4 ms·

Even legit vbendors screw up, or go bankrupt, or any number of other things. Chargeback and other consumer credit-card protections are very useful. Regulations

by Nursie 6y ago

Even legit vbendors screw up, or go bankrupt, or any number of other things. Chargeback and other consumer credit-card protections are very useful. Regulations don't prohibit irreversible transaction mechanisms, basically nobody wants them.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Regulations don't prohibit irreversible transaction mechanisms, basically nobody wants them. Please don't just make stuff up. Point me to the credit card I can get which doesn't allow for chargebacks. I want to use it to buy things from people I trust who don't trust me, because that is an actually useful thing that some people have a legitimate reason to do.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > I want to use it to buy things from people I trust who don't trust me 1. That makes you sound actually crazy. 2. I didn't say you could get a credit card that doesn't allow chargebacks, I said the regulations don't prohibit payment mechanisms without chargebacks. See for example cashiers cheques and bank transfers. There's a reason people avoid them, and a reason popular payment methods support them. The fact is that reversibility is a feature.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > That makes you sound actually crazy. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. You have a merchant with a sterling reputation. I'm a customer. They don't know me from Adam, but they know that a lot of their customers are unreliable. Suppose the product is bespoke or controversial, so they have a lot of problems with people placing an order and then backing out and refusing to pay after the work is already done or the product is already delivered. In a system with chargebacks, they have to eat the cost of that and pass it on to the honest customers. In a system without it, the people violating their agreement and backing out can't get their money back, and then honest customers like me don't have to pay more to cover them. So I'm willing to commit to trusting the merchant in exchange for not having to pay more. In this case forced reversibility is a cost to me, the customer. > See for example cashiers cheques and bank transfers. In other words, things that are de facto prohibited through inconvenience or risk. Like a website is going to get any customers if they have to drive to the bank and then mail a cashier's check. And disclosing your bank routing number would allow the merchant to withdraw more than agreed -- you then have to trust them with not the $20 purchase you're making (an acceptable risk) but the full balance of your account (not so much). Notice that the convenient equivalent to this that might actually be usable, i.e. debit cards, is back to having chargebacks.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      I'm sorry but the history of world has shown over and over again that merchants are the side of the equation that needs to be regulated and kept in check. Saying "I want no protections" marks you out as weird and historically somewhat illiterate. For your contrived example, a bank transfer would work just fine, and can be done online in seconds. Good luck if the 'trusted' merchant decides to cash in their 'trusted' reputation by taking a lot of people's cash and skipping town, or if their business just plain goes under before you can get your items, though. > In other words, things that are de facto prohibited through inconvenience or risk. This is not the same as prohibited. > And disclosing your bank routing number would allow the merchant to withdraw more than agree Why would you be exposing anything? Sending a bank transfer doesn't allow anyone to withdraw anything. A cashiers cheque even less so - it comes from the bank, not your account.

by Nursie 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Regulations don't prohibit irreversible transaction mechanisms, basically nobody wants them. Please don't just make stuff up. Point me to the credit card I can get which doesn't allow for chargebacks. I want to use it to buy things from people I trust who don't trust me, because that is an actually useful thing that some people have a legitimate reason to do.

Nursie 6y ago
> I want to use it to buy things from people I trust who don't trust me 1. That makes you sound actually crazy. 2. I didn't say you could get a credit card that doesn't allow chargebacks, I said the regulations don't prohibit payment mechanisms without chargebacks. See for example cashiers cheques and bank transfers. There's a reason people avoid them, and a reason popular payment methods support them. The fact is that reversibility is a feature.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > That makes you sound actually crazy. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. You have a merchant with a sterling reputation. I'm a customer. They don't know me from Adam, but they know that a lot of their customers are unreliable. Suppose the product is bespoke or controversial, so they have a lot of problems with people placing an order and then backing out and refusing to pay after the work is already done or the product is already delivered. In a system with chargebacks, they have to eat the cost of that and pass it on to the honest customers. In a system without it, the people violating their agreement and backing out can't get their money back, and then honest customers like me don't have to pay more to cover them. So I'm willing to commit to trusting the merchant in exchange for not having to pay more. In this case forced reversibility is a cost to me, the customer. > See for example cashiers cheques and bank transfers. In other words, things that are de facto prohibited through inconvenience or risk. Like a website is going to get any customers if they have to drive to the bank and then mail a cashier's check. And disclosing your bank routing number would allow the merchant to withdraw more than agreed -- you then have to trust them with not the $20 purchase you're making (an acceptable risk) but the full balance of your account (not so much). Notice that the convenient equivalent to this that might actually be usable, i.e. debit cards, is back to having chargebacks.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    I'm sorry but the history of world has shown over and over again that merchants are the side of the equation that needs to be regulated and kept in check. Saying "I want no protections" marks you out as weird and historically somewhat illiterate. For your contrived example, a bank transfer would work just fine, and can be done online in seconds. Good luck if the 'trusted' merchant decides to cash in their 'trusted' reputation by taking a lot of people's cash and skipping town, or if their business just plain goes under before you can get your items, though. > In other words, things that are de facto prohibited through inconvenience or risk. This is not the same as prohibited. > And disclosing your bank routing number would allow the merchant to withdraw more than agree Why would you be exposing anything? Sending a bank transfer doesn't allow anyone to withdraw anything. A cashiers cheque even less so - it comes from the bank, not your account.