3 ms·
I think this may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. You're holding each method to different standards. Let's apply the same standards to each protocol:
by bdcs 13y ago
I think this may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. You're holding each method to different standards. Let's apply the same standards to each protocol:
The credit card transaction can't be double spent after 180 days (or however long the chargeback period lasts).
Bitcoin can't be double spent after your transaction is seen by the majority of mining nodes (ca. 10 seconds). Then, after a few blocks are mined (~30minutes) bitcoin offers unparalleled security.
TL;DR: When comparing credit card transactions' vs bitcoin transactions' hardness, use similar metrics for confirmation.
- MichaelGG 13y agoWhile correct, it doesn't really address the issue: Bitcoin isn't useful for such scenarios. Chargebacks are not quite the same. There's an investigation and so on. I can't repeatedly take my credit card out, buy $2000 cameras, and claim I didn't. Bitcoin doesn't have that safety measure.
- johnsoft 13y agoBitcoin nodes will reject transactions that conflict with ones they have already seen. Once the transaction is broadcasted, the only way to replace it would be to mine the next block and include it yourself. The only other feasible way to double spend a merchant would be to scour the topology and find a client that has low latency to the merchant you are trying to defraud, but much higher latency to any significant hashing power. Unless they have their node configured to accept incoming connections, which is not recommended for merchant nodes, the attack is very difficult to pull off and requires a significant element of luck to work. There are also companies like BitPay that will absorb the risk of a double spend in addition to handling your payment logistics, for a fee less than the typical credit card fee.