[vanzard]

I repeat again: I agree the customer is less likely to get his money back with an FTC complaint than a chargeback. But FTC complaints still work as an incentive to keep merchants honest because what the FTC does eventually is one or more of the following: initiate lawsuit, shut down the business, seize the merchant's assets (offices, products, money, everything), etc.

> What evidence do I have of fraud if its just a shipping dispute and their word against mine?

The same evidence you would supply to your credit card issuer for a dispute: shipment info, package tracking numbers, pictures of items delivered, customer/merchant email exchanges, etc.

> Mistakes, and disruptions in the continuance of the company

As I said, most merchants are trying to please customers, so most mistakes are resolved without a chargeback. I don't think you will disagree here. I have never had to issue a chargeback, yet I had a few mistakes happen on me and the merchant always resolved them in my favor.

As to "disruptions in the continuance of the company" this is an extremely rare event, even rarer than outright fraud. So I will agree this is a nice case to have chargebacks available, but again as I said for 99.9...% of other purchases Bitcoin's lack of chargebacks is totally acceptable. I don't think you will disagree here either.

[sanswork]

So your solution to the problem is one that likely won't result in the customer getting their money back and involves a lot more work on their part? It also requires that the company screw up repeatedly with many customers(to get the FTC to investigate), and is still operating?

If you are still honestly convinced that is an acceptable replacement for charge backs we will never find agreement here.

>I have never had to issue a chargeback, yet I had a few mistakes happen on me and the merchant always resolved them in my favor.

You dismiss completely the possibility that this is because of the existence of chargebacks? The fact that you have the ability to reverse the charge, cost the company a charge back fee and potentially raise their payment processing rates if they don't help you out satisfactorily? You don't think that has anything to do with the way they act?

Google tiger direct bitcoin refund for some examples of how a company handles these things without that threat. People spending days trying to resolve the issues bouncing between multiple companies. The alternative is calling their credit card company and having the funds available again in a few minutes.

Or look at all the people waiting >1 year past their expected delivery date for miner shipments and in some cases having the company go out of business before they arrive or send them used equipment.

[vanzard]

> likely won't result in the customer getting their money back

Likewise, a good fraction of credit card disputes end up being resolved in favor of the merchant, not the customer.

> involves a lot more work on their part

I already told you submitting an FTC or BBB complaint is no more work than submitting a credit card chargeback.

> It also requires that the company screw up repeatedly

True if you go to the FTC. Not true if you go to small-claims court: it will be investigated even if only 1 screw-up occur. Yes going to small-claims court is more work than filing a credit card dispute, but then if it is not worth your time given the transaction amount, it kind of proves that being refunded isn't THAT important to you. In this case you would complain to the FTC, and write off the small amount lost.

> You dismiss completely the possibility that this is because of the existence of chargebacks?

I acknowledge chargebacks incentivize merchants to act honestly. But I will repeat for the third time: this is not the only thing that incentivize merchants. FTC, BBB, legal actions, etc.

> Google tiger direct bitcoin refund

I did and I found 2 stories, both resolved in favor of the customer:

- "Edit: The situation is resolved" from http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1wesnv/beware_of_ti...

- "He personally verified my address again for the shipment as well as a "care package"" from http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1wi95l/another_tige...

This proves my point that most merchants act honestly and that most disputes get resolved without chargebacks :)

> having the funds available again in a few minutes

No. When credit card issuers refund you instantly, it is always a TEMPORARY refund (check the fine print of your credit card agreement) - you still need to submit a full package usually within 60 days with evidence of the dispute (tracking numbers, product descriptions, pictures of what was received, etc) for the credit card issuer to investigate and either make the refund permanent, or resolve in favor of the merchant. That's why I keep explaining t you that submitting this evidence of the dispute is similar in complexity to submitting a complaint to the FTC as they ask the same things a credit card issuer would ask.

Out of curiosity: how many credit card disputes have you ever filed? What proportion were resolved in your favor, and in the merchant's favor?

[sanswork]

>Likewise, a good fraction of credit card disputes end up being resolved in favor of the merchant, not the customer.

Do you have any evidence of this?

>I already told you submitting an FTC or BBB complaint is no more work than submitting a credit card chargeback.

But then right after you said I would need to compile all the evidence to do so. So what is it? No more work(and I just have to fill in a form) or more work?

Also you realize the BBB is a private company that has no teeth right?

>True if you go to the FTC. Not true if you go to small-claims court:

I see bitcoin people recommend small claims court all the time. It works great when the merchant it local. It doesn't work so well when the merchant isn't since you have to file in their county. So add on travel time, missed work, etc to travel to where ever they are(assuming they are in your country) and it becomes a lot less likely someone is going to go this route.

>I did and I found 2 stories, both resolved in favor of the customer:

Both of which involved around a week of hassle just to get their product. And if they weren't newly accepted and watched by the bitcoin community at that time what would the result have been? Also if you'd looked a few results down on google you'd have also found this story https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/coinbase-extreme-bitcoin-tra...

This was a big company and if you read the correspondences they were more than happy to ignore the people until a 3rd party stepped in. This works great on rare occasions but bitpay isn't going to be able to afford to police transactions with their fees.

I'll also note you skipped over the miner disputes in your response.

You admitted already you have never filed a dispute yet you seem to talk with authority about the process? I've filed 2 disputes against merchants both found in my favour neither required submitting evidence and 1 dispute due to fraud that required me to submit a signed letter confirming I didn't make the charges.

[vanzard]

> Do you have any evidence of this?

http://bit.ly/10iW5wJ page 12: "Merchants report that they win, on average, 40% of the chargebacks they dispute". Obviously x% of these disputes (with 0 <= x <= 100) are disputes that the customer should have won, but the merchant did because the dispute process is not flawless.

> So what is it? No more work (and I just have to fill in a form) or more work?

Typically it is no more work. I have experience from almost filing a dispute on my Wells Fargo credit card against Sprint. I didn't end up filing it because Sprint sent me a refund at the last second. Wells Fargo's online dispute forms do ask for some evidence: such as a log of email exchanges, shipping tracking numbers, etc. That's how I know. Obviously the process varies between credit card issuers. And I am sure no evidence is required when it is clear the merchant is at fault (a phone call will do). But either way this is similar to the complexity of the process of submitting a complaint with the FTC, where it can be as simple as a phone call if verbal info is all you are willing to provide to them.

> Also you realize the BBB is a private company that has no teeth right?

The BBB is quite effective: "The overall settlement rate for all complaints filed by consumers in 2014 reached a record high of 91 percent" http://www.bbb.org/charlotte/news-events/bbb-in-the-news/201... Why do you imply they are ineffective?

> I see bitcoin people recommend small claims court all the time. It works great when the merchant it local. It doesn't work so well when the merchant isn't since you have to file in their county. So add on travel time, missed work, etc to travel to where ever they are(assuming they are in your country) and it becomes a lot less likely someone is going to go this route.

I agree, but don't lie by saying "it also requires that the company screw up repeatedly".

> This was a big company and if you read the correspondences they were more than happy to ignore the people until a 3rd party stepped in. This works great on rare occasions but bitpay isn't going to be able to afford to police transactions with their fees.

You imply TigerDirect was intentionally dishonest, but it is very obvious the incorrect refund amount ($14.99 instead of $167.21) was a glitch, a bug. No matter how you want to believe it, this story doesn't show that merchants are dishonest and evil when they take bitcoins and they know there are no chargebacks. Are you claiming some evil TigerDirect employee typed in $14.99 intentionally on his terminal to try to rip off the customer?

> I'll also note you skipped over the miner disputes in your response.

I didn't reply because this is not relevant: most customers who paid the manufacturers with credit cards could not dispute the charges either, because of the 60-day limit after which chargebacks are not allowed. So I am not sure what is your point... Whether you paid the manufacturer with a credit card or in bitcoins, all customers are out of their money regardless.

Also, you too skipped over many of my points:

- "But I am not claiming a legal action is as likely as a chargeback to make the customer whole. I am claiming a legal action works just as well as a chargeback to put pressure on merchants to keep them honest."

- "But I will repeat for the third time: this is not the only thing that incentivize merchants. FTC, BBB, legal actions, etc."

- "As I said, most merchants are trying to please customers, so most mistakes are resolved without a chargeback. I don't think you will disagree here"

- "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."

Your non-reply means you agree with these points?