4 ms·
The OP, BitcoinJobe, goes on in the comments of your link to clarify the statement is that there are not fraudulent chargebacks in Bitcoin. He's right. There
by lsadam0 12y ago
The OP, BitcoinJobe, goes on in the comments of your link to clarify the statement is that there are not fraudulent chargebacks in Bitcoin. He's right. There aren't. You can't make a bitcoin purchase, receive the item, and then get your money back through a charge back. He's right on both points.
Fraudulent chargebacks are a legitimate concern for sellers, and I assure you that loss is reflected in the selling price you and I pay. 13a asserts that if a vendor is able to eliminate the chargeback problem through bitcoin use, then the savings can possibly be passed on to consumers.
What's insane about any of that? You're not comprehending what you're arguing against.
- ForHackernews 12y agoMaybe you should read more carefully. > No fraud OR charge-back Strongly implies those to be two different things. You write "Fraudulent chargebacks", talking about a single thing, a specific kind (fraudulent) of chargeback. You also neglect to mention that bitcoin eliminates fraudulent chargebacks by just not having chargebacks at all. Which is a bit like celebrating North Korea eliminating voter fraud. This kind of thing is everywhere in the bitcoin community: Make absurd, grandiose claims ("be your own bank!", "bitcoin is the future of money", "totally decentralized!" [except for the giant central ledger of all transactions]). And then whenever you get called out on it, you'll retreat to some more limited, defensible argument, and claim that's what you were really talking about all along. There's a name for this kind of rhetoric, it's a "motte-and-bailey" argument: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf