3 ms·

Thats a nice improvement for them Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, an

Thats a nice improvement for them Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, and compared to a portion of its.. marketcap? or by quantity of non-fraudulent transactions? Since bitcoin is all one kind of payment method (well lightning would be different), it would have to be compared to the other kinds mentioned in the nacha article too, ACH + ATM + Card fraud For bitcoin I would say the data doesnt exist, but even with the headlines trying to break down just bitcoin for that year, it would be fairly low I’m thinking, even $1bn in fraudulent irrecoverable transactions would be a single digit. Percent or maybe down to a couple basis points as well just like NACHA brags about

woodruffw 5y ago
> Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, and compared to a portion of its.. marketcap? or by quantity of non-fraudulent transactions? Yep, this is a serious problem when quantifying fraud in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It's concerning in its own right that we don't really have a reliable, standard way to quantify fraudulent behavior in cryptocurrencies. > Since bitcoin is all one kind of payment method (well lightning would be different), it would have to be compared to the other kinds mentioned in the nacha article too, ACH + ATM + Card fraud This doesn't make sense on two fronts. First, ATM fraud is ACH fraud, since ATM transactions are settled by ACH. In other words, you'd be double-counting there. Second, payment card fraud is diversified: it's either debit card fraud (which is also ACH-settled, and thus would be double-counted) or credit card fraud, which is fraud against the lending party and has its own (even simpler!) dispute resolution process. All told: we need actual numbers to make a coherent comparison here. In the absence of that comparison, ACH's performance on an absolute scale is admirable.
- vmception 5y ago
  I would agree but the only reason I separate atm withdrawals was because your nacha article did > The Fed also reported that card fraud went from accounting for less than two-thirds of the value of fraud in 2012 to more than three-quarters in 2015. “The fraud rate, by value, of card payments and ATM withdrawals combined increased from 7.99 basis points to 10.80 basis points,” the survey found. Peculiarly about a different set of years
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Sorry, I missed that. Yes, in that case, we should use the combined statistic.

woodruffw 5y ago

> Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, and compared to a portion of its.. marketcap? or by quantity of non-fraudulent transactions? Yep, this is a serious problem when quantifying fraud in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It's concerning in its own right that we don't really have a reliable, standard way to quantify fraudulent behavior in cryptocurrencies. > Since bitcoin is all one kind of payment method (well lightning would be different), it would have to be compared to the other kinds mentioned in the nacha article too, ACH + ATM + Card fraud This doesn't make sense on two fronts. First, ATM fraud is ACH fraud, since ATM transactions are settled by ACH. In other words, you'd be double-counting there. Second, payment card fraud is diversified: it's either debit card fraud (which is also ACH-settled, and thus would be double-counted) or credit card fraud, which is fraud against the lending party and has its own (even simpler!) dispute resolution process. All told: we need actual numbers to make a coherent comparison here. In the absence of that comparison, ACH's performance on an absolute scale is admirable.

vmception 5y ago
I would agree but the only reason I separate atm withdrawals was because your nacha article did > The Fed also reported that card fraud went from accounting for less than two-thirds of the value of fraud in 2012 to more than three-quarters in 2015. “The fraud rate, by value, of card payments and ATM withdrawals combined increased from 7.99 basis points to 10.80 basis points,” the survey found. Peculiarly about a different set of years
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Sorry, I missed that. Yes, in that case, we should use the combined statistic.