Topic: What's up with the flaunting of irreversibility? - page 2. (Read 331 times)

adding reversibility will instantly be abused

chargeback scamming is high.
faking "my account has been hacked" to get a refund is high

bitcoins purpose is for PEOPLE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY of THEIR OWN VALUE.

transaction finality is the biggest feature of all
once its confirmed its final. and its the whole point of why people trust bitcoin. confirmation finality.

bitcoin protocol does not need reversibility. if people dont want to take responsibility to manage their funds they can always hand it to some custodian and let them manage it.

the way to see it is simple.. a suitcase of cash.
if you cant trust your own judgement to look after it. then find something that can do it for you(escrow).
if you are the type that would happily hand a suitcase of cash to a stranger with just a conversation of "ill be back later to give you the goods".. then maybe you should have done some checks and thinking before agreeing to such a lack of self security

heck even silkroad, a place for illicit drug dealings had its own escrow service and from reading old forum posts it seems that many people were happy with this and no one was demanding to break bitcoins independance to add reversibility

it does not require breaking bitcoins confirmation finality to give people some more control. they can easily find escrow services/custodians/even a friend/relative to work as a middle man if they want some buffer

I confess that the above responses haven't convinced me for the reason of this flaunting. They're like — Irreversibility is better because of <whatever>.

But, the merchants should do what's better for the client. Especially, if it's a recently-made business that exists exclusively in the internet. I can't trust them my money if I don't have another trusted third party.

I understand you like this liberty that is offered to the seller, I can concede it from the way you've formulated your opinion. However, I'd like to respond to this:

There's a strange thing with people who support this innovative, anarchic technology:  Instead of trying to give a solution, that will, if not completely solve the problem, balance the final result, they want to eliminate it completely. For instance, there's a problem with appeals which can happen even if the service is legitimate. How about making the transactions without trust? This way, the sellers won't suffer from this social engineering aspect.

Yes, but as you can see there are other problems created on the opposite end of the spectrum.

The reversal doesn't just happen with the clicking of a button. The procedure is durative as you'll have to provide evidence you've got victim of a fraud.

How's that? You mean the customers?

Irreversible like Bitcoin? They don't. You mean reversible like PayPal?

Isn't PayPal responsible for this?

It has its ups and downs, of course. If you send money to a scammer, you can't get it back. That being said, I don't think banks willingly give people their money back if they send to scammers either, otherwise so much money wouldn't be lost to scammers. I used the reverse option once in my life, but it was simple because they didn't actually send the money to the receiver's bank yet, and it was clear from the records that it was simply a mistake in a transaction (my card was charged twice for one purchase in a shop). But there's a benefit of irreversibility if you're a receiver, of course, because once you're paid, you're paid, and nobody can take that from you. Overall, it makes Bitcoin more serious and definitive.

From this last line, I think your post is talking more on anonymity than irreversibility, in the sense that if you get scammed with Bitcoin, there are very few ways to actually prove that you were scammed, and such cases are more often than not dismissed, but the thing is, whatever has a pro, usually has a con, thus with all the advantages of Bitcoin, which is most especially the fact that users are their own banks, the one thing the network expects of it's users is to protect themselves to the best of their ability, Bitcoin users who learn the security protocols on the network will hardly get scammed, if they want to make purchases with Bitcoin, they'll only buy from a well known store or individual who accepts Bitcoin, as a user, knowing how difficult it is to trace Bitcoin transaction, you should as such take double steps in protecting yourself and making the right choices when it comes to your funds.

Well, the way I address a problem like this is usually through a Escrow service, but you do not want to do it that way. (So you obviously have to accept the consequences of that decision) Now on the other hand... using Escrow services for small purchases defeats the purpose of using Bitcoin to save money on fees, because it inflates the price of the whole purchase.

I normally do a test run with the cheapest product or service to "test" the merchant/retailer and then scale up my purchases if I am happy with their service. Obviously you cannot do this for all purchases, but it helps me to "validate" if these merchants are worth supporting.  

Also, the "irreversibility" advantage is advantageous for the seller and not for the buyer, because the sellers are being scammed by reversed transactions ..after they provided the service or product. 

Irreversible that's good for the merchant right and that is the biggest advantage of cryptocurrencies along with the decentralization. But the irreversible is only possible when we are talking about the confirmation so the merchant need to wait for atleast one confirmation to say that the money becomes mine which may take time when we are using less fee. And borderless transaction makes the bitcoin to become more preferably than paypal or banking channels because the receiver have to wait for days which is not the case with Bitcoin.

Lets look at this way. There are 2 ways of implementing the payment system.
1. Reversible like PayPal
2. Irreversible like bitcoin

A- The merchants using the first way will get scammed very easily and they can't do much about it.
B- This method would also be impossible to implement in a decentralized payment system. So if there were reversible transactions you can bet that all merchants are going to be scammed every day.
C- The merchant can also not know who the user is so they can't tell if the user is a scammer or an honest  customer.
D- Users using the first way are more protected although they can still be scammed if the processor (ie. PayPal) doesn't let them reverse the transaction even if they got scammed!

A- The merchants using the second way are protected and there is no way to scam them as the [confirmed] transactions are irreversible.
B- This is also the only way that works in a decentralized system.
C- Unlike other method, here the user can analyze the merchant and see if they can trust them. User can remain private but the merchant is not. Looking at feedback, age of their service, etc.
D- The users can still get scammed but the risk is significantly reduced. As I said the merchant "trustworthiness" could be measured and there are always escrows.

So you see when we look at pros and cons of two methods we realize that the second method is superior because it has less flaws even though neither are perfect.

Irreversibility is good in a way that when you receive BTC with a good amount of confirmations, you know for sure that the funds are now actually yours without the fear of losing it. Knowing your bitcoin can't be taken away from you through reversing the transaction simply makes you sleep better at night, especially if it's a huge sum of money.

Now, obviously bitcoin doesn't fix literally anything, and buyer/seller fraud is one of them. While it sure helps to have reverse transactions in the situation your describing, it could also easily easily be a flaw. Imagine you selling some books to someone, then the buyer just reverses the transaction. Poof.

The thing is; reversibility or a charge back absolutely does protect millions of pounds worth of money from fraud every year. However, it also enables people to use a charge back to their benefit, and therefore get products/services that they initially paid for, and then later charge back after using that product/service.

So, no matter what angle you come from, charge backs can be argued as a positive, and a negative. Although, Bitcoin when trading with a trusted middle man is absolutely the best way to exchange money, though I understand people's reluctance to use a third party when it comes to handling money. Though, ultimately when it comes to a dispute its the escrow that will be determining the outcome of the dispute.  

Personally, I would prefer to know that when I get paid, it can't be then taken off of me at a later date, because someone won an appeal, which usually favours buyers in all instances. So, you could be providing a perfectly legitimate service, but because of the appeals process which in the most popular websites consider buyer safety more than seller safety, they could potentially win a appeal simply by social engineering the person who's reviewing it. After all, these companies want to advertise that its safe to buy on their platform, not to sell.

Bitcoin doesn't allow for that social engineering aspect, and while it could be argued that the fact you can't reverse or charge back a transaction as a negative, I believe its the best approach since you aren't relying on a third party to determine the fate of your money.

The only issue with that is you're 100% responsible for doing your research when making a transaction, and sometimes research can't be conducted on every trade. That's part of the risk that Bitcoin entails if you use it.

I don't really know the answer on what's better. I don't like the appeal process in several websites, and while I have never had a problem selling something simply because I don't routinely do so, I know people who have offered a perfectly acceptable service get burned through it. So, it definitely does protect sellers in some cases.

Which is why while I do recommend people use escrows, I'm actually not a big fan of getting any third party involved. That's just my personal feeling towards the freedom that Bitcoin grants. Though, I think escrow does suit most peoples needs, because most people actually prefer a safety net, instead of being the sole responsible person for their money.

This is why I'm not entirely against banks either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of them, but I can understand why some people would want fraud protection, and all that malarkey.

Well, talking about trust they are ways things can be handled and a buyer will be on the safer zone than the seller. Implementing double spending on a transaction can keep you safe and keep the seller at bay. The seller may now be compared to send the product before the buyer sends another funds (transaction fee) that will trigger the transaction to be confirmed.

On this note the buyer can reverse the transaction if they do not get their products and as well if they got the product. So, the best practice is to take an escrow at every transaction because in this space nobody trusts easily with their hard earned money or products.

It's an advantage from the point of view of receiver. Sellers can lose money to chargebacks if the funds came from stolen credit card or if the buyer is a scammer. People say that merchants will love Bitcoin because of this and will hurry to adopt it and will offer lower prices, because they won't have to pay fees to payment processor if they accept Bitcoin on chain.

So, overall both reversibility and irreversibility have upsides and downsides. But you are right that reversibility is better from the point of buyers, and there's way more buyers than sellers in the economy.

That's the reality of a decentralized system, you do not pick and choose the part of it that you deal with.
With fiat systems, your finances are regulated, this does not mean you cannot be scammed, even the banks can screw you over. But there's a centralized system that exists and this gives an extra layer of options.

With Bitcoin, you do not have that, and are fully responsible for your transactions and everything else related to it. You make the decision to use an escrow and can make the decision not to and take the risk. It's just you and the other party with no third wheel.

They're not idiots, they're just evil. Sorry, had to say this.
And I don't want to imply that the others would be idiots; I guess that they just don't care - there are far too many businesses that work under the "principle": if the money flows, why bother?

It's interesting that they do this, I didn't know. I would have been expecting them also in the "why bother" team. It looks like they're one more step in front of the competition. I really hope a proper Bitcoin payment processor will emerge and fast. One that is smart and also not evil.



Back to OP: reversible transactions help one side, irreversible transactions help the other side. It's still a good feature, not a weakness imho; I find it more normal that when a transaction is done, it's 100% done.
Fiat is also not reversible per se, it's just intermediaries who made it so.

Which does kind of bring up an interesting point about BitPay. They are one of the few that actually work with buyers when the merchant does not deliver. Many of the other custodial ones are still more of a hands off approach. Could be just the way they choose to do business, could be because they are US based and have to deal with other rules, but for all the crap they do, it's still better then the "too bad, so sad" attitude that other BTC / crypto processors have. Not saying BitPay is good, just bringing up the point that having processors have a 'merchant complaint department' would not be a bad thing.

-Dave

Let's say you order something and choose to pay with cash. The courier won't hand it to you until you pay. You may expect something valuable, but the seller was a dick and put in there a brick.
Bitcoin is closer to hard cash than to CC, for example.

And PayPal is designed closer to an escrow that favors the buyer; comparing Bitcoin with that is like comparing apples with oranges.


I think that all depends on the selling platform. If you buy directly from a seller, you're indeed better with escrow or PayPal. But most things one usually buys from bigger shops/selling platforms. For now most are used with CC/PayPal handling user protection in this kind of matters, but for example AliExpress are themselves escrow - afaik the seller receives the money very late and the buyer has quite a good chance to prove he received broken product/got scammed and get his money back. I guess that for Bitcoin the shops or payment processors (why not?) may have to evolve into handling this too. And, interestingly, CBDCs getting issued may be of help in this matter.

And if you're a fraud, it's yours. Not mine. That's what I'm saying.

Because that's the way it was setup? On the other side there are a lot of merchants that took care of the customer and said / delivered what they said they were going to do and faced a CC chargeback or bounced check.

If you hand me cash and I don't do what I said I was going to do / deliver what I said I was going to deliver. How is that any different?
BTC is not 100% cash, but it's close enough to it that we keep telling people to treat their wallets like cash, and secure them with hardware, etc.
That is the point, that is the reason we "flaunt the irreversibility" because once I hand you cash it's yours, once I send you BTC it's yours.

-Dave

Maybe a dumb question, but why should I display irreversibility as an advantage? I recently made a transaction using bitcoin and waited for long time to receive what I purchased. So long that I thought I got scammed.

How can I, as a customer, be protected my malicious sellers? I can't really use an escrow service every time, I need to ensure the seller will be discouraged to steal my money with a smarter, cheaper and more comfortable way. For instance, PayPal transactions are reversible within a time frame of 6 months. I could address them.

How can the police confirm I've got scammed and not lied? It's definitely harder than with cash if the seller knows how things work.