A recall can be issued up to 10 days after the submission of the initial payment if the request is initated by the debtor bank. Recall requests initiated by the customer directly can be filed up to 13 months after the transaction has been completed.
The recipient of the recall (the credited party of the original transaction that is being recalled)
can either accept or reject the recall request. A decision has to be returned to the sender within 15 days from receiving the recall request.
If the recall is accepted, the recipient can decide to return the entire payment amount or keep part of it (e.g. for processing costs or to cover the costs of the return).
https://api-docs.form3.tech/tutorial-sepa-instant-receive-a-recall.htmlchargebacks are a bane of merchants lives. many people try to 'recall' their money. its not rare. chargeback scamming is a big deal. and its not a simple 'the recipient chooses to reject the application'. what you find is that the customer can say "my bank account was hacked" and the bank favours the customer and does the recall without the merchants permission.
its like ebay, they favour the customer too.
bitcoins settlement irreversibility stops these things and makes people responsible of their assets.. altnets like LN are not new or innovated. they are old school banking economics with the same chargeback(punishment) loopholes and clauses.
altnetter want bitcoin to have replace by fee and conditional contracts(punishments) to introduce chargebacks into bitcoin.. shameful
But you're a one trick pony with no imagination.
Propose a solution then.
already have said many idea's. you know it as do your buddies. but the ignorance of you and your chums dont care about bitcoin scaling
heres a quick refresher
1. to prevent 'spam attacks' of people re-spending same value every block to fill blocks. the solution is not to make ALL transactions more expensive(current idiot model). its to actually use the blockheight of the utxo as a measure of how fresh the value is, if its less then X confirms. they pay more.
EG someone respending a 1confirm utxo pays 144x more then someone with a day old utxo
this way someone spending once a day is not paying the same high fee per transaction as a spammer spending 144 times a day.. simple logic and common sense approach. punish just the spammers, not everyone
2. there are other fee formulae's that do actually count all the bytes(like pre 2017 did) where they make a fairer fee charging system for all. and yes they can be implemented as a consensus rule, before you spout out the fake propaganda that fee's are not a rule. after all the ignore witness in fee costing(the vbyte code) is a rule.
3. if the worry is having a single transaction with 2000 signatures/scripts that can cause validation delays. simply limit tx maxsigops to being under 100 signatures
4. go back to lean transactions without all these lengthy 'witness' (special contract condition scripts/signatures)
5. its not about jumping to 100mb by tomorrow, its about taking out the bad math cludge of misguiding the 1mb limit that still exists and instead actually allow full transaction utility of 4mb which is now considered safe data amount per block. then we can actually see more tx count increases. and PERIODICALY increase, not leap to 100mb like the special boys club pretend is the only option on bitcoin, as their lame propagandised excuse to not want scaling