[venaoy]

> For a CC sure I might have to grab the card out of my wallet and punch it in, but my numbers are pretty much memorized by now and it's beyond simple.

"beyond simple", really? A lot of people would disagree with you. The inconvenience of typing in the CC billing info is the number one reason why fewer sales take place on mobile than on desktop.

And it is one of the main reasons why people stick with a store they know have their CC saved (eg. Amazon) as opposed to buying on some random site where they know it is going to be a PITA to type in all the billing info.

Bitcoin solves this payment friction for a first-time shopper at a given shop, and that's a big deal. You should know this. This is why you yourself admit preferring using Paypal over CC because Paypal also solves first-time shopping friction.

[CPLX]

I'm not sure you are me are using the same definition of simple.

Typing 16 digits plus four digits on the front and three digits from the back of a card in your pocket is incredibly simple. I just described it in one short declarative sentence.

In addition it is mildly tedious, and slightly inconvenient. But extremely simple it remains.

In contrast, bitcoin requires typing in an extremely long and essentially random sequence of alphanumeric characters.

Except that it doesn't you say? Because an app can automate it? Oh wait.

[venaoy]

> I just described it in one short declarative sentence.

Except you forgot: you have to type the expiration date, the cardholder's name, and sometimes the full billing address. I will repeat again: typing the CC billing info is not simple enough and this is the number one reason e-commerce sales conducted on mobile are not as high as sales conducted on the desktop.

> bitcoin requires typing

No. It sounds like you have never made a Bitcoin purchase. Typically the merchant's site launches your local wallet app via a "bitcoin:" URI pre-populated with an address and an amount -> click OK to confirm transaction -> done.

[s73v3r]

One of the reasons I stick with Amazon is, yes, they have my payment info saved. But they also have other things like Amazon Prime, and their reputation. People don't stick with Amazon just because they have payment info saved. They trust Amazon is going to keep their info secure, and if they're unhappy with the purchase, Amazon is going to make them whole.

I don't have that trust and security using Bitcoin with a site I've never used before. I don't know if the site is on the up and up, or if they'll just take my BTC and run.

[venaoy]

Your comment reveals something often overlooked by the crowd shouting "OMG Bitcoin doesn't have chargebacks". Most people shop from merchants they trust, most merchants are honest, most disputes are resolved without chargebacks. Therefore chargebacks aren't really that needed or that important for most transactions.

IOW: you would have no problem paying Amazon in bitcoins, because you trust them.

[sanswork]

One thing most people who claim chargebacks are needed overlook is the impact the availability of chargebacks has on reducing the types of actions merchants take which might require one. The existence of the chargeback mechanism itself means merchants are more likely to ensure customer satisfaction to avoid them. That doesn't mean they aren't needed it could also mean they are incredibly effective at limited merchant fraud or laziness in dispute resolution.

[mrb]

Chargebacks are just one of many methods that customers can use to maintain uprightness among merchants: legal actions (eg. small-claims courts), complaints to FTC or BBB, online reviews, etc.

[s73v3r]

Legal action is far too time consuming and expensive, writing to the FTC or BBB is completely worthless as it will do absolutely nothing, and online reviews are limited in their ability to do anything, and might not have any impact.

A chargeback is simple, easy, and fast. And it puts the onus on the merchant to prove they didn't do anything wrong.

[sanswork]

None of those are really comparable in effort, cost, or effectiveness compared to just calling my credit card and having the charge reversed and the threat that I have the option to do that if they don't deal with my orders or issues appropriately.

[vanzard]

> None of those are really comparable in effort, cost, or effectiveness

Does it matter? Some defrauded users WILL be persistent and WILL go through the effort of using these recourses, so they do keep merchants in check.

The fraud world is not as simplistic as you think it is ("oh crap customers can issue chargebacks against us, I guess we have to be honest now").

Fraudulent merchants will act fraudulently, regardless if chargebacks exist or not. Honest merchants will act honestly, regardless if chargebacks exist or not.

[sanswork]

P.S. it's been a long time since we chatted how have you been?