> It doesn't remove anything. The consumer is accepting the risk that they pay for something and don't receive it. You are just shifting the risk it is still there.

The risk the merchant is trying to avoid is actually removed, not shifted to anyone. The risk that the customer pays for something and doesn't receive it is irrelevant for many transactions, because the seller is trustworthy and allows easy returns, so the risk from them isn't any higher than the risk of the credit card company not crediting your payment or sticking you with a surprise fee.

It also isn't inherent to cryptocurrency. There is no reason you can't use escrow if you feel the need to. But you could avoid the cost of that escrow, implicitly built into credit card networks and non-optional there, when you don't feel you need it.

> Chargebacks aren't only for fraud or dishonesty on the part of the retailer they are for any situation when you don't believe you received what you paid for.

https://chargebacks911.com/credit-card-chargebacks/

> No because again the bankrupt company hasn't provided the service they took money for. Taking back the money isn't fraud.

Taking back money from a company in bankruptcy is typically illegal (and unethical) because their other creditors also have a claim to the money, so you're really taking it from them rather than the company who owes it to you. This is why bankruptcy courts exist; to fairly allocate the bankrupt entity's assets. You're not allowed to skip the line.

> So you can be denied the use of most crypto in practical terms by having you address blacklisted in which case no mainstream exchange will accept your coins.

Anybody can trivially get a new address and transfer their coins to it without the use of an exchange. Blacklisting every address that has received coins from a blacklisted address doesn't work because you don't need someone's permission to send them coins, so it would grant anyone with a blacklisted address the power to blacklist anyone else. Also, a blockchain is global and countries that don't respect the blacklist would cause the number of affected addresses to constitute the entire network within a short period of time.

> Then use crypto, but that isn't a concern for very many legitimate transactions.

Isn't it? Why would I want the credit card companies to even know if I'm buying a toothbrush? Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258

> It's like paying in cash remotely, hence mailing money.

That's assuming you're using it remotely. If it wasn't made purposely inconvenient then you could use it to buy coffee or gas.

> Paying in cash in person is fine because you are right there to collect your goods or confront the thief standing in front of you.

People are perfectly willing to pay cash to someone who is bigger than them, or armed, so that can't really be it. Also, confronting them like a vigilante is hardly necessary when you know who they are and they're subject to legal process, which is the same over the internet.

And again this only seems to apply to someone you expect to rob you. Microsoft accepts cryptocurrency. You may not trust them at all, but if you pay them with it for a Windows license, what are you afraid will happen? Anything that couldn't also happen three months later after the chargeback window is closed?

> You believe the reason people don't pay for things by mailing cash is because of the cost of postage? Besides being ridiculous maybe check the cost of a bitcoin transaction during modest volume events.

If you're making a $2 transaction, spending $0.73 on postage and then waiting several days to be credited is ridiculous, not to mention most merchants don't accept it because it requires manual processing and presents an insider theft risk.

Bitcoin has high transaction costs because it's the oldest (and some of the ingroup likes it that way). There are several other cryptocurrencies where the transaction costs are trivial, it's not inherent to the technology.