25 ms·

Great strawman. Parent post didn't mention physical cash. He mentioned credit cards, which have chargeback/purchase protection, and bank accounts, which have

• SilasX 13y ago
  That's not what strawman means, and the point is that different measures protect you from different things and you shouldn't fault one for not protecting against others (outside its "threat model"). Paper dollars are designed to protect against counterfeit. That's all. To protect against muggers requires either a) sacrificing the desirable properties of paper dollars, or b) use of a separate security layer (vaults, safes, holding little at a time on you, etc). In no case are those limitations a failing of the paper dollar itself. They likewise don't themselves protect against someone convincing you to give them your paper dollars under false pretenses. Same points apply: to handle that threat, you rely on laws, trust networks, escrows (like credit card arbitration) etc. Still not a problem with the dollar, just outside its threat model. I made the previous comment in the hopes of compressing that point into one sentence. Perhaps I failed, but at no point did I misattribute a position to the GGP. "Your position implies X" != "you are advocating X" ... even and especially if you're not advocating X!
  • danhak 13y ago
    The original post's point was that conventional banks and credit cards offer consumer protection. Your response was that physical cash offers no consumer protection. So you either misunderstood or misrepresented the original point.
    • SilasX 13y ago
      The original point was that 3rd party services can offer consumer protection. My point was that they can do this to bitcoin too. What did I misunderstand?