> The difference is the victim. In a malware scenario, cc’s it’s the card holder, with cryptocurrency it’s the vendor that is getting screwed.
This makes no sense. The CC holder isn't screwed, they are mildly inconvenienced while they wait for a replacement card. It doesn't matter how many months after a breach it happens - the person who ends up without money is whe merchant who the fraudster used the stolen card with, because they will get a chargeback fee and lose stock (if they sent it out before chargebacks happen).
The vendor isn't screwed in in the cryptocurrency situation. The vendor isn't out of pocket (except for losing a sale). The person who sent the money to the hacked address (i.e you) are. Maybe the vendor will decide to send you the product anyway because their site got hacked, but that would be entirely up to them and not a function of the payment method used.
I can see how it might aid early detection. But I don't see how in that scenario you're safer using Bitcoin. The malware could be on the customers computer rather than the website. It could only be altering one in every 100 transactions. It could not be malware, it could just be a vendor selectively scamming. There are many nice features in cryptocurrency, but consumer protection is not one of them and it's a weird thing to espouse.