>Which is why I corrected the poster who made it sound like credit cards "always" protect you, when it's not true. "Often" and "mostly", but not "always".
This is a distinction irrelevant in the real world where the status quo (at least in the US) is that companies protect you. Bitcoin has to compete with what exists, not a potential strawman based on what the laws say.
>Hardware wallets solve the theft problem. To date there have been no verifiable incidents of Bitcoins stolen from hardware wallets.
Can hardware wallets be stolen? If so, you just lost $50k regardless of the attacker gaining access to it. If not, it means you have keys backed up somewhere that can be stolen.
>>"Almost nobody gives two shits about how long it takes"
>Listen, I was just pointing out people who say "CCs transactions are quicker than Bitcoin transactions" are wrong.
Don't quote out of context. The rest of my sentence clearly shows I'm referring to the speed for the consumer. From a consumer perspective, the transaction is done right when the credit card machine returns (a.k.a within seconds).
>Accepting a zero-conf Bitcoin transaction is similar ("as risky as") accepting a CC transaction after swiping/chip-and-pin.
No it's not. A zero-conf transaction someone can double-spend against and the merchant has no recourse and the consumer has no risk. Merchants will be forced to wait for confirmation unless they have other leverage against the consumer to use on bad behavior.
In CC transactions, the risk to the merchant is a chargeback. A consumer can only lie about these a few times in their life before they get caught by a combination of the credit card company and a merchant and they will be arrested for credit card fraud.
Until the government steps in and writes laws making double-spending fraud, CC will be safe than zero-conf transactions.