[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]

Yes it matters to me because the fact that some customers will do it won't actually matter in getting me my money back if there is a problem. The occasional customer going through the process of paying to take a merchant to small claims court(and if they are out of state it will be a considerable expense) isn't going to stop fraud or problems like the one below it will just cause the merchants to pay those specific customers off.

The problem isn't just out right fraud. Say you come to my online store and buy something. My warehouse screws up and doesn't ship it but they list in the system they have. You call up in a week and say "Wheres by foo" and I say "We shipped it". With chargebacks I am encouraged to go investigate and solve the problem. Without I am encouraged to trust my system.

Or say I sell you tickets to an event. For whatever reason I go bankrupt before the event can exist. With a credit card I'm still getting my money back. Without chargebacks I'm boned.

So then you say "Well only use trusted merchants like Amazon!" which is great if you want to centralize all commerce on the internet to one provider per vertical but not really ideal.

[vanzard]

> it won't actually matter in getting me my money back

You aren't answering my point. Your argument was that we need the threat of chargebacks to make merchants more likely to ensure customer satisfaction. I told you that other threats like legal action are sufficient to keep the pressure on merchants to remain honest. For example a merchant repeatedly taken to court will eventually be shut down, or maybe fined sufficiently that it will eat his profits so he will be enticed to be more honest.

> Without I am encouraged to trust my system

If customers threaten to go to court or report you to the FTC/BBB I can ensure you you will be encouraged to go investigate too.

> So then you say "Well only use trusted merchants like Amazon!"

I am not asking for change. People already do it. They already use trusted merchants (mostly). This was the central point stated at the beginnig of this thread: "most merchants are honest, most disputes are resolved without chargebacks. Therefore chargebacks aren't really that needed or that important for most transactions." So yeah for the 1% of cases where you think the merchant might be fraudulent use Bitcoin with escrow, or a credit card, or cash-on-delivery, or whatever. For the other 99% a standard non-escrowed Bitcoin transaction is acceptable.

[s73v3r]

Yes, but at least I can be made whole from a fraudulent merchant in a timely manner with a chargeback. Not so for any of the other methods you mentioned.

[sanswork]

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