4 ms·

>You're either clueless or lying here. Surely, before claiming I could be lying you at least googled credit card chargebacks? This is an example from Discover

by grubles 11y ago

>You're either clueless or lying here. Surely, before claiming I could be lying you at least googled credit card chargebacks? This is an example from Discover: "If you have found a charge you believe is incorrect, you may request billing assistance. You have 120 days from the date of the transaction to open a dispute online. For disputes older than 120 days, please contact 1-800-DISCOVER. Most transactions can be disputed once the charge posts to your account, however, please wait until your first monthly statement after the transaction to report a missing transaction." https://www.discover.com/credit-cards/help-center/statements/dispute-charge.html https://www.discover.com/credit-cards/help-center/statements...

afreak 11y ago
This is what you said: > Credit cards take 180 days for the transaction to confirm. Now you're going on about chargebacks. Of course the window for a chargeback is going to have a lengthy period of time. Chargebacks involve a manual process where someone has to identify a payment that they wish to dispute. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
- grubles 11y ago
  >Now you're going on about chargebacks. What is with the attitude you have? I wasn't going on about anything, really. You brought up transaction times which are related to confirmation times. Anything other than bitcoin is molasses-like.
  - afreak 11y ago
    > What is with the attitude you have? I wasn't going on about anything, really. You brought up transaction times which are related to confirmation times. Anything other than bitcoin is molasses-like. How is a credit card "molasses-like" when it is capable at this very moment you're reading this response of doing 1,000 times more than Bitcoin? In the time it took to load this page (100 ms), at least 300 credit card transactions have successfully gone through whereas this cryptocurrency nonsense hasn't even completed one.
    - grubles 11y ago
      You don't get it. Every 7 or so transactions that bitcoin has processed in that couple or so seconds cannot be clawed back, as in NEVER, unless there is a flaw in very popular and important cryptographic technology which in of itself would mean a whole lot worse things can/will be happening besides your 0.01 BTC coffee being clawed back. Those 300 credit card transactions can be clawed back for up to 100+ days. If you are a fraud, you can sit back and relax for a few months before scamming someone.
      - acdha 11y ago
        > Every 7 or so transactions that bitcoin has processed in that couple or so seconds cannot be clawed back, as in NEVER Normal people read this and hear “if you don't notice theft instantly there's nothing you can do”. This is not the persuasive sales pitch which you seem to think it is.
        grubles 11y ago
        To clarify my stance: I am not pitching bitcoin to anyone on hackernews (this is not a Show HN). The ability to not claw back bitcoin is a reality, unless there are flaws in the technology behind bitcoin. I believe this is a feature and society could manage to change its ways regarding transacting as a result of that reality.
        acdha 11y ago
        So … how does anti-fraud work? There's no third party to process charge backs and unlike physical currency a theft can cross international borders near-instantly. This sounds like wire transfers but everyone is exposed by default and there's no third-party monitoring for fraud. How am I wrong for thinking that sounds like everyone having to pay for their own private security service?
        badgar 11y ago
        You are responding to a parent poster who wants "society ... to change its ways regarding transacting". They are directly arguing that society is wrong and needs fixing. You cannot convince someone making that argument by invoking empathy.
lazaroclapp 11y ago
Credit card transactions are reversible by a third party that is supposed to only exercise such power when it believes the original transaction is fraudulent, and is in turn accountable to a very robust legal system. With reversible bitcoin transactions, the person paying can unilaterally reverse the transaction in a definitive way, without any way to appeal the reversal. I think it's clear we are talking about fairly different threat models, even if you are all for fully irreversible transactions without any centralized control.
- afreak 11y ago
  This is precisely it. The idea that Bitcoin is going to work better than credit cards because you cannot claw transactions back and saying it leads to leads to less fraud is absurd. As a consumer, I like knowing that if I purchase something via my credit card that I have the ability to claw back my payment should I find that I have been defrauded. What is being missed by this person is that with Bitcoin there is no option for this and it relies on the honesty of all parties involved which does not make for a good model.
  - grubles 11y ago
    What you speak of RE: claw-back ability is easily solved by multisig transactions with bitcoin. However, the so called "moderator" must be trusted.
  - lazaroclapp 11y ago
    I mean, in many contexts I would ok to pay in a way that cannot, under any circumstances, be reversed. Specially if the other side of the transaction is equivalently irreversible (that's the whole idea behind smart contracts). For the things where reversing payments is a desired feature, you can build that on top of crypto-currencies (e.g. by using an escrow), so is not like it has to be the wild west. You can get reversible payments or irreversible payments (after confirmation) depending on what the transacting parties need. This flexibility is a good thing. The problem is that this recent change, allows you to claw back your payments without any third party signing off on it, and without your counterpart being able to appeal the claw back. It is also a "feature" most people don't know about, because it is the consequence of the low level implementation of something designed to solve another problem altogether. This change existing and being unknown will lead to more fraud vs plain old "irreversible" transactions. And it is strictly worse than being able to claw back your transactions by appealing to the credit card processor, even if under Bitcoin the payment becomes "fully irreversible" earlier than under card processor rules. The argument for why this is not a bug, is that even before this change, a transaction could be reversed via a double spend with a certain probability. However, this change makes unilaterally reversing a transaction trivial and certain for multiple hours after it was originally created.

by grubles 11y ago

afreak 11y ago

This is what you said: > Credit cards take 180 days for the transaction to confirm. Now you're going on about chargebacks. Of course the window for a chargeback is going to have a lengthy period of time. Chargebacks involve a manual process where someone has to identify a payment that they wish to dispute. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

grubles 11y ago
>Now you're going on about chargebacks. What is with the attitude you have? I wasn't going on about anything, really. You brought up transaction times which are related to confirmation times. Anything other than bitcoin is molasses-like.
- afreak 11y ago
  > What is with the attitude you have? I wasn't going on about anything, really. You brought up transaction times which are related to confirmation times. Anything other than bitcoin is molasses-like. How is a credit card "molasses-like" when it is capable at this very moment you're reading this response of doing 1,000 times more than Bitcoin? In the time it took to load this page (100 ms), at least 300 credit card transactions have successfully gone through whereas this cryptocurrency nonsense hasn't even completed one.
  - grubles 11y ago
    You don't get it. Every 7 or so transactions that bitcoin has processed in that couple or so seconds cannot be clawed back, as in NEVER, unless there is a flaw in very popular and important cryptographic technology which in of itself would mean a whole lot worse things can/will be happening besides your 0.01 BTC coffee being clawed back. Those 300 credit card transactions can be clawed back for up to 100+ days. If you are a fraud, you can sit back and relax for a few months before scamming someone.
    - acdha 11y ago
      > Every 7 or so transactions that bitcoin has processed in that couple or so seconds cannot be clawed back, as in NEVER Normal people read this and hear “if you don't notice theft instantly there's nothing you can do”. This is not the persuasive sales pitch which you seem to think it is.
      - grubles 11y ago
        To clarify my stance: I am not pitching bitcoin to anyone on hackernews (this is not a Show HN). The ability to not claw back bitcoin is a reality, unless there are flaws in the technology behind bitcoin. I believe this is a feature and society could manage to change its ways regarding transacting as a result of that reality.
        acdha 11y ago
        So … how does anti-fraud work? There's no third party to process charge backs and unlike physical currency a theft can cross international borders near-instantly. This sounds like wire transfers but everyone is exposed by default and there's no third-party monitoring for fraud. How am I wrong for thinking that sounds like everyone having to pay for their own private security service?
        badgar 11y ago
        You are responding to a parent poster who wants "society ... to change its ways regarding transacting". They are directly arguing that society is wrong and needs fixing. You cannot convince someone making that argument by invoking empathy.

lazaroclapp 11y ago

Credit card transactions are reversible by a third party that is supposed to only exercise such power when it believes the original transaction is fraudulent, and is in turn accountable to a very robust legal system. With reversible bitcoin transactions, the person paying can unilaterally reverse the transaction in a definitive way, without any way to appeal the reversal. I think it's clear we are talking about fairly different threat models, even if you are all for fully irreversible transactions without any centralized control.

afreak 11y ago
This is precisely it. The idea that Bitcoin is going to work better than credit cards because you cannot claw transactions back and saying it leads to leads to less fraud is absurd. As a consumer, I like knowing that if I purchase something via my credit card that I have the ability to claw back my payment should I find that I have been defrauded. What is being missed by this person is that with Bitcoin there is no option for this and it relies on the honesty of all parties involved which does not make for a good model.
- grubles 11y ago
  What you speak of RE: claw-back ability is easily solved by multisig transactions with bitcoin. However, the so called "moderator" must be trusted.
- lazaroclapp 11y ago
  I mean, in many contexts I would ok to pay in a way that cannot, under any circumstances, be reversed. Specially if the other side of the transaction is equivalently irreversible (that's the whole idea behind smart contracts). For the things where reversing payments is a desired feature, you can build that on top of crypto-currencies (e.g. by using an escrow), so is not like it has to be the wild west. You can get reversible payments or irreversible payments (after confirmation) depending on what the transacting parties need. This flexibility is a good thing. The problem is that this recent change, allows you to claw back your payments without any third party signing off on it, and without your counterpart being able to appeal the claw back. It is also a "feature" most people don't know about, because it is the consequence of the low level implementation of something designed to solve another problem altogether. This change existing and being unknown will lead to more fraud vs plain old "irreversible" transactions. And it is strictly worse than being able to claw back your transactions by appealing to the credit card processor, even if under Bitcoin the payment becomes "fully irreversible" earlier than under card processor rules. The argument for why this is not a bug, is that even before this change, a transaction could be reversed via a double spend with a certain probability. However, this change makes unilaterally reversing a transaction trivial and certain for multiple hours after it was originally created.