8 ms·

Chargebacks are also insanely useful. If my card is stolen I can get my money back, if my merchant tries to defraud me I have a recourse. I will never use bitco

Chargebacks are also insanely useful. If my card is stolen I can get my money back, if my merchant tries to defraud me I have a recourse. I will never use bitcoin for consumer transactions for this exact reason.

zorga 8y ago
Those aren't free, they drive up prices by a few percent and frankly fraud only matters for large transactions and/or untrusted merchants. Bitcoin is cash, not credit, and avoiding 2-3% of fees tacked on by credit card companies is more than enough reason to want internet cash for purchases where you're not concerned with fraud.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I know they’re not free, and I’m happy to pay for the service. I can name a large number of smallish purchases I would not have done online if I didn’t know that Visa would make it right should the unknown vendor stiff me. Bitcoin is piss poor cash, given the wild exchange rate swings and the ability for it to be stolen online. It literally has no property that I desire.
  - zorga 8y ago
    > Bitcoin is piss poor cash Agree, but I'm not promoting Bitcoin, I think it's poorly designed by someone who doesn't understand the properties of good money. Another crytpo with better properties will supersede it. It's the idea of crypto that's great, not the particular implementation of that idea called Bitcoin. Once you know an trust a vendor, paying with cash will eventually be a few percent cheaper just as it often is as brick and mortar places sometimes when they offer cash discounts because they too don't like the fees the cards companies force on them. It's not an either or scenario, it's a both scenario; you should have the option of cash or credit online, just like you do in the real world.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  frankly fraud only matters for large transactions Largeness is relative. The counter to your argument is that widespread use of existing payment methods means the market prefers them.
  - baddox 8y ago
    Where “the market” is a small number of firms with tremendous market power. “Market power” essentially means “power to do something other than what a competitive market would want.”
  - zorga 8y ago
    > The counter to your argument is that widespread use of existing payment methods means the market prefers them. That's not a valid argument. The market always prefers what "is" until a critical mass understands benefits of a new technology. The existing credit system was not designed for today's world, is pull based, and is rife with fraud on both the merchant and the consumer side. Merchants absolutely despise credit cards, we can't wait for something better to be invented. The market preferred horses when cars were first invented; it takes time for new technology to penetrate. Internet cash will be a thing, Bitcoin might not be the successful implementation of that thing, but that thing's time will come. Credit card companies are despised by merchants.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Market dominance is absolutely a fair argument for something being preferred by consumers, unless if you’re going to allege fraud or assert that everyone is dumb. It of course doesn’t mean that things will remain this way forever. Credit cards have risen to prominence within living memory, there’s no reason why this has to remain. But it also means that if you expect something to replace credit cards, it must overcome both consumer preference and comfort, as well as all the advantages that the incumbents have. As an aside, we have internet money. They’re called credit cards and debit cards, and we all use them daily to purchase ludicrous amounts of goods and services online and offline. What I have yet to see is an actual explanation for how any proposed “internet money” is superior to my Visa without relying on any ideological claims.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  The baseline price for payment processing is well below 2-3%. In the EU, credit card processing fees are capped at 0.3%, and these companies are still able to make a decent profit despite. What those high fees really come from is the need to cover the cost of all those rewards programs that are so ubiquitous in some countries such as the USA. Those would probably disappear pretty quickly in the presence of a law allowing merchants to add any processing fees (perhaps above some nominal baseline cost) on to the bill. 1% cash back doesn't seem like nearly so great a deal when you have to reckon with the fact that what's really going on is that you pay 2% more, and then the issuing bank gives half of it back to you, along with a generous dose of smoke up the ass, and then pockets the other half.
  - zorga 8y ago
    Solid point, thanks for the additional context.
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    > a law allowing merchants to add any processing fees (perhaps above some nominal baseline cost) on to the bill This!! So much. The status quo amounts to price manipulation that harms the market and is utter B.S. Item 8 from http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to...
    - joecool1029 8y ago
      Actually most states do permit credit card surcharges by the merchant. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Texas are the ones that ban it. Some of those states have pending litigation against those laws. Some of them also allow discounts for paying cash (as if it's any different than a surcharge for processing) There was a time from 2013 to 2017 that merchants were permitted by processing agreement to do it, but Visa and Mastercard convinced an appeals court to throw it out. A few places in my state still do surcharges, but it's pretty rare.
      - 8y ago
- vorticalbox 8y ago
  >frankly fraud only matters for large transactions. Maybe in the world of the wealthy.
cm2187 8y ago
On the other hand they are mostly related to the limitation of cards: you give the merchant a number with which he can draw an arbitrary amount, any time, and pass it on (or leak) to someone else. An authorization token for a single transaction to a specific party for a specific amount could probably work without chargebacks.
- Nursie 8y ago
  > An authorization token for a single transaction to a specific party for a specific amount could probably work without chargebacks. 1) This is precisely what you get from EMV transactions. A cryptogram covering these details, signed by your hardware token (card). Online transactions don't do this, it's true, but that's why we have the verified-by-visa type stuff. It's imperfect, I agree. 2) Chargebacks are still necessary, because it's not just about merchant overcharging or unauthorised transactions, it's about what happens when someone fails to ship, or sends you broken goods etc
  - cm2187 8y ago
    on 2), the token must be for a specific amount, a merchant shouldn't be allowed to double dip or charge more unless he specifically asks authorization to do so. On the merchant not delivering, I think this is really wrong. If you have a conflict with a merchant, I appreciate that reversing the payment is a convenient way to apply pressure but I think is not the fair way to do it. It should be legal process really (if it ever gets that far).
    - Nursie 8y ago
      > token must be for a specific amount With EMV transactions this is the case. I'd like to see the system of home card-readers spread, though it would add friction to online purchases. > On the merchant not delivering, I think this is really wrong. It's not only a perfectly fair way of doing it (if the merchant wishes to dispute it they can go to the courts), it's often the only way to do it, as merchants often disappear or make themselves uncontactable, or may feel no need to comply with legal process in the purchaser's country of origin. We have thousands of years of history of merchants ripping off consumers - "Caveat Emptor" for example. This is a measure to prevent the worst of it, and it creates a much safer market. Without it many people would just not transact with new entrants to the market, if at all.
decentralised 8y ago
Your card being stolen has nothing to do with chargebacks. Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device. You can also use multi-signature protections for large transactions, etc.
- Nursie 8y ago
  > Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device So long as the cryptocurrency hasn't gone already. If it has.. well whoops, bye bye money.
  - decentralised 8y ago
    Of course. Likewise, if you hold some bank notes in your wallet next to your credit card, an attack will deprive you or your money. The bank might cover any charges made on the card pending some admin and police work. For that service you pay a fee to the bank.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      Except we weren't talking about cash, we were talking about cards. Nice diversionary tactic there.
      - decentralised 8y ago
        "So long as the cryptocurrency hasn't gone already. If it has.. well whoops, bye bye money." This was the comment I replied to. It says money and I'm talking about money. Bank cards represent account holdership, not money. Losing a card entitles you to get a new one for a small charge. Your bank held funds are protected by law, and you can expect somewhere between 75% and 100% of your assets being covered from fraud.
        Nursie 8y ago
        In response to your stuff about chargebacks and lost phones. Let me retread the steps - You said - "Your card being stolen has nothing to do with chargebacks. Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device." You do this in order to try to establish cryptocurrency as being as secure in that situation as a credit card, i.e. theft resilient. I pointed out that if the cryptocurrency was already used, unlike with a credit card, you're unlikely ever to be able to recover the money. Then you started handwaving about cash. This appears to me to be a disingenuous move of the goalposts.
softawre 8y ago
Would you if you got a big discount? There's a games site that offers 30% off when you use BTC, and I frequently take them up on it.
- ric2b 8y ago
  Which website is it? Seems useful to me!

zorga 8y ago

Those aren't free, they drive up prices by a few percent and frankly fraud only matters for large transactions and/or untrusted merchants. Bitcoin is cash, not credit, and avoiding 2-3% of fees tacked on by credit card companies is more than enough reason to want internet cash for purchases where you're not concerned with fraud.

village-idiot 8y ago
I know they’re not free, and I’m happy to pay for the service. I can name a large number of smallish purchases I would not have done online if I didn’t know that Visa would make it right should the unknown vendor stiff me. Bitcoin is piss poor cash, given the wild exchange rate swings and the ability for it to be stolen online. It literally has no property that I desire.
- zorga 8y ago
  > Bitcoin is piss poor cash Agree, but I'm not promoting Bitcoin, I think it's poorly designed by someone who doesn't understand the properties of good money. Another crytpo with better properties will supersede it. It's the idea of crypto that's great, not the particular implementation of that idea called Bitcoin. Once you know an trust a vendor, paying with cash will eventually be a few percent cheaper just as it often is as brick and mortar places sometimes when they offer cash discounts because they too don't like the fees the cards companies force on them. It's not an either or scenario, it's a both scenario; you should have the option of cash or credit online, just like you do in the real world.
anigbrowl 8y ago
frankly fraud only matters for large transactions Largeness is relative. The counter to your argument is that widespread use of existing payment methods means the market prefers them.
- baddox 8y ago
  Where “the market” is a small number of firms with tremendous market power. “Market power” essentially means “power to do something other than what a competitive market would want.”
- zorga 8y ago
  > The counter to your argument is that widespread use of existing payment methods means the market prefers them. That's not a valid argument. The market always prefers what "is" until a critical mass understands benefits of a new technology. The existing credit system was not designed for today's world, is pull based, and is rife with fraud on both the merchant and the consumer side. Merchants absolutely despise credit cards, we can't wait for something better to be invented. The market preferred horses when cars were first invented; it takes time for new technology to penetrate. Internet cash will be a thing, Bitcoin might not be the successful implementation of that thing, but that thing's time will come. Credit card companies are despised by merchants.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Market dominance is absolutely a fair argument for something being preferred by consumers, unless if you’re going to allege fraud or assert that everyone is dumb. It of course doesn’t mean that things will remain this way forever. Credit cards have risen to prominence within living memory, there’s no reason why this has to remain. But it also means that if you expect something to replace credit cards, it must overcome both consumer preference and comfort, as well as all the advantages that the incumbents have. As an aside, we have internet money. They’re called credit cards and debit cards, and we all use them daily to purchase ludicrous amounts of goods and services online and offline. What I have yet to see is an actual explanation for how any proposed “internet money” is superior to my Visa without relying on any ideological claims.
bunderbunder 8y ago
The baseline price for payment processing is well below 2-3%. In the EU, credit card processing fees are capped at 0.3%, and these companies are still able to make a decent profit despite. What those high fees really come from is the need to cover the cost of all those rewards programs that are so ubiquitous in some countries such as the USA. Those would probably disappear pretty quickly in the presence of a law allowing merchants to add any processing fees (perhaps above some nominal baseline cost) on to the bill. 1% cash back doesn't seem like nearly so great a deal when you have to reckon with the fact that what's really going on is that you pay 2% more, and then the issuing bank gives half of it back to you, along with a generous dose of smoke up the ass, and then pockets the other half.
- zorga 8y ago
  Solid point, thanks for the additional context.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  > a law allowing merchants to add any processing fees (perhaps above some nominal baseline cost) on to the bill This!! So much. The status quo amounts to price manipulation that harms the market and is utter B.S. Item 8 from http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to...
  - joecool1029 8y ago
    Actually most states do permit credit card surcharges by the merchant. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Texas are the ones that ban it. Some of those states have pending litigation against those laws. Some of them also allow discounts for paying cash (as if it's any different than a surcharge for processing) There was a time from 2013 to 2017 that merchants were permitted by processing agreement to do it, but Visa and Mastercard convinced an appeals court to throw it out. A few places in my state still do surcharges, but it's pretty rare.
    - 8y ago
vorticalbox 8y ago
>frankly fraud only matters for large transactions. Maybe in the world of the wealthy.

cm2187 8y ago

On the other hand they are mostly related to the limitation of cards: you give the merchant a number with which he can draw an arbitrary amount, any time, and pass it on (or leak) to someone else. An authorization token for a single transaction to a specific party for a specific amount could probably work without chargebacks.

Nursie 8y ago
> An authorization token for a single transaction to a specific party for a specific amount could probably work without chargebacks. 1) This is precisely what you get from EMV transactions. A cryptogram covering these details, signed by your hardware token (card). Online transactions don't do this, it's true, but that's why we have the verified-by-visa type stuff. It's imperfect, I agree. 2) Chargebacks are still necessary, because it's not just about merchant overcharging or unauthorised transactions, it's about what happens when someone fails to ship, or sends you broken goods etc
- cm2187 8y ago
  on 2), the token must be for a specific amount, a merchant shouldn't be allowed to double dip or charge more unless he specifically asks authorization to do so. On the merchant not delivering, I think this is really wrong. If you have a conflict with a merchant, I appreciate that reversing the payment is a convenient way to apply pressure but I think is not the fair way to do it. It should be legal process really (if it ever gets that far).
  - Nursie 8y ago
    > token must be for a specific amount With EMV transactions this is the case. I'd like to see the system of home card-readers spread, though it would add friction to online purchases. > On the merchant not delivering, I think this is really wrong. It's not only a perfectly fair way of doing it (if the merchant wishes to dispute it they can go to the courts), it's often the only way to do it, as merchants often disappear or make themselves uncontactable, or may feel no need to comply with legal process in the purchaser's country of origin. We have thousands of years of history of merchants ripping off consumers - "Caveat Emptor" for example. This is a measure to prevent the worst of it, and it creates a much safer market. Without it many people would just not transact with new entrants to the market, if at all.

decentralised 8y ago

Your card being stolen has nothing to do with chargebacks. Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device. You can also use multi-signature protections for large transactions, etc.

Nursie 8y ago
> Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device So long as the cryptocurrency hasn't gone already. If it has.. well whoops, bye bye money.
- decentralised 8y ago
  Of course. Likewise, if you hold some bank notes in your wallet next to your credit card, an attack will deprive you or your money. The bank might cover any charges made on the card pending some admin and police work. For that service you pay a fee to the bank.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    Except we weren't talking about cash, we were talking about cards. Nice diversionary tactic there.
    - decentralised 8y ago
      "So long as the cryptocurrency hasn't gone already. If it has.. well whoops, bye bye money." This was the comment I replied to. It says money and I'm talking about money. Bank cards represent account holdership, not money. Losing a card entitles you to get a new one for a small charge. Your bank held funds are protected by law, and you can expect somewhere between 75% and 100% of your assets being covered from fraud.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        In response to your stuff about chargebacks and lost phones. Let me retread the steps - You said - "Your card being stolen has nothing to do with chargebacks. Your mobile could be stolen with your cryptowallet inside and you could do a remote wipe of the device." You do this in order to try to establish cryptocurrency as being as secure in that situation as a credit card, i.e. theft resilient. I pointed out that if the cryptocurrency was already used, unlike with a credit card, you're unlikely ever to be able to recover the money. Then you started handwaving about cash. This appears to me to be a disingenuous move of the goalposts.

softawre 8y ago

Would you if you got a big discount? There's a games site that offers 30% off when you use BTC, and I frequently take them up on it.

ric2b 8y ago
Which website is it? Seems useful to me!