{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrv","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrv","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 08:55:30 Mike Hearn wrote:\n\n\u003e Even with their woeful security many merchants see \u003c1-2% credit card\n\u003e chargeback rates, and chargebacks can be disputed. In fact merchants win\n\u003e about 40% of chargeback disputes. So if N was only, say, 5%, and there\n\u003e was a large enough population of users who were systematically trying to\n\u003e defraud merchants, we'd already be having worse security than magstripe\n\u003e credit cards. EMV transactions have loss rates in the noise, so for\n\u003e merchants who take those Bitcoin would be dramatically less secure.\n\nJust pedantry: 100% of credit card transactions _can_ be fradulantly charged \nback but arent.  In fact, only 2% are ever attempted.\n\nIf N was 5%, then only 5% of bitcoin transactions _could_ be fraudulantly \n\"charged back\"; so then why wouldn't only 2% of those bitcoin transactions \nbe fraudulant too, just as in the CC case?\n\nThe comparison would then be 2% chargebacks for credit cards, equivalent to \n0.1% (5%*2%) for bitcoin.\n\n\nNot that I think that makes anything else you say invalid.\n\n\n\nAndy\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins\nandyparkins at gmail.com"}