[AnthonyMouse]

> All you're doing is moving the risk from the business to the consumer

No, most of the merchant's risk with credit cards is from the design of credit cards. You have to give your payment info to every merchant but if any one of them loses it then anyone who gets it can use it at any other merchant. Then some merchant you've never heard of has bad security, criminals get cards from there and use them to buy things from honest merchants and the honest merchants get chargebacks for having done nothing wrong.

Cryptocurrency does not have this problem because you don't have to give your private keys to everyone you pay and even if you fail to protect them yourself (something you, rather than someone else, is in control of), as long as you're not trying to use cryptocurrency as a store of value instead of a payment system, your losses are limited to the e.g. $20 you had in your wallet. Customers have no problem with systems that work like this, like cash.

Chargebacks are only an issue if the customer expects the merchant to be dishonest and the value of the purchase is large. If you pay $3 for something and get ripped off, the ability to do a chargeback isn't that relevant to your life and you're just not going to patronize them anymore.

The reason most customers don't use cryptocurrency is that the government made it high friction for ordinary people to buy it. "Why is this website I don't know asking for my social security number? I'm just trying to make a small purchase."

Presumably at the behest of the existing payments industry which wants to keep their vig.

[sanswork]

>No

Starting like that, writing that whole paragraph and you completely misread what I said. "No, merchants have risk with credit cards". That is literally what I said in the post you are replying too. Sloppy and rude.

>Cryptocurrency does not have this problem because you don't have to give your private keys to everyone you pay and even if you fail to protect them yourself

Credit card fraud isn't a problem for consumers because of chargebacks and insurance. If a criminal steals my card and racks up charges I am almost always getting my money back. All the risk is again on the merchants. Consumers like that balance. Trying to convince them to take on more risk just to benefit the merchants is not going to happen ever.

>Chargebacks are only an issue if the customer expects the merchant to be dishonest and the value of the purchase is large. If you pay $3 for something and get ripped off, the ability to do a chargeback isn't that relevant to your life and you're just not going to patronize them anymore.

This is also completely wrong. People do chargebacks all the time because of a poor outcome that has nothing to do with being dishonest. There are also cases like bankruptcy where a chargeback will get you your money back but if you paid in crypto you'd just be another creditor.

The reason most customers don't use cryptocurrencies is because they are stupid and pointless for payments. They make the process worse for consumers unless you're needing to hide your identity. Crypto is like mailing companies envelopes of cash. There is a reason no sane consumer does that anymore.

[AnthonyMouse]

> "No, merchants have risk with credit cards". That is literally what I said in the post you are replying too. Sloppy and rude.

What you said was that it was moving the risk from the merchant to the consumer, but it isn't moving that risk, it's removing it because the consumer doesn't have to give every merchant something that enables that (very common) form of fraud to occur to begin with.

> Credit card fraud isn't a problem for consumers because of chargebacks and insurance.

It is though, because it raises costs, and therefore prices. This is indirect, but the merchant can make it direct by offering a better price for using a payment method that lowers their costs.

This is one of the reasons the credit card companies try to prohibit that price lowering to the extent that they can -- because they know that otherwise it would happen and be effective in reducing usage of their archaic fraud-prone system with high processing overhead.

> People do chargebacks all the time because of a poor outcome that has nothing to do with being dishonest.

This is called "chargeback fraud" and is dishonesty on the part of the customer. If you buy something which is accurately described and then don't like it, issuing a chargeback should be prevented.

> There are also cases like bankruptcy where a chargeback will get you your money back but if you paid in crypto you'd just be another creditor.

Which is another form of fraud by the customer, because in that circumstance you are a creditor. It's like going back to the store and taking the money you paid out of the till. You're not taking it back from the store, you're stealing it from their other creditors who are entitled to their proportionate share.

"Credit cards are good because they enable customers to commit fraud" seems more like an argument to make them go away.

> The reason most customers don't use cryptocurrencies is because they are stupid and pointless for payments.

They're a payment system you can't practically be denied the use of and isn't operated by an industry dedicated to capturing the government in order to keep you under surveillance and covertly extract a vig from everything you buy.

> They make the process worse for consumers unless you're needing to hide your identity.

What if you do want to hide your identity? It's certainly not a feature to the customer that credit card companies create a list of everything you buy and who you buy it from in the hands of a third party. Why should the customer want there be a third party keeping track of who buys politically sensitive literature or contraceptives or anything that reveals their realtime location?

> Crypto is like mailing companies envelopes of cash.

It's like paying for things in cash generally, which lots of people still do in various circumstances.

People don't typically mail cash because stamps are too expensive to use that for small purchases, there is a cap on claims if you use it for large purchases and the Post Office loses it, and mail is slow.

And even then, people will use it to pay for e.g. Mullvad.

[sanswork]

>it's removing it because the consumer doesn't have to give every merchant something that enables that (very common) form of fraud to occur to begin with.

It doesn't remove anything. The consumer is accepting the risk that they pay for something and don't receive it. You are just shifting the risk it is still there.

>This is called "chargeback fraud" and is dishonesty on the part of the customer.

No it isn't. Chargebacks aren't only for fraud or dishonesty on the part of the retailer they are for any situation when you don't believe you received what you paid for.

>Which is another form of fraud by the customer, because in that circumstance you are a creditor.

No because again the bankrupt company hasn't provided the service they took money for. Taking back the money isn't fraud.

>They're a payment system you can't be denied the use of and isn't operated by an industry dedicated to capturing the government in order to covertly extract a vig from everything you buy.

So you can be denied the use of most crypto in practical terms by having you address blacklisted in which case no mainstream exchange will accept your coins.

>What if you do want to hide your identity?

Then use crypto, but that isn't a concern for very many legitimate transactions.

>it's like paying for things in cash generally

It's like paying in cash remotely, hence mailing money. Paying in cash in person is fine because you are right there to collect your goods or confront the thief standing in front of you.

You believe the reason people don't pay for things by mailing cash is because of the cost of postage? Besides being ridiculous maybe check the cost of a bitcoin transaction during modest volume events.

[AnthonyMouse]

> It doesn't remove anything. The consumer is accepting the risk that they pay for something and don't receive it. You are just shifting the risk it is still there.

The risk the merchant is trying to avoid is actually removed, not shifted to anyone. The risk that the customer pays for something and doesn't receive it is irrelevant for many transactions, because the seller is trustworthy and allows easy returns, so the risk from them isn't any higher than the risk of the credit card company not crediting your payment or sticking you with a surprise fee.

It also isn't inherent to cryptocurrency. There is no reason you can't use escrow if you feel the need to. But you could avoid the cost of that escrow, implicitly built into credit card networks and non-optional there, when you don't feel you need it.

> Chargebacks aren't only for fraud or dishonesty on the part of the retailer they are for any situation when you don't believe you received what you paid for.

https://chargebacks911.com/credit-card-chargebacks/

> No because again the bankrupt company hasn't provided the service they took money for. Taking back the money isn't fraud.

Taking back money from a company in bankruptcy is typically illegal (and unethical) because their other creditors also have a claim to the money, so you're really taking it from them rather than the company who owes it to you. This is why bankruptcy courts exist; to fairly allocate the bankrupt entity's assets. You're not allowed to skip the line.

> So you can be denied the use of most crypto in practical terms by having you address blacklisted in which case no mainstream exchange will accept your coins.

Anybody can trivially get a new address and transfer their coins to it without the use of an exchange. Blacklisting every address that has received coins from a blacklisted address doesn't work because you don't need someone's permission to send them coins, so it would grant anyone with a blacklisted address the power to blacklist anyone else. Also, a blockchain is global and countries that don't respect the blacklist would cause the number of affected addresses to constitute the entire network within a short period of time.

> Then use crypto, but that isn't a concern for very many legitimate transactions.

Isn't it? Why would I want the credit card companies to even know if I'm buying a toothbrush? Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258

> It's like paying in cash remotely, hence mailing money.

That's assuming you're using it remotely. If it wasn't made purposely inconvenient then you could use it to buy coffee or gas.

> Paying in cash in person is fine because you are right there to collect your goods or confront the thief standing in front of you.

People are perfectly willing to pay cash to someone who is bigger than them, or armed, so that can't really be it. Also, confronting them like a vigilante is hardly necessary when you know who they are and they're subject to legal process, which is the same over the internet.

And again this only seems to apply to someone you expect to rob you. Microsoft accepts cryptocurrency. You may not trust them at all, but if you pay them with it for a Windows license, what are you afraid will happen? Anything that couldn't also happen three months later after the chargeback window is closed?

> You believe the reason people don't pay for things by mailing cash is because of the cost of postage? Besides being ridiculous maybe check the cost of a bitcoin transaction during modest volume events.

If you're making a $2 transaction, spending $0.73 on postage and then waiting several days to be credited is ridiculous, not to mention most merchants don't accept it because it requires manual processing and presents an insider theft risk.

Bitcoin has high transaction costs because it's the oldest (and some of the ingroup likes it that way). There are several other cryptocurrencies where the transaction costs are trivial, it's not inherent to the technology.

[jfoster]

> If you pay $3 for something and get ripped off, the ability to do a chargeback isn't that relevant to your life and you're just not going to patronize them anymore.

That's true. How about if you're paying $3000? Would you like to pay with Bitcoin or a credit card?

[AnthonyMouse]

If I'm getting a percentage discount for using Bitcoin so the merchant can avoid the credit card fees and I trust the merchant (or the applicable legal system)? The first one.

Notice also that the argument I'm making isn't "you should never use a credit card", it's that cryptocurrency is sometimes better, and it wouldn't hurt if more places accepted it.

[JohnFen]

> The reason most customers don't use cryptocurrency is that the government made it high friction for ordinary people to buy it.

That's certainly not the reason I hear from people.

[AnthonyMouse]

What people? Most ordinary people don't even contemplate cryptocurrency as something they'd use for ordinary transactions because the law inhibits anyone from making a seamless experience to use it that way and then people have no experience with that usage.