4 ms·

This is just poor reasoning. There would be more dishonest merchants if the possibility of chargebacks ceased to exist. Your reasoning is like saying look how s

This is just poor reasoning. There would be more dishonest merchants if the possibility of chargebacks ceased to exist. Your reasoning is like saying look how safe this town is, guess we don’t need police anymore. And to say that virtually no merchant acceptance[1] is an “irrelevant argument” is laughable. Merchants have little incentive to spend money and effort to add support for an obscure payment method that virtually no one uses and likely never will, due to its reduction in consumer benefits. Apple Pay piggybacked the rollout of contactless terminals which gave it support at millions of locations out of the gate, and fully supports standard consumer protections and reward programs. Finally, “person-to-person payments” is completely irrelevant to person-to-business transactions. But even in that corner Apple Pay will very soon be superior to any other method for “paying back lunch money to a coworker”. They are rolling out P2P this fall which supports all debit cards, is free, instantaneous, and you can spend the money right away at any Apple Pay merchant or send it to your bank account. That cuts your argument down to just avoiding transaction limits and authorization at merchants you trust. Extremely narrow use case, so no way there’s going to be enough consumer interest to drive merchant adoption. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/bitcoin-acceptance-among-retailers-is-low-and-getting-lower https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/bitcoin-a...

mrb 9y ago
«There would be more dishonest merchants if the possibility of chargebacks ceased to exist» Yes there will probably be a minor uptick in merchants being dishonest. But I doubt it will be as bad as you make it to be. Many other factors push merchants to stay honest: legal repercussions, damaged reputation, etc. «And to say that virtually no merchant acceptance[1] is an “irrelevant argument” is laughable» Irrelevant was the wrong word. I meant illogical. Your argument is like saying in the early days of Blu-ray that "no one will buy Blu-ray discs because no one has Blu-ray players". «Merchants have little incentive» Second time you say it, second time you are wrong. I already pointed out their main (largest!) incentive to accept BTC is to avoid chargeback fraud. This fraud is a major problem for merchants. They can go bankrupt (eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Chp12sEnWk&t=45m0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Chp12sEnWk&t=45m0s) or be drawn into costly suits with no way to recover the money (https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5r9nqi/credit_card_chargebacks_for_100000_dollars/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5r9nqi/credit_...). Apple Pay P2P will be riddled with roadblocks. For starters most people will not be able to use it as it requires a $500 device (iPhone). I guarantee you there will be transaction limits, delays in access to funds, etc. All things that Bitcoin solves.
- abalone 9y ago
  > Yes there will probably be a minor uptick in merchants being dishonest. But I doubt it will be as bad... Simply wishful thinking. If that were the case consumer protections never would have been a very interesting feature. But they are. Especially for ecommerce. > Your argument is like saying in the early days of Blu-ray that "no one will buy Blu-ray discs... No and I clearly stated otherwise. Apple Pay is more like launching a new disc standard that is compatible with millions of existing players already deployed, compared to one that requires brand new hardware and has fewer features. No contest. You also ignored -- probably because it is in your interest to ignore it -- that the reason merchants have no incentive to adopt is that nobody uses it. Payments are a two-sided market. Advances need to offer benefits to both sides of the market. You've only cited an advantage to one side, the merchant, which comes directly at the cost of a regression in benefits to the other side, the consumer. Bitcoin as it stands is a major regression in consumer benefits, and you've only managed to cite one extremely narrow case where it offers any advantage whatsoever (no transaction limits or approval step). This is nowhere near enough to offer a compelling value proposition to consumers. As for P2P, your own use case was sending lunch money. You've offered nothing to suggest that Apple Pay won't dominate this category. You're also incorrect in your "guarantee" about delays in access to funds; they are debit transactions that process instantly.
  - mrb 9y ago
    «Simply wishful thinking» People will pay in BTC only merchants that they already trust. Think high-reputation businesses like Amazon, Costco. Do you really think companies like that would start being dishonest if they accepted bitcoins? «compared to one that requires brand new hardware» No, accepting Bitcoin doesn't require new hardware. It's a software update to a website or to a point-of-sale. «You also ignored -- probably because it is in your interest to ignore it -- that the reason merchants have no incentive to adopt is that nobody uses it» You can continue writing they have "no incentive" but it doesn't make it true. This is the 3rd time you ignore it, and the 3rd time I point it out: their #1 incentive to accept BTC is to avoid chargeback fraud. Will I have to repeat it a 4th time? As to "nobody uses it", I am not ignoring you, it is simply that you are wrong. Usage is growing: we got from 0 to 160,000 merchants in a few years, the transaction rate is doubling every 18 months (not due to speculation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281860) «Bitcoin as it stands is a major regression in consumer benefits» It is a (small) regression, yes, no denying that, but it is far outweighed by the advantages: permissionless, near-instant international payments, no inflation, censorship-resistant, gives access to the underbanked/unbanked, etc. As to Apple P2P, it is pointless to continue discussing it before it is rolled out and before we have a clear idea of its advantages and inconvenients. But I maintain my position that, if not delays, there will be transactions limits, and it also won't ever be used widely (for starters, only 2-3% of the world population has an iPhone.)

mrb 9y ago

«There would be more dishonest merchants if the possibility of chargebacks ceased to exist» Yes there will probably be a minor uptick in merchants being dishonest. But I doubt it will be as bad as you make it to be. Many other factors push merchants to stay honest: legal repercussions, damaged reputation, etc. «And to say that virtually no merchant acceptance[1] is an “irrelevant argument” is laughable» Irrelevant was the wrong word. I meant illogical. Your argument is like saying in the early days of Blu-ray that "no one will buy Blu-ray discs because no one has Blu-ray players". «Merchants have little incentive» Second time you say it, second time you are wrong. I already pointed out their main (largest!) incentive to accept BTC is to avoid chargeback fraud. This fraud is a major problem for merchants. They can go bankrupt (eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Chp12sEnWk&t=45m0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Chp12sEnWk&t=45m0s) or be drawn into costly suits with no way to recover the money (https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5r9nqi/credit_card_chargebacks_for_100000_dollars/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5r9nqi/credit_...). Apple Pay P2P will be riddled with roadblocks. For starters most people will not be able to use it as it requires a $500 device (iPhone). I guarantee you there will be transaction limits, delays in access to funds, etc. All things that Bitcoin solves.

abalone 9y ago
> Yes there will probably be a minor uptick in merchants being dishonest. But I doubt it will be as bad... Simply wishful thinking. If that were the case consumer protections never would have been a very interesting feature. But they are. Especially for ecommerce. > Your argument is like saying in the early days of Blu-ray that "no one will buy Blu-ray discs... No and I clearly stated otherwise. Apple Pay is more like launching a new disc standard that is compatible with millions of existing players already deployed, compared to one that requires brand new hardware and has fewer features. No contest. You also ignored -- probably because it is in your interest to ignore it -- that the reason merchants have no incentive to adopt is that nobody uses it. Payments are a two-sided market. Advances need to offer benefits to both sides of the market. You've only cited an advantage to one side, the merchant, which comes directly at the cost of a regression in benefits to the other side, the consumer. Bitcoin as it stands is a major regression in consumer benefits, and you've only managed to cite one extremely narrow case where it offers any advantage whatsoever (no transaction limits or approval step). This is nowhere near enough to offer a compelling value proposition to consumers. As for P2P, your own use case was sending lunch money. You've offered nothing to suggest that Apple Pay won't dominate this category. You're also incorrect in your "guarantee" about delays in access to funds; they are debit transactions that process instantly.
- mrb 9y ago
  «Simply wishful thinking» People will pay in BTC only merchants that they already trust. Think high-reputation businesses like Amazon, Costco. Do you really think companies like that would start being dishonest if they accepted bitcoins? «compared to one that requires brand new hardware» No, accepting Bitcoin doesn't require new hardware. It's a software update to a website or to a point-of-sale. «You also ignored -- probably because it is in your interest to ignore it -- that the reason merchants have no incentive to adopt is that nobody uses it» You can continue writing they have "no incentive" but it doesn't make it true. This is the 3rd time you ignore it, and the 3rd time I point it out: their #1 incentive to accept BTC is to avoid chargeback fraud. Will I have to repeat it a 4th time? As to "nobody uses it", I am not ignoring you, it is simply that you are wrong. Usage is growing: we got from 0 to 160,000 merchants in a few years, the transaction rate is doubling every 18 months (not due to speculation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281860) «Bitcoin as it stands is a major regression in consumer benefits» It is a (small) regression, yes, no denying that, but it is far outweighed by the advantages: permissionless, near-instant international payments, no inflation, censorship-resistant, gives access to the underbanked/unbanked, etc. As to Apple P2P, it is pointless to continue discussing it before it is rolled out and before we have a clear idea of its advantages and inconvenients. But I maintain my position that, if not delays, there will be transactions limits, and it also won't ever be used widely (for starters, only 2-3% of the world population has an iPhone.)