š
Original date posted:2014-04-23
š Original message:On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 12:07:25 Mike Hearn wrote:
> > Just pedantry: 100% of credit card transactions _can_ be fradulantly
> > charged
> > back but arent.
>
> If you do a chargeback the bank double checks this, investigates it and
> people who repeatedly try and do fraudulent chargebacks get their
> accounts terminated. It's not like your bank offers you a "reverse this
> payment" button in the UI that always works, right?
True; the effort of a chargeback is non-zero on credit cards; but that's my
point: it's non-zero for bitcoin too.
> > If N was 5%, then only 5% of bitcoin transactions _could_ be
> > fraudulantly "charged back"; so then why wouldn't only 2% of those
> > bitcoin transactions be fraudulant too, just as in the CC case?
>
> If you attempt fraud against a bank, they know who you are and will come
> after you in one way or another. But it's safe to assume that users of a
> double spend service would be anonymous and the kind of merchants they go
> after are not hassling their customers with strong ID checks, so there
> would be no consequences for them. It's a game they can only win.
You're still being unfair to bitcoin. Not everyone who uses bitcoins will
be dishonest. The dishonest 5% hashing power is not going to be used in
100% of any given merchants transactions. That's all I'm saying. You're
original statement that we could end up in a position that bitcoin has a
higher failure rate than credit cards seems unfair to me.
> if N was only, say, 5%, and there was a large enough population of users
who were systematically trying to defraud merchants, we'd already be having
worse security than magstripe credit cards.
"[If] there was a large enough population" -- why are bitcoin users more
dishonest than credit card users? Most people are honest, so it seems
unlikely that that 5% attack surface would be used at 100%; or even 40%
necessary to equal the 2% chargeback rate with CC.
I really didn't want to get into an argument over this: all I'm saying is
that things aren't as bad as you painted them.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
Andy Parkins [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nxā¦7wjrv
2023-06-07 15:19:25
in reply to nevent1qā¦2lkl
Author Public Key
npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrvSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:19:25Event JSON
{
"id": "7f551b0b83f49362bc748c066a2a3472323a057c2f10e0d25c3449a47963ee60",
"pubkey": "99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59",
"created_at": 1686151165,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5090665aad23a77b012135979db1e16bc811db23aa511d1ac7d17a56045795a8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2696deb4f59128227e01f06d7cd0fde07e6f72205864a6bd6231fca48e91ce18",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2014-04-23\nš Original message:On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 12:07:25 Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Just pedantry: 100% of credit card transactions _can_ be fradulantly\n\u003e \u003e charged\n\u003e \u003e back but arent.\n\u003e \n\u003e If you do a chargeback the bank double checks this, investigates it and\n\u003e people who repeatedly try and do fraudulent chargebacks get their\n\u003e accounts terminated. It's not like your bank offers you a \"reverse this\n\u003e payment\" button in the UI that always works, right?\n\nTrue; the effort of a chargeback is non-zero on credit cards; but that's my \npoint: it's non-zero for bitcoin too.\n\n\u003e \u003e If N was 5%, then only 5% of bitcoin transactions _could_ be\n\u003e \u003e fraudulantly \"charged back\"; so then why wouldn't only 2% of those\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin transactions be fraudulant too, just as in the CC case?\n\u003e \n\u003e If you attempt fraud against a bank, they know who you are and will come\n\u003e after you in one way or another. But it's safe to assume that users of a\n\u003e double spend service would be anonymous and the kind of merchants they go\n\u003e after are not hassling their customers with strong ID checks, so there\n\u003e would be no consequences for them. It's a game they can only win.\n\nYou're still being unfair to bitcoin. Not everyone who uses bitcoins will \nbe dishonest. The dishonest 5% hashing power is not going to be used in \n100% of any given merchants transactions. That's all I'm saying. You're \noriginal statement that we could end up in a position that bitcoin has a \nhigher failure rate than credit cards seems unfair to me.\n\n\u003e if N was only, say, 5%, and there was a large enough population of users \nwho were systematically trying to defraud merchants, we'd already be having \nworse security than magstripe credit cards.\n\n\"[If] there was a large enough population\" -- why are bitcoin users more \ndishonest than credit card users? Most people are honest, so it seems \nunlikely that that 5% attack surface would be used at 100%; or even 40% \nnecessary to equal the 2% chargeback rate with CC. \n\nI really didn't want to get into an argument over this: all I'm saying is \nthat things aren't as bad as you painted them.\n\n\nAndy\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins\nandyparkins at gmail.com",
"sig": "6a21ee4172ceb71da6d1d3a1195bfd23b416860eff735a48bad8252a5dd0302fb49c59cdb73ba6e8cec15b1b65bd387a6e3a44ed9ec37bd76f1e0c61fd1a3356"
}