. This version only helps argakov and it is temporary, its not going to sustain, but what I suggested could change the lives of many.
April 15, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Maybe in future cryptocurrencies can create a new form of the banking system. Less centralized and more flexible, where initiatives like that one cannot be easily suppressed.
we hope that way, even though the realization may be the generation after us. at the moment I just hope that bitcoin can be legalized in most countries in the world, and even then it has increased our assets April 15, 2019, 05:39:20 PM
Maybe in future cryptocurrencies can create a new form of the banking system. Less centralized and more flexible, where initiatives like that one cannot be easily suppressed.
If you think the banking system will ever change for the better, then you're wishful thinking. If they haven't changed in the last few decades, they will not change in a fundamental way in the next decade or two.Their fee structure is so profitable and dependent on how the system has been, that even a slight change is something we should forget about. The best thing we can expect is that they switch to blockchains, but still, they are the one that will benefit.
They can keep using the blockchain for years without us even knowing about it. It's not in their interest to make that kind of information public, because people will start asking questions, which they don't right now.
April 15, 2019, 05:08:41 PM
Maybe in future cryptocurrencies can create a new form of the banking system. Less centralized and more flexible, where initiatives like that one cannot be easily suppressed.
April 15, 2019, 04:02:46 PM
This means also bank not read contract and they ask client to read it, bank not do what they say to their clients, this is their own fault and i wish banks to be more secured and read always email and documents and not treat them as good. The banks are on the wrong way.
April 15, 2019, 02:59:39 PM
I don't know how Russian laws work or what the judges are thinking about this one but clearly Argarkov have submitted a falsified version of the original contract and even though their is a negligence on Tinkoff's part clearly the fake contract isn't enforceable therefore it's voidable. The deceit of altering the original contract alone should be enough to counter the charges, which I am currently wonder how Tinkoff has lost the case. It's either the judges are not thinking straight or their lawyers are stupid to let this man take advantage of them.
Jump to: