{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Just pedantry: 100% of credit card transactions _can_ be fradulantly\n\u003e charged\n\u003e back but arent.\n\u003e\n\nIf you do a chargeback the bank double checks this, investigates it and\npeople who repeatedly try and do fraudulent chargebacks get their accounts\nterminated. It's not like your bank offers you a \"reverse this payment\"\nbutton in the UI that always works, right?\n\n\n\u003e If N was 5%, then only 5% of bitcoin transactions _could_ be fraudulantly\n\u003e \"charged back\"; so then why wouldn't only 2% of those bitcoin transactions\n\u003e be fraudulant too, just as in the CC case?\n\u003e\n\nIf you attempt fraud against a bank, they know who you are and will come\nafter you in one way or another. But it's safe to assume that users of a\ndouble spend service would be anonymous and the kind of merchants they go\nafter are not hassling their customers with strong ID checks, so there\nwould be no consequences for them. It's a game they can only win.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/f073fecc/attachment.html\u003e"}