[dangwu]

I strongly disagree. I think you are overestimating the morality of the common man. If you enable anonymous purchasing of items with no proof of funds being sent, it will be abused. A lot. No storefront will sign up for this. This is very different than physical shoplifting.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

I have some shocking news for you about how most sit-down restaurants sell food...

[xur17]

It's not anonymous if you're standing in the store paying..

[dangwu]

It's anonymous enough if you never reveal your identity. It would be like driving somewhere, paying cash, then later the cash is revealed to be fake. And there's no way for the storefront to test for legitimacy until an hour later.

[xur17]

So, like credit cards (could be stolen, chargeback risk, etc).

[dangwu]

1. Credit card fraud is an extremely small percentage of credit card activity. What you are proposing would likely not be.

2. Chargebacks are disputed, and as a storefront you can prove that you are not liable. Merchants can review the identifying documents of the cardholder for legitimacy and take other security steps, like using a chip-enabled card terminal, to further confirm the validity of the purchase. If they follow the process correctly, they are not liable for fraudulent purchases, the cardholder’s issuing bank is. Visa and MasterCard’s contracts generally put the burden of fraud reimbursement onto the bank.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

Given your estimate of the "morality of the common man" why would credit card fraud be an extremely small percentage of credit card activity?

[dangwu]

Because of aforementioned security protocols. It's much harder to get away with credit card fraud.