[blazingfrog2]

Flat may be fine. However, from what I've seen in the video, the Coin is not only flat but also almost totally anonymized. The cashier would not be able to verify the name against a photo ID or even take a picture of the card. This would be possible with a non-imprintable card.

[binarycrusader]

Unless required by local or state law, most major credit card companies prohibit the requirement of supplementary identification to complete a transaction.

With that said, they require verification of the signature on the back of the card with the one on the receipt / screen.

In the event that the card is not signed, you are then allowed to require identification and the card must be signed by the customer before it is used.

[ChiperSoft]

Except at the post office, which will outright refuse any card that is not signed.

[binarycrusader]

Technically, the card isn't valid unless signed.

Most credit card companies prohibit the "See ID" that some people put on their cards in place a of a signature.

[flatfilefan]

"See ID" is also a signature if done own handed. I've seen a court decision to the effect that you can declare your signature anything you write. Important is if _you_ accept it as such later on.

[binarycrusader]

The importance is consistency and recognition as you point out.

But writing "See ID" on the back of the card and then using a completely different signature on the receipt is not acceptable as far as I know.

[mattkleiman]

@Coin twitter confirmed that the coin card actually does have a signature field on the back that you would sign, so the vendor can use that to compare with your receipt. https://twitter.com/coin/statuses/401939329506746368

[wil421]

I dont sign my cards ever, why would I want a thief to see what my signature looks like?

[encoderer]

Great. That way they can just sign it themselves. That way if a merchant does signature verification, it matches! And then when your CC company comes back and says "Chargeback is in dispute. The signature matches" you'll have to explain why you didn't follow the terms of the cardmember agreement.

Now, this is all very hypothetical for many reasons, but generally it's my practice to follow cardmember agreements that I am, after all, agreeing to follow.

[sjwright]

How would the CC company know that the signature matched? At no point will the thief-signed card ever be sighted by anyone other than the merchant, briefly. The thief is going to dispose or destroy the card when they're finished with it; your bank/issuer is never going to see it to compare.

[binarycrusader]

Per the terms of the cardmember agreement that you agreed to, you are required to sign the back of the card. If you do not, you are not authorized to use the card for any transactions.

It's all very silly anyway given that online credit card transactions almost never require a signature.

Quite honestly though, once a thief has access to your card, you have other problems. If they're close enough to see it, they're likely close enough to duplicate it and leave you the card with you ever knowing.

If the signature is that concerning, then use one signature consistently for your credit card transactions that's unlike the one you use for anything else.

If you don't like that option, then you probably shouldn't be using credit cards currently offered.

[brk]

Seems like you wouldn't get much use out of them then. I get asked for signature verification at least a few times a week.