Re:Letting users skip our paywall if they wrote an apology
by s73ver_ on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @12:32PM
(#15594472)
BTC processors don't have that problem because they do absolutely no fraud detection. That's a pretty big no-go for most consumers.
Re:Letting users skip our paywall if they wrote an apology
by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @03:49PM
(#15604848)
If it was actually the consumers who were averse to the risk then we could get rid of the law and nothing would change.
The problem is the law is inefficient because the consumer is the lowest cost avoider. They can do things like using a good pass phrase and not reusing passwords and not holding large sums of money in uninsured accounts for unnecessarily long periods of time.
Payment processors can't stop customers with no skin in the game from making poor decisions, so they have to sum up the cost of the resulting fraud and make everyone pay it as transaction fees, and then we can't have micro-payments.
The reason they haven't is that the law puts the burden of fraud on the payment processors. The dispute resolution overhead is the same for a $.10 transaction as a $100 transaction, but if that average cost is $.30 then you can't have $.10 transactions and the fee on $1 transactions is onerous.
Using some cheaper less effective dispute resolution for micro-transactions doesn't work because if it's possible to consistently scam it but only for a dime then people will just scam it for a dime in a for loop.
This is why the off-chain Bitcoin processors have lower transaction fees -- they don't have this problem. But then the problem is that the customer has to get some Bitcoin and if they have to buy it with a credit card we're back to square one.