3 ms·

> Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud. Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant. I'm pretty sure cryptoc

> Receiving money without being exposed to the danger of fraud. Receiving money via Credit Card is surprisingly risky for the merchant. I'm pretty sure cryptocurrencies just move the risks around, rather than eliminating them. Currently, the vendor is on the hook for stolen credit cards. With cryptocurrencies, the currency owner is on the hook. You could accomplish the same shift in the burden of risks with a legislative change if you wanted: it's just that credit card owners don't want that.

stale2002 8y ago
Being able to move the trust around is still valuable. IE, if the merchant is more trustworthy, then we want that trust to be with the merchant, and on with the customer. When the merchant is less trustworthy, well that's what credit cards are for.
- cjhopman 8y ago
  > Being able to move the trust around is still valuable. Right. And the current system handles that just fine. It would be trivial to make a credit card system where charges were irreversible. There hasn't been enough demand for that (possibly because it's not actually useful in a non-ideal world).
  - stale2002 8y ago
    No, it would not be trivial. You are still subject to the whims of the financial system. The financial system can still censor and reverse your transactions if it wants to. If the government comes knocking, then your transactions will be frozen, even if you have broken ZERO laws. All they have to do is vaguely threaten a credit card company behind the scenes, and the credit card company will freeze your transactions, even if the vague threat was illegal, and what you are doing is legal. And you will have zero recourse. Just go look at what happened to WikiLeaks back in 2010. WikiLeaks broke zero laws, and yet the financial system successfully censored donations to them, by blocking all credit card transactions. The use case of crypto is to send difficult to reverse, censorship resistant, near instant (yes, 10 minutes is small when compared to credit card settlement, which takes days), electronic transactions. And this worked great for WikiLeaks, as their crypto transactions were not censored, but their credit card transactions WERE.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

stale2002 8y ago

Being able to move the trust around is still valuable. IE, if the merchant is more trustworthy, then we want that trust to be with the merchant, and on with the customer. When the merchant is less trustworthy, well that's what credit cards are for.

cjhopman 8y ago
> Being able to move the trust around is still valuable. Right. And the current system handles that just fine. It would be trivial to make a credit card system where charges were irreversible. There hasn't been enough demand for that (possibly because it's not actually useful in a non-ideal world).
- stale2002 8y ago
  No, it would not be trivial. You are still subject to the whims of the financial system. The financial system can still censor and reverse your transactions if it wants to. If the government comes knocking, then your transactions will be frozen, even if you have broken ZERO laws. All they have to do is vaguely threaten a credit card company behind the scenes, and the credit card company will freeze your transactions, even if the vague threat was illegal, and what you are doing is legal. And you will have zero recourse. Just go look at what happened to WikiLeaks back in 2010. WikiLeaks broke zero laws, and yet the financial system successfully censored donations to them, by blocking all credit card transactions. The use case of crypto is to send difficult to reverse, censorship resistant, near instant (yes, 10 minutes is small when compared to credit card settlement, which takes days), electronic transactions. And this worked great for WikiLeaks, as their crypto transactions were not censored, but their credit card transactions WERE.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]