6 ms·

> As a buyer, why would I use bitcoin internationally when I can't reverse my transaction if they don't deliver? Sometimes reversibility just doesn't matter. T

by venaoy 12y ago

> As a buyer, why would I use bitcoin internationally when I can't reverse my transaction if they don't deliver? Sometimes reversibility just doesn't matter. The merchant might be 100% trustworthy (like Amazon). Or as another example I once rented a VPS for a month from Russia. I paid in bitcoins because it was $3 or $4 so I simply didn't care if the VPS provider didn't deliver (submitting a chargeback request for such a low amount is not worth my time), but at the same time I didn't fully trust the merchant with my credit card info (how securely do they protect/encrypt it? could they be hacked? etc). > Since we don't gift each other bitcoins, Example 3 isn't a problem. You completely avoided the main point of my example #3. And that's very stupid for you to say this. I gave some to my family, I could say this proves you wrong. Even Coinbase set up a page to give bitcoins last Christmas because it's common for enthusiasts to give some to friends & family: http://blog.coinbase.com/post/105032873402/give-the-gift-of-bitcoin-this-holiday-season http://blog.coinbase.com/post/105032873402/give-the-gift-of-... > Example 4 is laughable because in the last week, four Bitcoin exchanges were hacked (or robbed by the owners - still TBD) and people who had their coins in those exchanges lost it all. This is completely irrelevant to example #4. My point was that a Bitcoin transaction cryptographically authorizes only the transfer of a specific amount to a specific address, and nothing else. In contrast a CC transaction lets a fraudulent merchant place any charge for any amount at any time. This is a substantial undeniable security advantage that Bitcoin has over credit cards. > Skimming CC numbers is for sure an issue for credit cards, but as someone who has had their credit card skimmed, my issuer locked my account within 2 hours of fraudulent activity, called me, and eventually gave me my money back. You were lucky. But your cute story doesn't mean credit card fraud is a solved problem. In many cases the customer has NO RECOURSE for fraud. For example you cannot chargeback a transaction made more than 60 days ago. Some fraudulent merchants pretend to act legitimately but stall shipping (eg. claim delays, issues, etc) for 60 days specifically to exploit this fact and exploit the fact customers don't know about this condition. Or if your PIN code is stolen and a fraudulent transaction is made with the PIN code, you will typically be held liable (check your credit card issuer's fine print, for example: http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/common/pdf/borrowing/revolving_credit_agreement.pdf http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/common/pdf/borrowing/revolving_...) > How many Mt. Gox users got their money back? Give your money to a fraudster and he will run away with it, no matter if its bitcoins or dollars. How much money was permanently lost to the Bernard Madoff ponzi scheme?

bduerst 12y ago
Spinning a lack of reversible transactions as being a "Benefit" is disingenuous because there is real demand for them. You're can't always do business with trusted merchants like Amazon, especially internationally. The point for #3 is that "How can I use these bitcoins I've been gifted?" is not a real problem for the majority of people. It's a solution to a problem that many don't have. I'm glad you found my story cute, but fail to see how pointing out imperfections in credit card insurance policies is supporting bitcoin, because bitcoin doesn't fill those imperfections. In fact, even with imperfections, using credit cards are still better than getting my account hacked on a bitcoin exchange. Bitcoin transactions are also not immediate as you say they are. The entire world's supply of bitcoin is limited to 2.7 transactions a second, meaning if 10 million people used bitcoin, they would only be able to do 1 transaction every 43 days [1]. I'm not even going to go into why you would compare Mt. Gox to Madoff. Madoff is an uninsured investor and in prison, Mt. Gox is an exchange and the thieves are where? [1](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10360199#msg10360199 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10360199#m...)
- venaoy_ 12y ago
  (I can't log into my venaoy HN account at the moment) > Spinning a lack of reversible transactions as being a "Benefit" is disingenuous I argue, through my examples, that reversibility is often not as important as you may think. Another data point: I am a typical American consumer and in 20 years doing probably 5,000+ credit card transactions I have never had to issue a single chargeback at all. So I know for a fact that I would be willing to use Bitcoin for its advantages. Hell, credit card fees which are passed to customers by inflating prices by ~2% probably indirectly cost me north of $20,000 over my 20 years of use. I could have saved $20,000 and I would have been totally fine with the lack of reversibility of Bitcoin. Even if I end up being scammed one day by a non-reversible $1000 Bitcoin transaction, I would still be $19,000 financially ahead with Bitcoin. > I'm glad you found my story cute, but fail to see how pointing out imperfections in credit card insurance policies is supporting bitcoin, because bitcoin doesn't fill those imperfections I point out imperfections to show you that even an imperfect system such as credit cards manage to be reasonably successful. So Bitcoin is not perfect either but, similarly, this should not prevent it from being reasonably successful. > getting my account hacked on a bitcoin exchange Bitcoin hardware wallets have a huge potential to significantly increase security for consumers. > The entire world's supply of bitcoin is limited to 2.7 transactions a second Why do you present this as being a sort of fatal flaw? It's not. A block size increase will solve this. It was not done yet because it's not a problem yet: the average block size is currently still far below the 1MB limit. > I'm not even going to go into why you would compare Mt. Gox to Madoff. Madoff is an uninsured investor and in prison, Mt. Gox is an exchange and the thieves are where? I compare the two because both cases are a result of fraud and both cases were/are being investigated by authorities. (MtGox was not robbed, Mark Karpeles committed fraud -- see the willy report -- as a result Karpeles is currently under investigation by the Japanese authorities). You seem to be under the impression the government and authorities are ignoring Bitcoin fraud. They are not. In the US for example the S.E.C. recently prosecuted a Bitcoin ponzi scheme operator: http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583#.VObB8k338yg http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/137...

by venaoy 12y ago

bduerst 12y ago

Spinning a lack of reversible transactions as being a "Benefit" is disingenuous because there is real demand for them. You're can't always do business with trusted merchants like Amazon, especially internationally. The point for #3 is that "How can I use these bitcoins I've been gifted?" is not a real problem for the majority of people. It's a solution to a problem that many don't have. I'm glad you found my story cute, but fail to see how pointing out imperfections in credit card insurance policies is supporting bitcoin, because bitcoin doesn't fill those imperfections. In fact, even with imperfections, using credit cards are still better than getting my account hacked on a bitcoin exchange. Bitcoin transactions are also not immediate as you say they are. The entire world's supply of bitcoin is limited to 2.7 transactions a second, meaning if 10 million people used bitcoin, they would only be able to do 1 transaction every 43 days [1]. I'm not even going to go into why you would compare Mt. Gox to Madoff. Madoff is an uninsured investor and in prison, Mt. Gox is an exchange and the thieves are where? [1](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10360199#msg10360199 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10360199#m...)

venaoy_ 12y ago
(I can't log into my venaoy HN account at the moment) > Spinning a lack of reversible transactions as being a "Benefit" is disingenuous I argue, through my examples, that reversibility is often not as important as you may think. Another data point: I am a typical American consumer and in 20 years doing probably 5,000+ credit card transactions I have never had to issue a single chargeback at all. So I know for a fact that I would be willing to use Bitcoin for its advantages. Hell, credit card fees which are passed to customers by inflating prices by ~2% probably indirectly cost me north of $20,000 over my 20 years of use. I could have saved $20,000 and I would have been totally fine with the lack of reversibility of Bitcoin. Even if I end up being scammed one day by a non-reversible $1000 Bitcoin transaction, I would still be $19,000 financially ahead with Bitcoin. > I'm glad you found my story cute, but fail to see how pointing out imperfections in credit card insurance policies is supporting bitcoin, because bitcoin doesn't fill those imperfections I point out imperfections to show you that even an imperfect system such as credit cards manage to be reasonably successful. So Bitcoin is not perfect either but, similarly, this should not prevent it from being reasonably successful. > getting my account hacked on a bitcoin exchange Bitcoin hardware wallets have a huge potential to significantly increase security for consumers. > The entire world's supply of bitcoin is limited to 2.7 transactions a second Why do you present this as being a sort of fatal flaw? It's not. A block size increase will solve this. It was not done yet because it's not a problem yet: the average block size is currently still far below the 1MB limit. > I'm not even going to go into why you would compare Mt. Gox to Madoff. Madoff is an uninsured investor and in prison, Mt. Gox is an exchange and the thieves are where? I compare the two because both cases are a result of fraud and both cases were/are being investigated by authorities. (MtGox was not robbed, Mark Karpeles committed fraud -- see the willy report -- as a result Karpeles is currently under investigation by the Japanese authorities). You seem to be under the impression the government and authorities are ignoring Bitcoin fraud. They are not. In the US for example the S.E.C. recently prosecuted a Bitcoin ponzi scheme operator: http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583#.VObB8k338yg http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/137...