4 ms·

>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

>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.

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.