It depends on a lot of other factors. Are my bitcoins on the card insured against loss or theft? Can I reverse the transaction if I get stiffed? If the answers are "no" and "no", then I'd probably still prefer my credit card for peace of mind. 3% isn't a huge discount in the grand scheme of things, and I get 1-3% rewards on my credit card for most purchases.
I already pay for it one way or another (credit card fees, bank fees, fractional reserve, etc), so yes, if its affordable. Bitcoin currently has a dearth of such services, but competent companies (I consider literally none of the Bitcoin service companies operating at this time competent, btw) offering them would get me to reconsider using it
Cool. Bitcoin is still young, so there's a lot of room for growth. I personally think Coinbase is doing a good job (though having growing pains), and others are quickly coming to join in.
Cash is still an extremely common and well-accepted method of payment for brick and mortar stores, despite the fact that it (like Bitcoin) doesn't have all the consumer protection features of credit cards.
The context of the discussion was a bitcoin card vs a credit card. Cash has nothing to do with the conversation we're having. Don't move the goalposts.
But I'll play the moving-the-goalpost game. For in-person transactions they have some similarities. They both have no chargeback or consumer protections, but we're receiving goods immediately so thats not a very large issue. Cash is instantaneous, unlike Bitcoin. Cash doesn't have exchange risk. Cash doesn't have transaction fees, while Bitcoin does. So cash is actually superior for an in-person transaction.
If I'm going to do an in-person transaction and am not going to use my card, why would I not use cash? If I don't want to carry cash, why would I not use my card? And if its an online transaction, then chargebacks are definitely something I want, even with a trusted merchant. So whats the use case for bitcoin? The OP proposed one use case; I assume that there are people who find that valid. It is not a case that interests me, personally, and that prompted my response.
Can't respond to individual comments anymore, but consumer protection is something all payment processors must have, it's the law - it's called Regulation E and it's mandated by the government. We do it for ACH same as credit cards - CC's have convinced people it's something they created, but it is not - it's the law.
Probably not. I'd prefer the mileage, peace of mind that I have recourse, consolidated statementing, free 30 day loan, etc. And you would not save 3%. In fact, with Bitcoin's volatility, you might be charged 3% as you are now when you purchase in a different currency. Bitcoin enthusiasts have a difficult time understanding the cost of currency volatility.
And yet, it's pretty common to pay with cash at any brick and mortar store, where you have no electronic protection (like chargebacks) and not even any physical protection for the cash you carry around.
If I pay with cash at a store then I'm literally walking out with the goods. For services, I've already received the services before paying.
You're correct that there is no physical protection for the cash, but that is why most people do not carry lots of cash. Most store it in an insured bank account.
What about consumer protections? Extended warranties, painless returns, fraud protection, etc. I am at no risk when using a credit card. Why would I even want to switch?
But you won't save 3% because the payment processor is going to charge you, at least eventually. And if the fee is low enough that it competes with CC then the CC companies will simply lower their prices. The CC companies can afford a price war, everyone else can't.
It's my understanding that it's explicitly against the merchant agreement with the big CC players to have different prices for different payment methods.
Of course, that's difficult to enforce in practice for every Ma and Pa operation, but if you're operating on any scale, where a significant portion of your revenue comes from CCs, that will be an issue.
>It's my understanding that it's explicitly against the merchant agreement with the big CC players to have different prices for different payment methods.
It was. Then there was a class action lawsuit against Visa and Mastercard brought on by Walmart, Target, Amazon, etc.
A part of the settlement that allows merchants to charge fees to customers paying via credit card in order to recoup swipe fees took effect on 27 January 2013. Debit cards and transactions in the ten states that prohibit credit-card surcharges will not be affected. Many large retailers, such as Wal-Mart and Target have opted not to impose surcharges.[6] In the event of a return, surcharges are refunded along with the purchase price of the merchandise.[7] The National Association of Convenience Stores, also known as the NACS, complained that this measure "merely make[s] retailers the collection agents for the banks."[8] The National Retail Federation said, "that card company fees are the problem and the surcharge story is a volume that belongs on the fiction aisles. The real threat to retailers and their customers continues to be price-fixed hidden fees that can only be cured by transparency and competition." [9]
However, the way that gas stations got around the rules at first was they were allowed to offer a "cash discount." So CC price was the "real" price and if you paid with cash you got a discount. Same thing in the end though.
