3 ms·

>Wikipedia summary on credit card fraud puts it at just 0.07% Yes that's true, Wikipedia does say that, but please think about that number for a minute. 0.07%

>Wikipedia summary on credit card fraud puts it at just 0.07% Yes that's true, Wikipedia does say that, but please think about that number for a minute. 0.07% With all the wailing and moaning we hear about credit card fraud and identity theft every day, does that figure sound plausible? Would anyone really care about fraud if the cost was actually that low? Regarding the accuracy of that figure, I'll refer you to one of my previous comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506761 Certainly it's true that Bitcoin has none of the consumer protection features of credit cards, and that will be a major deterrent to consumers in many situations. It's also true that differentiated pricing isn't something that every merchant will just want to casually drop in. As for the Durbin Amendment, you seem to know more about this than me, so I'll ask you a question: Since it was introduced, has there been any significant reduction in the percentage of revenue that merchants lose as a result of identity theft (card not present) or 'friendly fraud' (chargebacks)?

abalone 13y ago
Thanks for reading the report behind the Wikipedia summary. I just did as well and I agree it's more the in ballpark of 1%. You should update Wikipedia. The bigger question here is whether bitcoin can actually improve on this or just change the type of fraud that happens. If for example it shifts the burden from merchants (who absorb most of it with cards) to consumers (who can never recover lost bitcoins) then it's not going to gain traction. It's got to appeal to both sides of the market.
- FatalLogic 13y ago
  Yes, to gain traction, Bitcoin would have to be used in a way that appeals to both sides of the market. Both sides have to somehow share in any savings that it brings. It also has to be significantly better than the status quo. There are many markets where using Bitcoin currently doesn't have a significant advantage over the existing payment options, I think. In fact, I'm fairly sure there is often a net greater cost spread across both parties if they use Bitcoin, if you consider the case where someone exchanges other money for bitcoins in order to pay with bitcoins, and the merchant exchanges the bitcoins for other money. However, and this is an important point, Bitcoin does not have to be suitable for all markets worldwide to establish a presence in some markets. In fact, it doesn't even have to appeal to every merchant operating in a market - just to some of them, perhaps those with the lowest profit margin. If Bitcoin is to succeed as a method of payment, then I expect a scenario where Bitcoin gains a small bridgehead in niche markets, which then slowly expands to some other markets. Markets that suffer the largest burden of ID theft/chargeback fraud as a percentage of profit seem to be the most promising candidates for that bridgehead. An online merchant with a 4% net profit margin, who is also in a high risk market where they're losing 1% of revenue (i.e. 25% of profit) to fraud, might consider offering a 10% discount to customers who use Bitcoin, for example. I'd guess the reasons that we don't see so this happening very often, so far, are: lack of familiarity with Bitcoin on the part of merchants, lack of sufficient volume to make it worthwhile to add a new payment method, and finally, some early adopters are still willing to spend bitcoins for ideological reasons or because they made an enormous profit by buying in early, so there's no need to offer those people an incentive. Table of average net profit margin by industry, Retail (Internet) has an average 3.37% margin: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/...
  - abalone 13y ago
    I don't see the logic of a seller offering a 10% discount to save 1%. That makes no sense.
    - FatalLogic 13y ago
      Yes, you're right, that should have been a 1% discount, not 10% - thanks for the correction

abalone 13y ago

Thanks for reading the report behind the Wikipedia summary. I just did as well and I agree it's more the in ballpark of 1%. You should update Wikipedia. The bigger question here is whether bitcoin can actually improve on this or just change the type of fraud that happens. If for example it shifts the burden from merchants (who absorb most of it with cards) to consumers (who can never recover lost bitcoins) then it's not going to gain traction. It's got to appeal to both sides of the market.

FatalLogic 13y ago
Yes, to gain traction, Bitcoin would have to be used in a way that appeals to both sides of the market. Both sides have to somehow share in any savings that it brings. It also has to be significantly better than the status quo. There are many markets where using Bitcoin currently doesn't have a significant advantage over the existing payment options, I think. In fact, I'm fairly sure there is often a net greater cost spread across both parties if they use Bitcoin, if you consider the case where someone exchanges other money for bitcoins in order to pay with bitcoins, and the merchant exchanges the bitcoins for other money. However, and this is an important point, Bitcoin does not have to be suitable for all markets worldwide to establish a presence in some markets. In fact, it doesn't even have to appeal to every merchant operating in a market - just to some of them, perhaps those with the lowest profit margin. If Bitcoin is to succeed as a method of payment, then I expect a scenario where Bitcoin gains a small bridgehead in niche markets, which then slowly expands to some other markets. Markets that suffer the largest burden of ID theft/chargeback fraud as a percentage of profit seem to be the most promising candidates for that bridgehead. An online merchant with a 4% net profit margin, who is also in a high risk market where they're losing 1% of revenue (i.e. 25% of profit) to fraud, might consider offering a 10% discount to customers who use Bitcoin, for example. I'd guess the reasons that we don't see so this happening very often, so far, are: lack of familiarity with Bitcoin on the part of merchants, lack of sufficient volume to make it worthwhile to add a new payment method, and finally, some early adopters are still willing to spend bitcoins for ideological reasons or because they made an enormous profit by buying in early, so there's no need to offer those people an incentive. Table of average net profit margin by industry, Retail (Internet) has an average 3.37% margin: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/...
- abalone 13y ago
  I don't see the logic of a seller offering a 10% discount to save 1%. That makes no sense.
  - FatalLogic 13y ago
    Yes, you're right, that should have been a 1% discount, not 10% - thanks for the correction