The $100 tab paid in dimes causes severe inconvenience to the person trying to count them and to the person who has to take them to the bank to cash them in and wait for them to be counted again.
Their very reasonable question was: if you can't distinguish the reverse engineered traffic from the traffic through your own app in order to block it, then what harm is the traffic doing? Presumably it's flying under your rate limits, and the traffic has a valid session token from a real customer. If you're unable to single it out and return a 4xx, why does it matter where it's coming from?
I can think of a few reasons it might, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them. They generally boil down to "I won't be able to use my app to manipulate the user into taking actions they'd otherwise not take."
I'd be interested to hear if there are better reasons.
"if you can't distinguish the reverse engineered traffic from the traffic through your own app in order to block it, then what harm is the traffic doing?"
If you really believe this you'll use a custom user agent instead of spoofing Chrome. :-)
Some websites use HTTP referer to block traffic. Ask yourself if any reverse engineer would be stopped by what is obviously the website telling you not to access an endpoint.
I'll add that end users don't have complete information about the website. They can't know how many resources a website has to deal to reverse engineering (webmasters can't just play cat and mouse with you just because you're wasting their money) nor do they know the cost of an endpoint. I mean, most tech inclined use ad blockers when it's obvious 90% of the websites pay the cost of their endpoints by showing ads, so I doubt they would respect anything more subtle than that.
The only reason why "another client" can exist is due to limitations of the Internet itself.
If you could ensure that the web server can only be accessed by your client, you would do that, but there is no way to do this that can't be reverse-engineered.
Essentially your argument is that just because a door is open that means you're allowed to enter inside, and I don't believe that makes any sense.
The argument is that what you call "limitations of the Internet itself" is actually a feature, and an intended one at that. The state of things you're proposing is socially undesirable (and in many cases, anticompetitive). It's hard to extend analogies past this point, because the vision you're describing flies in the face of more fundamental social norms, and history of civilization in general.
It's not a limitation of the internet, it's a fundamental property of communication.
Imagine trying to validate that all letters sent to your company are written by special company-provided typewriters and you would run into the same fundamental limits.
Whenever you design any client/server architecture, the first rule should always be "never trust the client," for that very reason.
Rather than trying to work around that rule, put your effort into ensuring that the system is correct and resilient even in the face of malicious clients.
> If you really believe this you'll use a custom user agent instead of spoofing Chrome. :-)
Read up on the history of User Agent string, and why everyone claims they're Mozilla and "like Gecko". Yes, it's because of all the silly people who, since earliest days of the WWW, tried to change what they serve based on the contents of User-Agent header.
Not the greatest example. If someone has incurred a $100 debt to you, then, from a legal perspective, you must consider delivery of a thousand dimes as having paid the debt. You don't get a choice on that without prior contractual agreement.
I think it's the greatest example because it's something you're technically allowed to do but that you obviously shouldn't do because you're wasting other people's resources.
This is not an accurate reading of the code. Snopes quotes an FAQ on the US Treasury site (now missing, but presumably still correct) [0]:
> Q: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
> A: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
> This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
I specifically said "incurred a ... debt" and "without prior... agreement". As your source says
> In short, when a debt has been incurred by one party to another, and the parties have agreed that cash is to be the medium of exchange, then legal tender must be accepted if it is proffered in satisfaction of that debt.
You are correct that if cash is not accepted at all, or if payment is to happen ahead of the exchange of goods or services, you are not obligated to accept arbitrary cash.
No, your claim is backwards—if the parties have agreed that dimes are valid payment of debt then that agreement must be upheld. Absent a prior agreement to accept dimes, the party receiving the money may refuse any combination of currency that they see fit.
In other words, an agreement isn't required in order to refuse legal tender, an agreement would be required to make it mandatory.
A court might decide that an agreement to accept cash without specifying in what form was meant to include dimes, but I see no evidence anywhere that a court has to rule that way if the contextual evidence suggests something else was probably meant.
"legal tender" is a term of art that specifically means a creditor must accept it, and your big quote clearly supported this, discussing only the common misconception that legal tender means it can't be refused in an offer to purchase. You are arguing backwards yourself.
The law says that coinage is valid legal tender for an offer to settle a debt but the counterparty is not required to accept it... unless they contractually agreed to do so.
Only the U.S. government is required to accept payment in coins. Many states also require their agencies to accept payment in coinage but some have laws limiting the size of debts that can be paid this way.
That link is, again, about the difference between offers to purchase and offers to settle debts.
Think logically about this. What do you think legal tender even means otherwise? Why would you need a special term to denote a form of payment that a creditor can accept if they want to? I could accept settlement in jelly beans if I wanted to. The entire point is that you must accept legal tender, that is what makes it different from everything else.
Not the greatest example. If someone has incurred a $100 debt to you, then, from a legal perspective, you must consider delivery of a thousand dimes as having paid the debt. You don't get a choice on that without prior contractual agreement.
Just because you're right doesn't mean you aren't wrong.