| > "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. |
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.