Three that I can remember.

1) When a budget airline went bankrupt, leaving me stranded in a country most people can't place on the map (i.e. limited flights out of it.) The full ticket price was refunded.

2) When a music festival I had a ticket for went bankrupt. Full ticket price refunded.

3) When a concert was cancelled, and I'd bought the ticket on a dodgy reselling website which refused to refund (ViaGoGo), saying they'd not been informed of the cancellation. It was widely reported in the music press, and there was an apology on the band's homepage. The bank refunded the money.

Chargebacks are like seatbelts: ideally only a tiny percentage of users ever need to actually use them, but their presence increases the safety of the system for all users.

If you've ever had your credit card number stolen and used by a criminal for fraudulent purchases which you later disputed, you've used chargebacks.

Right, you need a remedy for the inherent insecurity of credit cards. Is it always a charge back though? In other words, are merchants eating all the costs of fraudulent credit card transactions? I guess either way the cost really gets passed on to us consumers in the end.

> you need a remedy for the inherent insecurity of credit cards

Fraud and theft are fairly general problems. I would direct your attention to /r/sorryforyourloss

> In other words, are merchants eating all the costs of fraudulent credit card transactions?

If the goods cannot be recovered, then yes, the merchant eats the costs.

> I guess either way the cost really gets passed on to us consumers in the end.

Someone will always be left holding the short end of the stick when fraud occurs. The alternative to shifting the liability to the merchant is the consumer being directly accountable (rather than vicariously as you're suggesting).

Remember that you don't need to use it often precisely because every party knows that you have that option. So people don't try to scam you because they know it won't work. They know it is a solved problem, a means of security they can't breach. They know that if they misbehave, the other party won't be harmed (they'll get their money back, if harming them was their intention) and they themselves will be punished instead.

Just because you've never had to use it doesn't mean it's useless.

I personally feel crypto users will goto any lengths to glorify the shitty db blockchain is.

If (!Supported by blockchain):

    Print("Useless tech and I dont use it")

Else

    Print("HODL")