[reaperducer]

I guess the opposite could also be asked: Why doesn't the EU use something proven, durable, redundant, and sensible like checks instead of relying on fragile computers that have thousands more points of failure?

[IshKebab]

Because cheques are unreliable, insecure, slow, inconvenient and expensive, and electronic bank transfers solve literally all of those issues. What kind of a stupid question is that?

Do you think cheques are not processed by computers?

[reaperducer]

cheques are unreliable, insecure, slow, inconvenient and expensive, and electronic bank transfers solve literally all of those issues.

I'll give you "slow," but it depends on how you define slow. Checks where I am often clear in a day. Rarely longer than two days.

As for the rest, no, those problems are not solved by replacing checks with electronic transfers. They still exist, just in different forms.

And I never said checks aren't processed by computers. I stated that replacing checks with computers adds more points of failure.

Or do you somehow not notice the litany of things that go wrong with computers every single day right on the front page of HN.

Just because it's all electronic doesn't mean it's failsafe.

[IshKebab]

> Checks where I am often clear in a day. Rarely longer than two days.

That's extremely slow. Electronic transfers are basically instant these days.

> I stated that replacing checks with computers adds more points of failure.

It literally doesn't. A cheque is one big point of failure that doesn't exist with electronic transfers.

> Or do you somehow not notice the litany of things that go wrong with computers every single day right on the front page of HN.

"Computers" aren't a single thing. Bank transfers are ridiculously reliable. Far more reliable than cheques. And as I've already explained, cheques are processed by computers too so you aren't somehow skipping the possibility of programming bugs by using them.