Hacker News Reader

Comment by Anderkent | Hacker News Reader

* No consumer would have any faith in the system without some basic protection in case their stuff gets stolen.*

That's just not true. I wouldn't have any issues buying from a reputable merchant without the option of chargeback. I've never bought anything thinking 'well, if the guy is a scammer I can just chargeback'. So at least some consumers do have faith in the system without chargebacks.

As to bitcoin scams: yes, if you buy from an unknown person because their offer is too good to be true, you should know their offer is probably too good to be true.

Reputations can only help you if you trade with reputable people. But it's much more often the case that it's the seller that's the reputable party, not the buyer.

View on HN

I'm glad you've never had to do a charge-back, or dispute a charge to your account. Unfortunately, not everyone's had such a pleasant experience.

Your other two points are laughable. First, you employ the whole 'Buyer Beware' mantra, except not all scams come with such dead giveaways. What happens, for example, when an up-til-now reputable seller takes a ton of order money and bails(a pump-and-dump scam)? Second, you go right back to that faulty reputation argument, even going as far as to say that it's the seller who's more trustworthy than the buyer. Why is that? I've never seen anything to back that up.

All of your points put so much control in the hands of businesses. It's almost like you want to absolve them by default if the consumer gets screwed over. Where do they go for help? Bitcourt?

As a fun aside, there actually was a 'bitcourt' of sorts. It was a pretty screwed up system, and only survived up until the point where the judges ruled against the creator of the 'court.' Then he shuttered the entire thing.

I'm glad you've never had to do a charge-back, or dispute a charge to your account. Unfortunately, not everyone's had such a pleasant experience.

That's beside the point. You claimed no one would buy if not for availability of chargebacks. This is simply not true, not because I did not ever do a chargeback, but because I never even considered whether I can chargeback or not before performing a transaction. I doubt I'm in any way special in this, so there definitely are people who would buy even without the chargeback option.

What happens, for example, when an up-til-now reputable seller takes a ton of order money and bails(a pump-and-dump scam)

You lose some money, they must close their business. You and the other screwed customers report the case to the police. Just as in any other fraud case?

it's the seller who's more trustworthy than the buyer. Why is that?

Because a vast majority of transactions are between a user (buying) and a company (selling), not two users. Which one do you think is more trustworthy, a random amazon customer or amazon?

All of your points put so much control in the hands of businesses.

No, they put some control in the hands of the seller, making the situation more fair. A seller and a buyer still can arrange a transaction that's safe for both based on bitcoin. That's simply not possible using paypal, because there is no way to prevent the buyer from taking his money back.

Where do they go for help? Bitcourt?

Where does the seller go for help now when a buyer charges back? Paypalcourt?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com