> Do you have any evidence of this?

http://bit.ly/10iW5wJ page 12: "Merchants report that they win, on average, 40% of the chargebacks they dispute". Obviously x% of these disputes (with 0 <= x <= 100) are disputes that the customer should have won, but the merchant did because the dispute process is not flawless.

> So what is it? No more work (and I just have to fill in a form) or more work?

Typically it is no more work. I have experience from almost filing a dispute on my Wells Fargo credit card against Sprint. I didn't end up filing it because Sprint sent me a refund at the last second. Wells Fargo's online dispute forms do ask for some evidence: such as a log of email exchanges, shipping tracking numbers, etc. That's how I know. Obviously the process varies between credit card issuers. And I am sure no evidence is required when it is clear the merchant is at fault (a phone call will do). But either way this is similar to the complexity of the process of submitting a complaint with the FTC, where it can be as simple as a phone call if verbal info is all you are willing to provide to them.

> Also you realize the BBB is a private company that has no teeth right?

The BBB is quite effective: "The overall settlement rate for all complaints filed by consumers in 2014 reached a record high of 91 percent" http://www.bbb.org/charlotte/news-events/bbb-in-the-news/201... Why do you imply they are ineffective?

> I see bitcoin people recommend small claims court all the time. It works great when the merchant it local. It doesn't work so well when the merchant isn't since you have to file in their county. So add on travel time, missed work, etc to travel to where ever they are(assuming they are in your country) and it becomes a lot less likely someone is going to go this route.

I agree, but don't lie by saying "it also requires that the company screw up repeatedly".

> This was a big company and if you read the correspondences they were more than happy to ignore the people until a 3rd party stepped in. This works great on rare occasions but bitpay isn't going to be able to afford to police transactions with their fees.

You imply TigerDirect was intentionally dishonest, but it is very obvious the incorrect refund amount ($14.99 instead of $167.21) was a glitch, a bug. No matter how you want to believe it, this story doesn't show that merchants are dishonest and evil when they take bitcoins and they know there are no chargebacks. Are you claiming some evil TigerDirect employee typed in $14.99 intentionally on his terminal to try to rip off the customer?

> I'll also note you skipped over the miner disputes in your response.

I didn't reply because this is not relevant: most customers who paid the manufacturers with credit cards could not dispute the charges either, because of the 60-day limit after which chargebacks are not allowed. So I am not sure what is your point... Whether you paid the manufacturer with a credit card or in bitcoins, all customers are out of their money regardless.

Also, you too skipped over many of my points:

- "But I am not claiming a legal action is as likely as a chargeback to make the customer whole. I am claiming a legal action works just as well as a chargeback to put pressure on merchants to keep them honest."

- "But I will repeat for the third time: this is not the only thing that incentivize merchants. FTC, BBB, legal actions, etc."

- "As I said, most merchants are trying to please customers, so most mistakes are resolved without a chargeback. I don't think you will disagree here"

- "So yeah for the 1% of cases where you think the merchant might be fraudulent use Bitcoin with escrow, or a credit card, or cash-on-delivery, or whatever. For the other 99% a standard non-escrowed Bitcoin transaction is acceptable."

Your non-reply means you agree with these points?