[vanzard]

Credit cards enable theft at, or fraud by the merchant because you give the merchant your CC info; Bitcoin fixes this flaw by design as it cryptographically authorizes only transactions of specific amounts to specific addresses.

CCs and Bitcoin solve different issues with fraud and theft. I argue that the protection offered by CCs is overrated. For example plenty of people everyday are happy to use a system that does not offer these protections: cash. I don't see you running around warning people to not use cash because it offers no protection.

[sanswork]

>I don't see you running around warning people to not use cash because it offers no protection

People are happy to use cash because in almost all cash transactions they are able to verify the receipt of the product or service immediately or have a known location within reach to access the seller incase it doesn't happen.

>I don't see you running around warning people to not use cash because it offers no protection.

But this is something that is warned against. People/organisations warn against mailing cash for this exact reason all the time.

[vanzard]

We warn about mailing cash to dubious/untrustworthy recipients.

But paying a very trustworthy merchant by mailing cash would probably be fine in terms of risk of theft: mailing a $100 bill is no different than mailing a $100 item, yet people ship millions of $100+ items every day through the postal system and few get stolen.

It's just stupid to mail cash because faster ways of sending money exist.

[sanswork]

We don't warn against mailing cash only because it might be stolen in transit we warn against it because of the lack of tracking. How do you know the store received the cash? What happens if your envelope is delivered but falls off the mail cart somewhere and is lost? The merchant isn't going to take your word that you mailed them cash no matter how trustworthy they are.

[vanzard]

> lack of tracking

Are you joking? The entire shipping industry offers tracking services, delivery confirmations, etc.

[sanswork]

Yes that will track that a package arrived but it doesn't track that it had money in it or its location within the receivers infrastructure.

I get that you're a huge fan of bitcoin but your instance to dismiss the possibility that companies can make mistakes in processing orders or managing orders or shipping is really weird. Even after I've showed you examples of it happening. Even in large 'trustworthy' companies.

I've said it repeatedly during our discussions. Not all problems that require a chargeback are fraud. Just let that sink in for a bit then go back and read our last conversation with that statement in mind and look at the points where you repeatedly accuse me to saying a company was willfully fraudulent immediately after I said the above.

I think from this point I'm just going to stop responding as honestly I don't feel like wasting time in another back and forth over whether or not companies are able to make mistakes.

[vanzard]

> it doesn't track that it had money in it or its location within the receivers infrastructure

If the customer mails an empty envelope, the merchant won't ship, so where is the problem?

If postal workers steal the cash but reseal the envelope... well these incidents do happen but are very rare. It can't be the major reason why "people don't mail cash". People mail valuable items all the time.

If a trustworthy merchant genuinely lose the envelope after delivery... well these incidents are also very rare. It can't be the major reason why "people don't mail cash".

If a fraudulent merchant "lose" the cash after delivery... as I said this is why we warn to not mail cash to untrustworthy merchants.

Again, "lack of tracking" is not why people don't mail cash even to trustworthy merchants. People don't do it because faster and more convenient ways of sending money exist.

> your instance to dismiss the possibility that companies can make mistakes

I DON'T DISMISS MISTAKES. I acknowledge they do happen. But they are rare and therefore don't matter as much as you insist they do. You gave me 3 examples of Tiger Direct refund problems, and yet that's only 3 out of thousands(?) of error-free orders. And these 3 all were eventually solved in the customer's favor, so none of them required a chargeback (had it been possible).

> Not all problems that require a chargeback are fraud.

That's not my point. My point is all of these problems (whatever they are: mistakes, frauds, etc) are rare to begin with. How many times to I have to explain it? You even confirmed it with your own life experience: you personnally issued only 2 chargebacks, ever.

Chargebacks are RARELY needed, period.