6 ms·

This is a new take on fees that I hadn't heard before. Your accounting leaves 1-2% left to make up for fraud, which you don't mention (you mention chargebacks

by awt 12y ago

This is a new take on fees that I hadn't heard before. Your accounting leaves 1-2% left to make up for fraud, which you don't mention (you mention chargebacks and consumer protection, but give no accounting of these costs in the fee structure), and was the main reason given for the fees in all descriptions I'd previously read. I haven't read that deeply on the topic so perhaps you're right. I would like to point out that the "specific niches" you mention but leave unspecified are far more important, and frankly, dangerous than cheap transactions. In fact I know of only one "niche" that Bitcoin serves well at all, which is that it provides absolute control over wealth in a way that gold cannot, in addition to providing far superior fungibility.

abalone 12y ago
I mean the wikipedia article on Credit Card Fraud clearly states the average loss is just 0.07%. [1] I don't know what you've been reading.. perhaps it's an indication of just how off the descriptions have been in these parts? Chargeback costs are borne by the merchant, by the way, so they don't really impact the fee. I mention them because they require a central, trusted intermediary to enforce them, meaning that it's not just a "detail" for bitcoin to implement later.. If you want to enforce consumer protections, it changes the whole system back into just another "Discover card"-like new network. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_fraud EDIT: I guess the exact figure's disputed but even at 1% there's plenty of margin for reward programs.
- FatalLogic 12y ago
  >I mean the wikipedia article on Credit Card Fraud clearly states the average loss is just 0.07%. That figure from Wikipedia is utterly wrong. The true figure appears to be about 15 times higher I happen to know it's wrong, because I pointed this out to you on two previous occasions when you cited the same figure from the same Wikipedia page to support identical arguments against bitcoin. In fact, you even acknowledged that I was correct then. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7529461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7529461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506327 Yet, here you are again, citing the same number and the same Wikipedia page yet again. How many other times have you used it to bolster an argument? This is deeply depressing. What's the point of having a discussion if you simply ignore or forget facts which don't support your preconceived ideas? You're never going to learn anything. I hope you won't find this insulting, but I suggest you ask yourself honestly why you keep citing a number that you've repeatedly been shown is inaccurate, in order to support the same argument over and over again.
  - abalone 12y ago
    Apologies, totally forgot about that, I just searched for the figure again.. you really should update the wikipedia article with your research. Anyway my argument is not based on the fraud figure (at least not at the <=1% level). That still leaves plenty of room for consumer benefits. Also, don't get depressed! Bitcoin's cool. Someone mentioned microtransactions -- makes a lot of sense for that. Digital cash stuff. It's just not going to take over all consumer spending on the basis of "saving fees". The right analytical lens to use is "consumer benefits".
    - FatalLogic 12y ago
      I hate to repeat myself, but... I suggest you ask yourself honestly why you keep citing a number that you've repeatedly been shown is inaccurate, in order to support the same argument over and over again. That's my last word on this matter.
phil21 12y ago
> Your accounting leaves 1-2% left to make up for fraud The discount fees in no way pay for fraud. Fraud risk is entirely on the merchant. Interesting (or sadly?) enough, merchants even pay the discount fee on chargebacks :)

by awt 12y ago

abalone 12y ago

I mean the wikipedia article on Credit Card Fraud clearly states the average loss is just 0.07%. [1] I don't know what you've been reading.. perhaps it's an indication of just how off the descriptions have been in these parts? Chargeback costs are borne by the merchant, by the way, so they don't really impact the fee. I mention them because they require a central, trusted intermediary to enforce them, meaning that it's not just a "detail" for bitcoin to implement later.. If you want to enforce consumer protections, it changes the whole system back into just another "Discover card"-like new network. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_fraud EDIT: I guess the exact figure's disputed but even at 1% there's plenty of margin for reward programs.

FatalLogic 12y ago
>I mean the wikipedia article on Credit Card Fraud clearly states the average loss is just 0.07%. That figure from Wikipedia is utterly wrong. The true figure appears to be about 15 times higher I happen to know it's wrong, because I pointed this out to you on two previous occasions when you cited the same figure from the same Wikipedia page to support identical arguments against bitcoin. In fact, you even acknowledged that I was correct then. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7529461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7529461 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7506327 Yet, here you are again, citing the same number and the same Wikipedia page yet again. How many other times have you used it to bolster an argument? This is deeply depressing. What's the point of having a discussion if you simply ignore or forget facts which don't support your preconceived ideas? You're never going to learn anything. I hope you won't find this insulting, but I suggest you ask yourself honestly why you keep citing a number that you've repeatedly been shown is inaccurate, in order to support the same argument over and over again.
- abalone 12y ago
  Apologies, totally forgot about that, I just searched for the figure again.. you really should update the wikipedia article with your research. Anyway my argument is not based on the fraud figure (at least not at the <=1% level). That still leaves plenty of room for consumer benefits. Also, don't get depressed! Bitcoin's cool. Someone mentioned microtransactions -- makes a lot of sense for that. Digital cash stuff. It's just not going to take over all consumer spending on the basis of "saving fees". The right analytical lens to use is "consumer benefits".
  - FatalLogic 12y ago
    I hate to repeat myself, but... I suggest you ask yourself honestly why you keep citing a number that you've repeatedly been shown is inaccurate, in order to support the same argument over and over again. That's my last word on this matter.

phil21 12y ago

> Your accounting leaves 1-2% left to make up for fraud The discount fees in no way pay for fraud. Fraud risk is entirely on the merchant. Interesting (or sadly?) enough, merchants even pay the discount fee on chargebacks :)