4 ms·

> Credit cards generally verify in seconds, so this is a significant difference Which is equivalent to a 0 confirmation transaction, so no it's not a differenc

> Credit cards generally verify in seconds, so this is a significant difference Which is equivalent to a 0 confirmation transaction, so no it's not a difference. Cards can be reversed for months, that's what 6 confirmations is competing with.

grey-area 13y ago
Which is equivalent to a 0 confirmation transaction, so no it's not a difference. The CC issuer is queried for the card status, funds available, address etc, and transactions are accepted or declined based on that information. Sometimes there's even an extra verification step directly contacting the issuers bank to check a passcode (SecureCode), and all that is reversible afterward if a mistake or fraud is detected. In what way is that analogous to a 0 confirmation irreversible bitcoin transaction?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Safety for the merchant. First off, funds don't need to be checked, there is not a card status or funds available, address is not necessary so all of those things are problems cards have that Bitcoin doesn't; they aren't relevant. It is just as safe to accept a 0 confirmation transaction as it is to accept a credit card. In both cases, the transaction could be essentially reversed either by a double spend or by a charge-back. And frankly, a charge-back is far more likely than a double spend. In both cases, the merchant is equally out. Bitcoin typically clears in less than an hour while cards don't clear for months. There is far more risk of a charge-back in months than there is of a double spend in the milliseconds it'd have to occur to be successful. Cards offer more safety to the consumer of a fraudulent vendor of course, but that's the nature of cash and that's when you use escrow if it's big enough to worry you. However, fraudulent customers are far more common than fraudulent vendors; it's the vendors who need the most protection here and it's the vendors the current system disfavors.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> Safety for the merchant. Sorry, but f*ck the merchant. We have thousands of years of history of consumers being ripped off by merchants. Laws and payment methods have spent the last few decades arranging themselves on the consumer's side and you want to rebalance evrything in favour of the people who have (historically and continually) been ripping the rest of us off? No thanks.
    - aianus 13y ago
      This insurance is not free. I want the option of saving the 3% interchange when I'm dealing with a merchant I trust, like Amazon.com for example.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      Merchants are ripped off by consumers far more then consumers are ripped off by merchants. That's reflected in the prices of goods which means the consumers are still being fucked by it. Saying fuck the merchant is profoundly ignorant; it's always the consumer who is fucked in the end.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> Merchants are ripped off by consumers far more then consumers are ripped off by merchants. As it should be. >> That's reflected in the prices of goods which means the consumers are still being fucked by it. Not anywhere near as much as they get screwed withot it. >> Saying fuck the merchant is profoundly ignorant; it's always the consumer who is fucked in the end. Disagree.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - grey-area 13y ago
    If it's 0 confirmation, what exactly is checked? I'm not convinced vendors are the important party here, they are making a sale and the onus is on them to provide an easy method of payment. Convincing customers to give up the protections of CCs or other digital cash payments would be a very hard battle. Escrow is not a viable alternative to verified identities in transactions, and for most consumers the slim advantages of Bitcoin are far outweighed by the numerous disadvantages.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > If it's 0 confirmation, what exactly is checked? That's it's been broadcast to the network. > Convincing customers to give up the protections of CCs or other digital cash payments would be a very hard battle. No it won't, customers don't like sharing their credit card information online, it's why Paypal is still in business. > and for most consumers the slim advantages of Bitcoin are far outweighed by the numerous disadvantages. Not when they trust their vendors. I trust Amazon for example, I don't need to pay a few extra percent to the card company for consumer protection. Bad reviews work far better in getting a vendor to act.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> No it won't, customers don't like sharing their credit card information online, it's why Paypal is still in business. Paypal is in business because it's easy, nothing to do with giving out CC details. >> Not when they trust their vendors. I trust Amazon for example, I don't need to pay a few extra percent to the card company for consumer protection. Then you'll end up paying a few percent to amazon to protect you from vendors in their marketplace. Comes down to the same thing. >> Bad reviews work far better in getting a vendor to act. Typical libertarian nonsense. It doesn't matter if I get ripped off, I'll leave a bad review! We don't need health regulations for restaurants, if I get food poisoning and die I'll just never eat there gain! Reality does not work that way, and we have all of recorded history to prove it.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Libertarian nonsense huh, despite what I said being completely true on amazon, and me not being a libertarian but a bleeding heart liberal, I'm just going to say you're trolling for a political argument with such idiotic abandon that I'm not wasting another breath on you. Go troll reddit.

grey-area 13y ago

Which is equivalent to a 0 confirmation transaction, so no it's not a difference. The CC issuer is queried for the card status, funds available, address etc, and transactions are accepted or declined based on that information. Sometimes there's even an extra verification step directly contacting the issuers bank to check a passcode (SecureCode), and all that is reversible afterward if a mistake or fraud is detected. In what way is that analogous to a 0 confirmation irreversible bitcoin transaction?

gnaritas 13y ago
Safety for the merchant. First off, funds don't need to be checked, there is not a card status or funds available, address is not necessary so all of those things are problems cards have that Bitcoin doesn't; they aren't relevant. It is just as safe to accept a 0 confirmation transaction as it is to accept a credit card. In both cases, the transaction could be essentially reversed either by a double spend or by a charge-back. And frankly, a charge-back is far more likely than a double spend. In both cases, the merchant is equally out. Bitcoin typically clears in less than an hour while cards don't clear for months. There is far more risk of a charge-back in months than there is of a double spend in the milliseconds it'd have to occur to be successful. Cards offer more safety to the consumer of a fraudulent vendor of course, but that's the nature of cash and that's when you use escrow if it's big enough to worry you. However, fraudulent customers are far more common than fraudulent vendors; it's the vendors who need the most protection here and it's the vendors the current system disfavors.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> Safety for the merchant. Sorry, but f*ck the merchant. We have thousands of years of history of consumers being ripped off by merchants. Laws and payment methods have spent the last few decades arranging themselves on the consumer's side and you want to rebalance evrything in favour of the people who have (historically and continually) been ripping the rest of us off? No thanks.
  - aianus 13y ago
    This insurance is not free. I want the option of saving the 3% interchange when I'm dealing with a merchant I trust, like Amazon.com for example.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    Merchants are ripped off by consumers far more then consumers are ripped off by merchants. That's reflected in the prices of goods which means the consumers are still being fucked by it. Saying fuck the merchant is profoundly ignorant; it's always the consumer who is fucked in the end.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> Merchants are ripped off by consumers far more then consumers are ripped off by merchants. As it should be. >> That's reflected in the prices of goods which means the consumers are still being fucked by it. Not anywhere near as much as they get screwed withot it. >> Saying fuck the merchant is profoundly ignorant; it's always the consumer who is fucked in the end. Disagree.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- grey-area 13y ago
  If it's 0 confirmation, what exactly is checked? I'm not convinced vendors are the important party here, they are making a sale and the onus is on them to provide an easy method of payment. Convincing customers to give up the protections of CCs or other digital cash payments would be a very hard battle. Escrow is not a viable alternative to verified identities in transactions, and for most consumers the slim advantages of Bitcoin are far outweighed by the numerous disadvantages.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > If it's 0 confirmation, what exactly is checked? That's it's been broadcast to the network. > Convincing customers to give up the protections of CCs or other digital cash payments would be a very hard battle. No it won't, customers don't like sharing their credit card information online, it's why Paypal is still in business. > and for most consumers the slim advantages of Bitcoin are far outweighed by the numerous disadvantages. Not when they trust their vendors. I trust Amazon for example, I don't need to pay a few extra percent to the card company for consumer protection. Bad reviews work far better in getting a vendor to act.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> No it won't, customers don't like sharing their credit card information online, it's why Paypal is still in business. Paypal is in business because it's easy, nothing to do with giving out CC details. >> Not when they trust their vendors. I trust Amazon for example, I don't need to pay a few extra percent to the card company for consumer protection. Then you'll end up paying a few percent to amazon to protect you from vendors in their marketplace. Comes down to the same thing. >> Bad reviews work far better in getting a vendor to act. Typical libertarian nonsense. It doesn't matter if I get ripped off, I'll leave a bad review! We don't need health regulations for restaurants, if I get food poisoning and die I'll just never eat there gain! Reality does not work that way, and we have all of recorded history to prove it.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Libertarian nonsense huh, despite what I said being completely true on amazon, and me not being a libertarian but a bleeding heart liberal, I'm just going to say you're trolling for a political argument with such idiotic abandon that I'm not wasting another breath on you. Go troll reddit.