> credit card chargebacks, escrow, and fraud departments exist and work every day without requiring a perfect government. It doesn’t matter at all that there exists cases of government abuse.

What about cases of private abuse? Suppose you're using Paypal or Stripe and they lock your account for no apparent reason. Money you were paid for goods you've already shipped is now locked up, stolen from you, with no explanation or recourse.

> Imagine if the same house buyer bought the house from the scammer using crypto: There would be zero ability, even in principle, to get anything back. Those coins are gone. Even a perfect government with unlimited power could not recover them.

Suppose someone commits fraud by having you send them $50,000 in computer hardware or precious metals or bearer bonds. What happens? The government arrests them, seizes the goods and ultimately returns them to the owner. It's not any different when it's a hard drive with a private key on it instead of a bag of expensive rocks. But then they can't just take your stuff, i.e. reverse a transaction, without due process -- which is good.

Meanwhile the scammer in that case is the property owner in cahoots with the government. If the government isn't corrupt then there is no scam, because then either the person you're paying actually owns the property and having paid them the agreed upon price that is now your real estate, or they don't own it and then when you go to confirm that they actually own the property the non-corrupt government says that they don't and then you don't pay them.

> I’m sorry your country has shit courts and never helps you. Mine does. My credit card company’s fraud department does.

Except when they don't. US banks are not exactly known for their customer support, and their fraud departments don't have the investigative resources of a government. If Alice says she sent the goods and Bob says he didn't receive them, how's the bank supposed to know who's lying without sending them both to court? But every time they get it wrong they're a party to a theft.

▲

ninkendo a day ago | parent [-]

> What about cases of private abuse?

What about it?

Your entire point boils down to “fiat has flaws therefore crypto is better”, while completely ignoring that crypto is worse at the very things fiat is flawed at. Fiat sometimes doesn’t protect you, but crypto NEVER does, and CAN’T, even in principle.

None of your CONSTANT whataboutism across this entire thread is going to change this, so please, just stop posting.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Fiat sometimes doesn’t protect you, but crypto NEVER does, and CAN’T, even in principle. You're selling your old PC. The buyer pays you with Paypal or a check or some other digital fiat transfer, you give them possession of the PC, then they reverse the charge and steal your money. That's the thing cryptocurrency protects you from, in the same way and for the same reason as cash does. And if the fiat system would provide that over the internet -- irreversible anonymous cash transfers -- then cryptocurrency would be a lot less useful. But it doesn't, so it's not.