[yunohn]

1. Not true, see malicious smart contracts.

2. Yes and thanks to modern trad-fi law, it’s incredibly easy to get refunds and returns on basically all retail websites.

3. Not true, trivially disproved by having gone through the process multiple times with various providers myself with minimal effort and documentation. I suggest you DYOR once too.

[OutOfHere]

I appreciate when someone is well informed and shares their knowledge, but:

1. Regarding malicious smart contracts, they can steal only from incompetently written smart contracts.

2. Regarding refunds by large vendors, that's the ideal, but not the reality. I have had Uber reject a refund for unfair reasons when the driver was wasting time and didn't show up for over 15 minutes past the estimated time. I have also had Google provide me no refund for a large transaction on a scam app that fooled me.

[yunohn]

1. Please don’t repeat the No True Scotsman train of argument again and hand wave away the problem by blaming it on “incompetence” - it removes the explicit malice those contracts were coded with.

2. I am struggling to see how this is/would/could ever be solved by crypto.

[OutOfHere]

2. It's not solved by crypto, but then crypto doesn't charge a 3% commission for money transfer. The cost of a stablecoin transfer is a couple of pennies.

[ceejayoz]

> The cost of a stablecoin transfer is a couple of pennies.

The cost of an authorized stablecoin transfer is.

The cost of an unauthorized stablecoin transfer is infinite. The cost of an unauthorized credit card transaction is $0.

[OutOfHere]

The credit card is associated with a checking account. Fraudulent transactions on checking accounts and debit cards do happen, with or without an ATM. They do occasionally get reported in the news, and the bank will not protect or refund you for them, especially if it's large.

[ceejayoz]

Even if we ignore the fact that I said "an unauthorized credit card transaction", that's all still incorrect.

> The credit card is associated with a checking account.

No, not necessarily. Several of mine are not. For example, Chase will happily accept payments in cash via their branches. https://www.chase.com/personal/credit-cards/education/basics...

> the bank will not protect or refund you for [fraudulent transactions on checking accounts and debit cards]

Deeply wrong. They are, in most cases, required to do so by federal law.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resour...

"The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E apply to an electronic fund transfer that authorizes a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer's account. 12 CFR 1005.3(a). The term account means a demand deposit (checking), savings, or other consumer asset account (other than an occasional or incidental credit balance in a credit plan) held directly or indirectly by a financial institution and established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(1). It includes a prepaid account, as defined by Regulation E. 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(3)."

"Unauthorized EFTs include transfers initiated by a person who obtained a consumer’s access device through fraud or robbery and consumer transfers at an ATM that were induced by force."

https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/artic...

"If your debit card or personal pin identification number (PIN) was lost or stolen, you must notify the bank within two business days after learning of the loss or theft. The bank cannot hold you responsible for more than the amount of any unauthorized transactions or $50, whichever is less. However, if you notify the bank after two business days, you could be responsible for up to $500 in unauthorized transactions."

Perhaps this is a little illuminating as to why your anti-fiat arguments fall on apparently deaf ears.