rich1.0npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrvhttps://nostr.ae/npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrvnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23 📝 Original message:On Wednesday 23 Apr 2014 08:55:30 Mike Hearn wrote: > Even with their woeful security many merchants see <1-2% credit card > chargeback rates, and chargebacks can be disputed. In fact merchants win > about 40% of chargeback disputes. So 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. EMV transactions have loss rates in the noise, so for > merchants who take those Bitcoin would be dramatically less secure. Just pedantry: 100% of credit card transactions _can_ be fradulantly charged back but arent. In fact, only 2% are ever attempted. 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? The comparison would then be 2% chargebacks for credit cards, equivalent to 0.1% (5%*2%) for bitcoin. Not that I think that makes anything else you say invalid. Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins at gmail.com