The correct link is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442877 Prosecuting a thief who orders online a package

The correct link is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442877 Prosecuting a thief who orders online a package to be shipped is as hard/easy if he used Bitcoin or a fraudulent CC. I would like to remind you you argued there were zero legal countermeasures for Bitcoin fraud, and this is clearly untrue. 0-conf txs are a thing, see the link. Although uncommon, they are becoming a bit more used as people demand faster transactions. But the reality is in most cases waiting 10-60 min doesn't matter (eg. wouldn't prevent a package ordered online from arriving in 2 days.) As to the P/E, I have demonstrated to you why the average P/E of the average company is probably closer to 3 than 20. On average, it's companies that are better than average that are taken public. So it makes sense that private companies have a worse P/E. "I'm sure there'll be examples of RTGS systems that have gone just as long with no reversed transactions" Still doesn't mean RTGS provide irreversibility, as you incorrectly claimed. I am repeating myself again, but Bitcoin's irreversibility is one of the biggest differentiator it has over non-cryptocurrencies. Seeing you refuse to acknowledge this is silly. "I'm not sure why any non-fraudulent business would prefer the former." I already told you: literally 1 in 2 persons involved in a transaction (the recipient) would prefer irreversibility. Is it so hard for you to understand why a legitimate non-fraudulent recipient would prefer the sender not have the ability to take the money back?