6 ms·

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The consumer isn't responsible for Credit Card fraud - if it's stolen my bank reimburses me for transactio

by hurin 12y ago

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The consumer isn't responsible for Credit Card fraud - if it's stolen my bank reimburses me for transactions I did not commit. If bitcoins are stolen you get what? Specifically the lack of fraud protection is obviously advantageous for merchants (who often are the ones, not the banks, paying out in the case of fraud) but for the consumer its distinctly worse.

knocte 12y ago
Bitcoins can't be stolen. Period. A different thing is that you may suck at protecting your operating system.
- sukilot 12y ago
  As a percentage of total money supply, mtgox was the biggest theft (or loss, there is no differene to victims) of currency in modern history.
  - knocte 12y ago
    Mtgox != Bitcoin For all intents and purposes, people having money in mtgox was the equivalent of people holding money in a crappy (security or fraud-wise) bank.
    - Amezarak 12y ago
      The difference is that accounts in banks are insured by federal guarantees. Bitcoin banks are not.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- acdha 12y ago
  What an amusingly incorrect display of pedantry. Check your convenient local dictionary and you'll find something like this: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal) Note that the definition does not take into consideration whether you think the victim should have done more to protect themselves, just as the fact that every year thousands of criminals are successfully prosecuted for stealing even in cases where homeowners did not have dogs, 24x7 security guards, etc.
  - knocte 12y ago
    Good point. Also the analogy that other person raised ("Your stuff can't be stolen. Period. A different thing is that you may suck at protecting your house") is a good one too. However, we're talking about different things here. When do bitcoins really get "stolen"? When terrible things happen, like if people install malware or trojans by accident, or don't apply security updates to their systems. This, to me, is the equivalent of leaving the door of your house wide open. Not simply not putting an alarm system, you know. That is, if you want to use bitcoin, have some common sense and minimal computer knowledge, first (minimal includes knowing how to keep your operating system updated, not be a certified sysadmin).
    - acdha 12y ago
      > When do bitcoins really get "stolen"? When terrible things happen, like if people install malware or trojans by accident, or don't apply security updates to their systems. > This, to me, is the equivalent of leaving the door of your house wide open. Not simply not putting an alarm system, you know. In that case, you should think more carefully about the problem because you're conflating two unlike things. Even ignoring the fact how many bitcoins have been stolen were compromised by previously-popular third parties, your current position is the equivalent of hearing about someone's house being broken into and saying “Oh, your stuff wasn't really stolen – everyone knows that you shouldn't buy a Kwikset lock/ever invite guests over/forget to arm your alarm”. Designing a system which assumes humans will perfectly follow the best operating procedures is the security equivalent of hawking a perpetual motion device. In the real world, people delay updates or get let down by an unreliable updater, get hit by zero-days or suckered by scammers, etc. Anyone serious about building a financial system needs to plan for that and build in layers of safety precautions. I get that you really want Bitcoin to succeed but the way to do that is by taking problems seriously and working to fix them rather than pretending them away.
- vectorpush 12y ago
  This is a painfully absurd statement. You aren't doing bitcoin any favors by disingenuously suggesting that it cannot be stolen; everyone knows it can be, and faulting the victim for not properly securing their operating system (a feat that even billion dollar corporations often fail to achieve) is exactly the wrong type of message to be broadcasting to the masses.
- leo_soto 12y ago
  Your stuff can't be stolen. Period. A different thing is that you may suck at protecting your house.
- this_user 12y ago
  So, if someone robs you at knifepoint on the street and takes your wallet, your wallet has not really been stolen, because you failed to wear adequate protective gear?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
venaoy 12y ago
> The consumer isn't responsible for Credit Card fraud Wrong. In many cases he is responsible. Scenario #1: 60 days (typically) after the transaction, the customer has no recourse to report fraud. You were browsing your credit card statements and notice a $50 charge 2 months ago that you never authorized? Tough luck. Scenario #2: When the card was physically present during the transaction, and when a pin code was used, the customer is always (edit: I meant "typically") held responsible unless he can prove he and his authorized users were definitively not present.
- hurin 12y ago
  >Scenario #2: When the card was physically present during the transaction, and when a pin code was used, the customer is always held responsible unless he can prove he and his authorized users were definitively not present. I think you ought to fact check on Scenario #2 (at least in the US), The merchant is responsible for confirming the identity of the customer matches the one stated on the card - the customer does not need to prove anything. Link (re pin number use): http://www.occ.gov/static/news-issuances/memos-advisory-letters/2001/advisory-letter-2001-9.pdf http://www.occ.gov/static/news-issuances/memos-advisory-lett... As for Scenario #1 - the 60 day limit is quite reasonable. What kind of investigation of unauthorized usage could a bank possibly conduct 60 days after an unauthorized $50 payment?
  - venaoy 12y ago
    Regarding the advisory letter, it just requires the bank to "investigate". The bank can still conclude the transaction was authorized and deny your claim to cancel the transaction. So it will be your responsibility as a customer to prove that you were not present during the transaction. Regarding scenario #1, it is irrelevant if the amount is $50 or $1000. My point is, you have no recourse. Credit cards won't protect you from fraud in this case.
    - hurin 12y ago
      Again. You are incorrect and you don't what you're talking about, banks need to send a written explanation of a denial and in most cases they aren't partial (because usually they aren't the ones paying the refund) - since legally the merchant is responsible for confirming customer identity (it's not the customer that would have to prove they weren't there). Anyways, debating the effectiveness of consumer fraud-protection is quite beside the point, since Bitcoin offers absolutely no fraud protection and very circumstantial utility (i.e. the ability to make anonymous or pseudo-anonymous payments).
shit_parade 12y ago
Credit card fraud results in billions of dollars in losses every year, this is a problem bitcoin will very likely solve at a fraction of the cost.
- sanswork 12y ago
  This makes sense since the Bitcoin system has been basically immune from fraud and scams up until this point.
CyberDildonics 12y ago
I didn't say anything about liability, I was talking about credit cards being canceled and suspended.

by hurin 12y ago

knocte 12y ago

Bitcoins can't be stolen. Period. A different thing is that you may suck at protecting your operating system.

sukilot 12y ago
As a percentage of total money supply, mtgox was the biggest theft (or loss, there is no differene to victims) of currency in modern history.
- knocte 12y ago
  Mtgox != Bitcoin For all intents and purposes, people having money in mtgox was the equivalent of people holding money in a crappy (security or fraud-wise) bank.
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    The difference is that accounts in banks are insured by federal guarantees. Bitcoin banks are not.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
acdha 12y ago
What an amusingly incorrect display of pedantry. Check your convenient local dictionary and you'll find something like this: 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal) Note that the definition does not take into consideration whether you think the victim should have done more to protect themselves, just as the fact that every year thousands of criminals are successfully prosecuted for stealing even in cases where homeowners did not have dogs, 24x7 security guards, etc.
- knocte 12y ago
  Good point. Also the analogy that other person raised ("Your stuff can't be stolen. Period. A different thing is that you may suck at protecting your house") is a good one too. However, we're talking about different things here. When do bitcoins really get "stolen"? When terrible things happen, like if people install malware or trojans by accident, or don't apply security updates to their systems. This, to me, is the equivalent of leaving the door of your house wide open. Not simply not putting an alarm system, you know. That is, if you want to use bitcoin, have some common sense and minimal computer knowledge, first (minimal includes knowing how to keep your operating system updated, not be a certified sysadmin).
  - acdha 12y ago
    > When do bitcoins really get "stolen"? When terrible things happen, like if people install malware or trojans by accident, or don't apply security updates to their systems. > This, to me, is the equivalent of leaving the door of your house wide open. Not simply not putting an alarm system, you know. In that case, you should think more carefully about the problem because you're conflating two unlike things. Even ignoring the fact how many bitcoins have been stolen were compromised by previously-popular third parties, your current position is the equivalent of hearing about someone's house being broken into and saying “Oh, your stuff wasn't really stolen – everyone knows that you shouldn't buy a Kwikset lock/ever invite guests over/forget to arm your alarm”. Designing a system which assumes humans will perfectly follow the best operating procedures is the security equivalent of hawking a perpetual motion device. In the real world, people delay updates or get let down by an unreliable updater, get hit by zero-days or suckered by scammers, etc. Anyone serious about building a financial system needs to plan for that and build in layers of safety precautions. I get that you really want Bitcoin to succeed but the way to do that is by taking problems seriously and working to fix them rather than pretending them away.
vectorpush 12y ago
This is a painfully absurd statement. You aren't doing bitcoin any favors by disingenuously suggesting that it cannot be stolen; everyone knows it can be, and faulting the victim for not properly securing their operating system (a feat that even billion dollar corporations often fail to achieve) is exactly the wrong type of message to be broadcasting to the masses.
leo_soto 12y ago
Your stuff can't be stolen. Period. A different thing is that you may suck at protecting your house.
this_user 12y ago
So, if someone robs you at knifepoint on the street and takes your wallet, your wallet has not really been stolen, because you failed to wear adequate protective gear?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

venaoy 12y ago

> The consumer isn't responsible for Credit Card fraud Wrong. In many cases he is responsible. Scenario #1: 60 days (typically) after the transaction, the customer has no recourse to report fraud. You were browsing your credit card statements and notice a $50 charge 2 months ago that you never authorized? Tough luck. Scenario #2: When the card was physically present during the transaction, and when a pin code was used, the customer is always (edit: I meant "typically") held responsible unless he can prove he and his authorized users were definitively not present.

hurin 12y ago
>Scenario #2: When the card was physically present during the transaction, and when a pin code was used, the customer is always held responsible unless he can prove he and his authorized users were definitively not present. I think you ought to fact check on Scenario #2 (at least in the US), The merchant is responsible for confirming the identity of the customer matches the one stated on the card - the customer does not need to prove anything. Link (re pin number use): http://www.occ.gov/static/news-issuances/memos-advisory-letters/2001/advisory-letter-2001-9.pdf http://www.occ.gov/static/news-issuances/memos-advisory-lett... As for Scenario #1 - the 60 day limit is quite reasonable. What kind of investigation of unauthorized usage could a bank possibly conduct 60 days after an unauthorized $50 payment?
- venaoy 12y ago
  Regarding the advisory letter, it just requires the bank to "investigate". The bank can still conclude the transaction was authorized and deny your claim to cancel the transaction. So it will be your responsibility as a customer to prove that you were not present during the transaction. Regarding scenario #1, it is irrelevant if the amount is $50 or $1000. My point is, you have no recourse. Credit cards won't protect you from fraud in this case.
  - hurin 12y ago
    Again. You are incorrect and you don't what you're talking about, banks need to send a written explanation of a denial and in most cases they aren't partial (because usually they aren't the ones paying the refund) - since legally the merchant is responsible for confirming customer identity (it's not the customer that would have to prove they weren't there). Anyways, debating the effectiveness of consumer fraud-protection is quite beside the point, since Bitcoin offers absolutely no fraud protection and very circumstantial utility (i.e. the ability to make anonymous or pseudo-anonymous payments).

shit_parade 12y ago

Credit card fraud results in billions of dollars in losses every year, this is a problem bitcoin will very likely solve at a fraction of the cost.

sanswork 12y ago
This makes sense since the Bitcoin system has been basically immune from fraud and scams up until this point.

CyberDildonics 12y ago

I didn't say anything about liability, I was talking about credit cards being canceled and suspended.