Secured payments, consumer protection and buyer recourse...

[Bitcoinorama]

Credit Cards, secured payments and what you as buyers should be looking for...

Over the last few months there have been an increasing number of fraudulent companies appearing, and disappearing, leaving many forum members burnt along the way.

There are also an increasing amount of seemingly genuine companies that despite all the evidence suggesting they are indeed legitimate, don't want to share the same risk as a genuine company in a standard operating environment.

This is a huge concern, as due to the very nature of 'pre-ordering' your funds are tied up and inaccessible until either you receive your goods, or you don't. No company's own 'buyer protection' can help you if they fail to deliver on time and cannot afford the overheads to operate. None. They will have entered administration and your non-secured funds (mostly BTC) are gone until which point if you are organised enough to pursue some form of legal recourse, you may if lucky see a small percentage of what you gave.

In short unless there is some form of Independent third party consumer protection via credit card payment you would be insane to purchase ANY pre-orders.

How many times do you need to lose funds and be burnt to learn otherwise?

The Butterfly Labs customers stand a chance to be reimbursed if they paid by credit card (not debit card) dependant on their country of origin and card issuer. The Bitsyncom/Avalon guys (and girls) don't.

Issuing banks, payment processors, Paypal, etc. goto huge lengths to perform background checks and verify the business practices of a prospective partner before allowing their company to trade with their name. Butterfly Labs have made this a lot harder for prospective companies entering an agreement with Paypal. To a great degree this is very helpful. It's very time intensive for the prospective company, as the checks are very thorough if Paypal are going to offer their brand and consumer protection to a worthwhile partner.

Any ASIC manufacturer not pursuing this route is not worth considering. They aren't taking theor customers welfare seriously. They want an easy get out clause and are not committed to seeing your side of the deal through fairly. I cannit stress this enough. They neither have invested the time, nor effort required, cannot meet Paypal's stringent criteria, do not care about their customers purchase, or don't have the faith in their own abilities, or ability to deliver their product on time.

In essence without card payment protection you are diving naked with sharks and an open wound. You're crazy. Fact.

--

What do you need to be aware of?

Each country has various consumer protection laws and it would be ideal if in this thread we can share what they are, so please post what you know about where you are situated below.

Each card issuer in each country can also have their own terms and conditions, length of protection, etc. So share some of the best deals below.

Not all companies here have gone to the lengths to prove they are financially capable to undertake such pre-ordering to recognised payment processors, let alone to us on this forum. Payment processors are very strict and don't just pair with anyone. Believe it or not Paypal has some of the most stringent requirements.

--

Fraud

Many companies to compete are offering to enter production directly in receipt of their chips from the foundry. This is a speculative which risk game, irrespective of design talent. It's make or break and without consumer protection, you will be the one to foot the bill.

This is totally unnecessary when a  company can simply offer a more secure payment method, by applying to accept credit card payment. There is no reason not to, unless they are forcing buyers into a high pressure sales situation where buyers purchase before thinking about the consequences. The company walks away unscathed, you won't.

Bitcoin as fantastic as it is as a digital cash, is not fit for the realm of pre-ordering, it's not a secure payment method, hence almost all of the Bitcoin pre-orders have resulted on a loss and no one accountable. Companies only offering non-secure payment methods, such as Bitcoin, or wire-transfer only must be avoided unless you are willing to lose all you invest.

No matter what they promise you with respect to refunds, unless you are protected by an independent third party, forget it, walk away, a better more legitimate company that will make the effort to appease payment processors, Paypal etc. will eventually surface, especially *if* they are a serious contender.

Hedging bets, and making several payments by card over several companies with the explicit purpose of dropping purchases is fraud in your part, and illegal by breach of contract. This has to be taken seriously as in the realm of pre-orders companies are relying on that cash for non-reoccurring engineering costs. NRE is also the reason that should they not succeed and have taken payment by non secure payment means (BTC, wire transfer) you will never see your funds again.

--


False refund promises, the requisite for third party protection, due diligence and common sense.

Regardless of whether a vendor offers you a no quibble refund, the practice of agreeing payment for an exchange of goods with no intention to see the purchase through is fraudulent. In any case this can be avoided if you take the time to do your own research, due diligence and make an informed choice.

In any case with respect to pre-orders, no credit card payment as a payment choice, means no strict company background and verification by a recognised third party (issuing bank, payment processor), no third party insuring the purchase, and definitely no deal.

Real companies will take the step of accepting card payment if they care about their customers and want to be taken seriously.

Use your head and apply some common sense, instead of diving blindly into the pool of sharks circling below.

Stay safe. Only pay by credit card if pre-ordering.  Peace.

[1714923647]

1714923647

[1714923647]

1714923647

[Bitcoinorama]

Great UK based info:


http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

DO: Pay by credit card if it's over £100

Pay for £100+ goods on a credit card and the card company's jointly liable with the retailer if something goes wrong. This applies to gift cards and vouchers too, provided each denomination is at least £100. Though only do this if you can clear the card in full next month to avoid interest.

This gives you extra legal rights, but for full details see the Section 75 Refunds guide.

Section 75 refunds - Free protection for ALL spending;

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

Section 75 (UK)

The law behind this

This all comes from Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, hence why this is sexily named Section 75. It rather impenetrably says…

75. — (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor. Read it in full

(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under sub-section (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a claim:
(a) under a non-commercial agreement,
(b) so far as the claim relates to a single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000, or
(c) under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit:
(i) which provides for the making of payments by the debtor in relation to specified periods which, in the case of an agreement which is not secured on land, do not exceed three months, and
(ii) which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one.

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under sub-section (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party in the proceedings.

75A (1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—
(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,
(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,
(c)that the supplier is insolvent, or
(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.

(3)The steps referred to in subsection (2)(d) need not include litigation.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.

(5)In this section “linked credit agreement” means a regulated consumer credit agreement which serves exclusively to finance an agreement for the supply of specific goods or the provision of a specific service and where—
(a)the creditor uses the services of the supplier in connection with the preparation or making of the credit agreement, or
(b)the specific goods or provision of a specific service are explicitly specified in the credit agreement.

(6)This section does not apply where—
(a)the cash value of the goods or service is £30, 000 or less,
(b)the linked credit agreement is for credit which exceeds £60, 260, or
(c)the linked credit agreement is entered into by the debtor wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.

(7)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 16B (declaration by the debtor as to the purposes of the agreement) apply for the purposes of subsection (6)(c).

(8)This section does not apply to an agreement secured on land.

NOTE: As of mid-June, the UK government has decided to overhaul our consumer rights to better clarify aspects and bring the 1974 ruling in line with modern digital purchases via the Internet;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-consumer-rights-bill

Police; http://content.met.police.uk/Home
Office of Fair Trading; euroteam@oft.gsi.gov.uk

--

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable?!

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

"Advance fee fraud is when fraudsters target victims to make advance or upfront payments for goods, services and/or financial gains that do not materialise."

http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud-az-advance-fee-fraud

--

US Based Info

What to do if you are a victim

Write to the Federal Trade Commission: spam@uce.gov - copy them on the email and explain what has occurred since.

If you have lost money

If you believe you are a victim of advance fee fraud, the coalition members strongly encourage you to file a complaint with your local police. If you are in the United States consider filing a complaint with the Federal Beaureau of Investigation's Internet Crime Complaint Center.

http://www.affcoalition.org/victim.html

Complaints with any US or Canadian business: Better Business Bureau - Contact the Better Business Bureau in the US State the company is located.

State and Local Consumer Protection Agencies Master List for the United States

http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateconsumeragencieslist.php

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C).

http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

All types of frauds: There are some NON-government organizations that can help: You can also report the problem to law enforcement agencies through the complaint form at the National Fraud Information Center/Internet Fraud Watch or 800-876-7060, TDD 202-835-0778. The information you provide helps to stop identity theft.

National Fraud Information Center and Internet Fraud Watch, USA

http://www.fraud.org/

--

International (including China)

INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 190 member countries including the US and China. Their role is to enable police around the world to work together to make the world a safer place. Their high-tech infrastructure of technical and operational support helps meet the growing challenges of fighting crime in the 21st century.

http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Financial-crime/Fraud

http://www.interpol.int/Contact-INTERPOL

http://www.interpol.int/Member-countries/Asia-South-Pacific/China

http://www.interpol.int/Member-countries/Americas/United-State

How to report Internet crime that has occurred in each country including China;

http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/reporting.php


Belgium
spam@privacy.fgov.be.
Brazil
mail-abuse@cert.br to report Brazilian spam, also see Brazilian CERT-BR
Canada
Better Business Bureau; http://www.bbb.org/#
Industry Canada Consumer Connection (Scams); http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/home
China
spam@ccert.edu.cn  and abuse@anti-spam.cn . Also see Anti-spam CN
Denmark
spam@fs.dk - Include a brief description of your complaint, your name, address and email address.
New Zealand
Commerce Commission; http://www.comcom.govt.nz/
Consumers' Institute of New Zealand, Inc.; http://www.consumer.org.nz
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Zealand; http://www.consumer-ministry.govt.nz
NZ Serious Fraud Office; http://www.sfo.govt.nz/
Germany
mailbox@datenschutz-berlin.de . Also see Daten Schutz.
Hong Kong
webmaster@ofta.gov.hk.
Korea
spamcop@kisa.or.kr. Also see the Korea Spam Response Center
Malaysia
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission for Malaysian spam
Netherlands
meldpunt@spamvrij.nl.
Norway
Police Economic Crime Unit, Norway  (press "Bedragerier"); http://www.okokrim.no/

[aoshea]

Sound advice. +1

However if you do pay with CC and do not pay the balance immediately in full, be ready to pay interest charges (10-30%APR! in the US, not sure about elsewhere). Any refund you eventually receive will be less this interest.

[Xian01]

Great post, and excellent advice.

Cheers.

[Bitcoinorama]

Sound advice. +1

However if you do pay with CC and do not pay the balance immediately in full, be ready to pay interest charges (10-30%APR! in the US, not sure about elsewhere). Any refund you eventually receive will be less this interest.

In the UK we have the first 56 days interest free, subsequent you will pay your agreed %APR, however it' a small price to pay to protect from fraud, seemingly innocent or otherwise...

Credit card payment for pre-orders are the only secure payment means. The third party protection is underwritten and you are insured as long as you query the purchase and check with your card issuer first.

NO company can promise to protect your payment themselves with such huge NRE costs unless they are self-funded.

In which case, why the pre-order. It's unnecessary.

[Bitcoinorama]

Sweden - purchases from (will include as obv. this was uncovered as and when I looked into KnC)

Swedish law. You have an open return law in Sweden of 14 days after delivery when buying goods over internet and/or telephone. You have a right to cancel any order for refund which has not been delivered in timely fashion from promised delivery date. 1 year warranty, free repair or exchange if goods fault within the first six months.

There is a very capable state consumer agency that can help anyone if they have any trouble (http://www.konsumentverket.se/otherlanguages/English/About-the-Swedish-Consumer-Agency/ )

Note: Thanks Spelon, I just stole your paragraph from here;

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=251775.msg2747026#msg2747026

[Bitcoinorama]

Can peeps help advise w.r.t. US law? How is that affected state to state? I will update above with any succinct relevant material as and when it's shared below. Thanks!

[driksson]

Can peeps help advise w.r.t. US law? How is that affected state to state? I will update above with any succinct relevant material as and when it's shared below. Thanks!

Take note, swedish regulations differ B2C And B2B rights. If we as clients purchase a complete miner, its b2c. But if we only buy chips, its B2B company to company have different set of rules.
KonsumentVerket = The consumer Agency. Which only regulates the end client.

[Bitcoinorama]

Can peeps help advise w.r.t. US law? How is that affected state to state? I will update above with any succinct relevant material as and when it's shared below. Thanks!

Take note, swedish regulations differ B2C And B2B rights. If we as clients purchase a complete miner, its b2c. But if we only buy chips, its B2B company to company have different set of rules.
KonsumentVerket = The consumer Agency. Which only regulates the end client.

However if you have paid by card within the UK (and EU) at least;

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable?!

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

[ProfMac]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

[Bitcoinorama]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

On pre-orders, or for payments exceeding the equivalent of $100 for an online purchase with an unknown entity as advised by the renown MoneySavingExpert.com, and anyone with any common sense!

[Bitcoinorama]

I've updated with general US info, and *some* countries. Not all.

Please add any info you may have to hand, pref with supporting links.

Assuming you've all looked into this before purchasing anything, right?

[aoshea]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

Why would anyone pre-order in bitcoins anyways. You mine with the assumption the price is going up....

However, if no one is willing to readily spend their BTC it will be hard for a large scale adoption to take place. We don't want people hoarding BTC.

I do agree with OP though, CC seems to be the way to go if you want to gamble on pre orders; glad to see this stickied.

[jspielberg]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

So if we are trying to build up a fledgeling currency, what do you do with them if you don't use them for payments. 

Please don't say speculation.  If they are purely a vehicle of speculation, might as well collect comic books, or magic cards... or Juniper stock.

[Bitcoinorama]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

Why would anyone pre-order in bitcoins anyways. You mine with the assumption the price is going up....

However, if no one is willing to readily spend their BTC it will be hard for a large scale adoption to take place. We don't want people hoarding BTC.

I do agree with OP though, CC seems to be the way to go if you want to gamble on pre orders; glad to see this stickied.

Please can we stay on topic and provide local consumer protection rules and avenues to pursue fraudulent activity.

*** knows this site needs them.

It's deeply concerning we've got this far without having access to this information in tap, so here's your chance.

 

[alfabitcoin]

OP
Maybe you should made selfmoderated topic to remove all off topic posts (my included,lol) Maybe mod can change it for you.
Great job.

[Bitcoinorama]

OP
Maybe you should made selfmoderated topic to remove all off topic posts (my included,lol) Maybe mod can change it for you.
Great job.

Nah, my hearts in the right place, and I *trust* yours is too!

Seriously though I cannot possibly delve into the laws of every country and state, so this is very much work in progress and requires ongoing support from the community...

[bitcoiner49er]

Seems to me like driving around your Porsche by putting it in a trailer to protect it and hauling it around with your Fiat.

Trusted escrows should be the norm. Contract agreed upon by both parties and held by the 3rd.

[ProfMac]

Seems to me like driving around your Porsche by putting it in a trailer to protect it and hauling it around with your Fiat.

Trusted escrows should be the norm. Contract agreed upon by both parties and held by the 3rd.

Trusted escrow does use bitcoin.  This solution makes the bitcoin economy grow.  A credit card solution competes with the bitcoin economy.

[Bitcoinorama]

Seems to me like driving around your Porsche by putting it in a trailer to protect it and hauling it around with your Fiat.

Trusted escrows should be the norm. Contract agreed upon by both parties and held by the 3rd.

Trusted escrow does use bitcoin.  This solution makes the bitcoin economy grow.  A credit card solution competes with the bitcoin economy.

For the sake of the speed at which these wannabe companies appear, and unfortunately disappear, the right card issuing bank offers a minimal fuss means of recourse resolved very quickly.

Corrupt, fraudulent, incompetent and companies uncertain in their delivery ability embrace BTC payments currently...

[CYPER]

So what kind of protection will I have if I pay with a debit card through PayPal? 45 days only? (maybe longer as shown in this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=266945.0)

I use a debit card for 2 reasons:
I don't own a credit card with such a large limit. I can apply for 2-3 extra CC but still that won't be enough. I doubt they will give me a CC with a limit that can cover a single Jupiter purchase.
Metro Bank debit card has absolutely no fees on foreign transactions or spending money overseas or in another currency. They just use the global MasterCard rate and that's it.

[CYPER]

In regards to interest on CC you can apply for one with interest free purchases or balances:

Interest free purchases CC: spend on it and just pay the minimum payment each month. Or divide what you owe by the interest free months and pay back that every month.
Interest free balance transfers CC: Spend on your regular CC and then transfer what you owe to this one paying a fixed fee. Some cards offer BT periods as long as 28 months

More information in Moneysavingexpert

[Bitcoinorama]

So what kind of protection will I have if I pay with a debit card through PayPal? 45 days only? (maybe longer as shown in this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=266945.0)

I use a debit card for 2 reasons:
I don't own a credit card with such a large limit. I can apply for 2-3 extra CC but still that won't be enough. I doubt they will give me a CC with a limit that can cover a single Jupiter purchase.
Metro Bank debit card has absolutely no fees on foreign transactions or spending money overseas or in another currency. They just use the global MasterCard rate and that's it.

Debit you get Paypal's 45 days.

Credit Card issuers often offer longer. It all depends on the T&Cs your card issuing bank provides. Which is why you must call them prior in these instances.

Of course then there is individual country consumer protection laws respective of where you reside and where the company resides. Sweden for instance has a lot more in place than the US. These rules apply to any payment method as long as proof of purchase can be provided.

The countries individual laws are work in progress in this thread, which is why it can't be a closed thread. I believe in the US it varies state to state.

I know Metro Bank well. They are very fair, but their focus is sub-prime and convenience.

Barclay's have solid protection.

You can make payments individually, you don't have to make one large order, but check if your card issuer has a protection limit. I believe Section 75 stipulates a max of £30k in the UK.

[CYPER]

Well, my main CC have a limit of £2800.00 and I have another one that I haven't used in more than 3 years with a limit of £1000 (which I now is has expired). I guess I can apply for another 1-2 cards, but still that won't be enough for ordering a Jupiter and I don't think you can split one Jupiter into multiple orders/payments.

In regards to debit cards which bank do you think offers the best protection as I have accounts in 7 UK banks. By protection I mean if anything happens they will cooperate in finding a way of getting my money back.

[Bitcoinorama]

Well, my main CC have a limit of £2800.00 and I have another one that I haven't used in more than 3 years with a limit of £1000 (which I now is has expired). I guess I can apply for another 1-2 cards, but still that won't be enough for ordering a Jupiter and I don't think you can split one Jupiter into multiple orders/payments.

In regards to debit cards which bank do you think offers the best protection as I have accounts in 7 UK banks. By protection I mean if anything happens they will cooperate in finding a way of getting my money back.

Now I'm currently being accused of having ill-intentions, I want to be exceptionally clear I'm not encouraging a purchase for any company, and I definitely do not want you placing yourself in debt.

W.r.t. to which bank, it's hard to say as they all have differing levels of purchase protection dependant on what card they offer.

At a guess I'd say Barclays and Natwest are probably the most domiant. Barclay's platinum and Natwest Black ar very secure, but they may not be accessible to you. Amex is also very customer focused. With respect to limits you can always call and increase them if you have held the card for a while, just don't rack up debt.

Likewise, call explain the purchase and ask them specifically whether they cover you.

[kibblesnbits]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

Yes the irony, oh the irony.  "I need to put a large amount of debt on my credit card so I can purchase a magical Bitcoin thingy.  Then I will make money to get out of my credit card debt."

[kibblesnbits]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

Yes the irony, oh the irony.  "I need to put a large amount of debt on my credit card so I can purchase a magical Bitcoin thingy.  Then I will make money to get out of my credit card debt."

I always find it funny how individuals see credit cards as debt. If you had the cash anyways, using a credit card (At least for me) actually earns me at minimum a 1% cash back. So I actually make money using a card and it gets paid in full every month.

Then why bother with Bitcoin?

[Vigil]

I think this is all bad advice and the complete opposite of how the Bitcoin community should handle this situation. We cannot claim to want to eliminate the various bureaucracies and have a free-market and then turn around to run to them when things go wrong. We need to establish some market alternatives which address these issues.

[kibblesnbits]

I think this is all bad advice and the complete opposite of how the Bitcoin community should handle this situation. We cannot claim to want to eliminate the various bureaucracies and have a free-market and then turn around to run to them when things go wrong. We need to establish some market alternatives which address these issues.

Yes.  Escrow.  Full stop.

[Bitcoinorama]

Look I appreciate the irony in this, and the card aspect is only a part of the thread, the rest should be about consumer protection.

Fact is though I do not advocate debt ever, but with cash in front of me and how certain companies have abused Bitcoins, and the fact we are dealing unknowns would I rather use my card that I know covers me over a period of time for a safe payment, or escrow with parties unknown. Sorry, at this point in time I choose the former. It's easier for me to manage.

That said, everybody, everybody here rates JohnK, and I would likely go through him, but we've w yet to see how this Avalon situation unfolds, as certainly no one predicted this happening!

Anyway this thread also applies to consumer protection, so perhaps as the Avalon and BFL stories progress we'll be able to share more info...

[driksson]

Can peeps help advise w.r.t. US law? How is that affected state to state? I will update above with any succinct relevant material as and when it's shared below. Thanks!

Take note, swedish regulations differ B2C And B2B rights. If we as clients purchase a complete miner, its b2c. But if we only buy chips, its B2B company to company have different set of rules.
KonsumentVerket = The consumer Agency. Which only regulates the end client.

However if you have paid by card within the UK (and EU) at least;

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable?!

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

This could be, but sweden has its own protection for the swedish consumers, to protect them. And it mostly only covers b2c inside sweden from what i know.

[warhawk187]

Thanks for the info that everyone here should know before they make a purchase. Can't believe you're now a 'shill' for posting good, useful advice...the trolls really do like to hand around these forums...

[dan99]

Good Call, definitely we need this consumer protection and what recourse if they don't deliver on time.

[User705]

SUMMARY as it will be read by outsiders.

The bitcoin community should not use bitcoins for payments.

Yes the irony, oh the irony.  "I need to put a large amount of debt on my credit card so I can purchase a magical Bitcoin thingy.  Then I will make money to get out of my credit card debt."

I always find it funny how individuals see credit cards as debt. If you had the cash anyways, using a credit card (At least for me) actually earns me at minimum a 1% cash back. So I actually make money using a card and it gets paid in full every month.

Then why bother with Bitcoin?

Oh I don't know the whole limited amount, can store a wallet in your head, accepted all over the world and no one can counterfeit it thingy.  Any reason you think bitcoin is designed for every single transaction possible?  That's like saying only shiny blue sea shells can be used as exchange tokens and not silver or gold or copper or whatever.  I'm ok with using a credit card at a coffee shop or at a shady ass magic unicorn powered asic seller.  Bitcoin isn't a solution to every single problem.  And escrow isn't a solution either.  You simply moved the weak link to the escrow and how much of a revolution is it paying the escrow 2% for processing instead of your credit card company???

[frejo]

I think this is all bad advice and the complete opposite of how the Bitcoin community should handle this situation. We cannot claim to want to eliminate the various bureaucracies and have a free-market and then turn around to run to them when things go wrong. We need to establish some market alternatives which address these issues.

+1

[KS]

Can peeps help advise w.r.t. US law? How is that affected state to state? I will update above with any succinct relevant material as and when it's shared below. Thanks!

Take note, swedish regulations differ B2C And B2B rights. If we as clients purchase a complete miner, its b2c. But if we only buy chips, its B2B company to company have different set of rules.
KonsumentVerket = The consumer Agency. Which only regulates the end client.

However if you have paid by card within the UK (and EU) at least;

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable?!

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

This could be, but sweden has its own protection for the swedish consumers, to protect them. And it mostly only covers b2c inside sweden from what i know.

From UK's http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

If you're running a business, you may make contracts with other businesses to buy their goods or services. But as a business, you may not have the same rights and protection as an ordinary consumer.

Your rights will depend almost completely on what's in your contract.

So, in short, NO, a business does NOT have the same rights as a consumer. Don't go assuming this, AT ALL. Read the fine print, that's where the "interesting" stuff is hidden.

International sales between businesses are even worse (think lawsuit in a foreign country, as the applicable law is usually the one of the seller). Consumer sales within the EU are regulated though, so, if you want maximum protection, you need to buy as a consumer, not a business.

[Bitcoinorama]

Can peeps help advise w.r.t. US law? How is that affected state to state? I will update above with any succinct relevant material as and when it's shared below. Thanks!

Take note, swedish regulations differ B2C And B2B rights. If we as clients purchase a complete miner, its b2c. But if we only buy chips, its B2B company to company have different set of rules.
KonsumentVerket = The consumer Agency. Which only regulates the end client.

However if you have paid by card within the UK (and EU) at least;

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable?!

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

This could be, but sweden has its own protection for the swedish consumers, to protect them. And it mostly only covers b2c inside sweden from what i know.

From UK's http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

If you're running a business, you may make contracts with other businesses to buy their goods or services. But as a business, you may not have the same rights and protection as an ordinary consumer.

Your rights will depend almost completely on what's in your contract.

So, in short, NO, a business does NOT have the same rights as a consumer. Don't go assuming this, AT ALL. Read the fine print, that's where the "interesting" stuff is hidden.

International sales between businesses are even worse (think lawsuit in a foreign country, as the applicable law is usually the one of the seller). Consumer sales within the EU are regulated though, so, if you want maximum protection, you need to buy as a consumer, not a business.

KS either you haven't read what I wrote, or you are repeating it.

It comes down to whether, or what 'exclusion clauses' exist in a vendor's T&C's that may affect your statutory consumer rights, otherwise they exist in the same capacity (in the UK).

[CYPER]

Bitcoinorama, do you know if money deposited on top of my CC limit are protected under Section 75?
For example if my CC limit is 3000GBP I can make a deposit of 2000GBP to my CC account and thus my available balance will be 5000GBP.

If I make a purchase for 5000GBP then for what amount is the bank liable?

[Bitcoinorama]

Bitcoinorama, do you know if money deposited on top of my CC limit are protected under Section 75?
For example if my CC limit is 3000GBP I can make a deposit of 2000GBP to my CC account and thus my available balance will be 5000GBP.

If I make a purchase for 5000GBP then for what amount is the bank liable?

I don't know off the top of my head, but according to that MoneySavingExpert.com link;

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery, the trader went into liquidation.

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took six months, but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

There's a really useful brief video on there.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

Here's the full ruling;

The law behind this

This all comes from Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, hence why this is sexily named Section 75. It rather impenetrably says…

75. — (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor. Read it in full

(2) Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under sub-section (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a claim:
(a) under a non-commercial agreement,
(b) so far as the claim relates to a single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000, or
(c) under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit:
(i) which provides for the making of payments by the debtor in relation to specified periods which, in the case of an agreement which is not secured on land, do not exceed three months, and
(ii) which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one.

(4) This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5) In an action brought against the creditor under sub-section (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party in the proceedings.

75A (1)If the debtor under a linked credit agreement has a claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract the debtor may pursue that claim against the creditor where any of the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2)The conditions in subsection (1) are—
(a)that the supplier cannot be traced,
(b)that the debtor has contacted the supplier but the supplier has not responded,
(c)that the supplier is insolvent, or
(d)that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim.

(3)The steps referred to in subsection (2)(d) need not include litigation.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a debtor is to be deemed to have obtained satisfaction where he has accepted a replacement product or service or other compensation from the supplier in settlement of his claim.

(5)In this section “linked credit agreement” means a regulated consumer credit agreement which serves exclusively to finance an agreement for the supply of specific goods or the provision of a specific service and where—
(a)the creditor uses the services of the supplier in connection with the preparation or making of the credit agreement, or
(b)the specific goods or provision of a specific service are explicitly specified in the credit agreement.

(6)This section does not apply where—
(a)the cash value of the goods or service is £30, 000 or less,
(b)the linked credit agreement is for credit which exceeds £60, 260, or
(c)the linked credit agreement is entered into by the debtor wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on, or intended to be carried on, by him.

(7)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 16B (declaration by the debtor as to the purposes of the agreement) apply for the purposes of subsection (6)(c).

(8)This section does not apply to an agreement secured on land.

[CYPER]

Interesting...

So I can only make a 5GBP payment to KNCminer using my credit card and the rest with the debit card and still be protected for the full amount.
However because you can't pay via PayPal directly without having an account that might invalidate the protection, because you have to login into your PP account and pay that way

I wonder if KNCminer would be happy to get a small CC payment and the rest via a debit card.

[Bitcoinorama]

Interesting...

So I can only make a 5GBP payment to KNCminer using my credit card and the rest with the debit card and still be protected for the full amount.
However because you can't pay via PayPal directly without having an account that might invalidate the protection, because you have to login into your PP account and pay that way

I wonder if KNCminer would be happy to get a small CC payment and the rest via a debit card.

Yes you can, Paypal just acts as a payment processor for those without accounts. At least that's what Paypal told me.

You still have to pay the balance of your card off. It's not free money!

[CYPER]

Yes you can, Paypal just acts as a payment processor for those without accounts. At least that's what Paypal told me.

But I don't think you can pay without having a PP account - that's the problem.
I ask KNC and they confirmed it:

My question: Does your PayPal account allow direct card payments, without opening an account of my own?
Their answer: You have to have a PayPal account to pay with card over PayPal.

You still have to pay the balance of your card off. It's not free money!

I'm perfectly aware of this 
I have the money, I just want to get myself better protection

[Bitcoinorama]

Yes you can, Paypal just acts as a payment processor for those without accounts. At least that's what Paypal told me.

But I don't think you can pay without having a PP account - that's the problem.
I ask KNC and they confirmed it:

My question: Does your PayPal account allow direct card payments, without opening an account of my own?
Their answer: You have to have a PayPal account to pay with card over PayPal.

You still have to pay the balance of your card off. It's not free money!

I'm perfectly aware of this 
I have the money, I just want to get myself better protection

Not the impression I got from Paypal, but I know KnC had to deal with a very specific agreement and terms after BFL, so perhaps in this case you may need an account. By verifying you in this case may deter and prevent scams on KnC and Paypal.

[CYPER]

Yes you can, Paypal just acts as a payment processor for those without accounts. At least that's what Paypal told me.

But I don't think you can pay without having a PP account - that's the problem.
I ask KNC and they confirmed it:

My question: Does your PayPal account allow direct card payments, without opening an account of my own?
Their answer: You have to have a PayPal account to pay with card over PayPal.

You still have to pay the balance of your card off. It's not free money!

I'm perfectly aware of this 
I have the money, I just want to get myself better protection

Not the impression I got from Paypal, but I know KnC had to deal with a very specific agreement and terms after BFL, so perhaps in this case you may need an account. By verifying you in this case may deter and prevent scams on KnC and Paypal.

I have a Premier Verified PP account, but according to THIS article I might be covered under Section 75 if I pay though it.

[Bitcoinorama]

Yes you can, Paypal just acts as a payment processor for those without accounts. At least that's what Paypal told me.

But I don't think you can pay without having a PP account - that's the problem.
I ask KNC and they confirmed it:

My question: Does your PayPal account allow direct card payments, without opening an account of my own?
Their answer: You have to have a PayPal account to pay with card over PayPal.

You still have to pay the balance of your card off. It's not free money!

I'm perfectly aware of this 
I have the money, I just want to get myself better protection

Not the impression I got from Paypal, but I know KnC had to deal with a very specific agreement and terms after BFL, so perhaps in this case you may need an account. By verifying you in this case may deter and prevent scams on KnC and Paypal.

I have a Premier Verified PP account, but according to THIS article I might be covered under Section 75 if I pay though it.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Ring your card issuer and check their stance w.r.t. third party payment processors and protection.

[regular]

People who disagree are likely ones that have barely any skin in the game or are whale enough to get special contacts with the manufacturer.  The internet is an untrustworthy place.  Nobody here is immune - we've seen all kinds of high level "hero" or "vip" members disappear with member's BTC.  People also say do your own research.  With the Hashfast example, short of listening to shill from Cypherdoc, no body with a life is going to fly over there.  Besides, BFL has a physical location where people dropped in many times and what has that got its customers?

The truth is, ASIC manufacturer's bills are in fiat.  None of them pay their suppliers BTC so any argument trying to promote its use is more for their own interest if they have to run.  If they are legitimate, they should decrease the exchange risk for the customer and sell for profit in fiat via CC as well.  Nobody is saying they shouldn't take BTC either, but offer CC as an option as your own damn fiat costs are pretty clear and fixed.

[CYPER]

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Ring your card issuer and check their stance w.r.t. third party payment processors and protection.

I just spoke with my bank, specifically asking if I'm covered under section 75 if the payment is made though PayPal* and they said yes.

* - I explicitly stated the 2 cases where you can either pay directly without logging in or sort of indirectly where you log in, then PP charges your card and probably PP pays the merchant out of its own money (at least that how I think it works).

Also even if I pay just 5 pounds deposit and the rest on the debit card I am still covered for the full amount.

[Bitcoinorama]

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Ring your card issuer and check their stance w.r.t. third party payment processors and protection.

I just spoke with my bank, specifically asking if I'm covered under section 75 if the payment is made though PayPal* and they said yes.

* - I explicitly stated the 2 cases where you can either pay directly without logging in or sort of indirectly where you log in, then PP charges your card and probably PP pays the merchant out of its own money (at least that how I think it works).

Also even if I pay just 5 pounds deposit and the rest on the debit card I am still covered for the full amount.

I don't want to say I told you so, but...



Note: See there is absolutely NO reason for pre-orders without card payment as an option.

They just want to use your BTC as a free ride, with minimal accountability!!

[CYPER]

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Ring your card issuer and check their stance w.r.t. third party payment processors and protection.

I just spoke with my bank, specifically asking if I'm covered under section 75 if the payment is made though PayPal* and they said yes.

* - I explicitly stated the 2 cases where you can either pay directly without logging in or sort of indirectly where you log in, then PP charges your card and probably PP pays the merchant out of its own money (at least that how I think it works).

Also even if I pay just 5 pounds deposit and the rest on the debit card I am still covered for the full amount.

I don't want to say I told you so, but...



Note: See there is absolutely NO reason for pre-orders without card payment as an option.

They just want to use your BTC as a free ride, with minimal accountability!!

Well I haven't touched the whole B2B or B2C uncertainty, so you never know, but at least I will feel more secure that way.

Next thing: call KNC tomorrow and ask them if it is possible to pay part of the order with a credit card and the rest with a debit card.

[Bitcoinorama]

Well I haven't touched the whole B2B or B2C uncertainty, so you never know, but at least I will feel more secure that way.

Next thing: call KNC tomorrow and ask them if it is possible to pay part of the order with a credit card and the rest with a debit card.

Read of their T&Cs according to UK Government's Citizens Advice Beaureau they would have to have written exclusion clauses to negate any aspects of consumer protection.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

[MiningBuddy]

I think this is all bad advice and the complete opposite of how the Bitcoin community should handle this situation. We cannot claim to want to eliminate the various bureaucracies and have a free-market and then turn around to run to them when things go wrong. We need to establish some market alternatives which address these issues.

Yes.  Escrow.  Full stop.

This is good advice for current times, unfortunately we don't have a btc escrow type of system in place to currently protect us so until something does come along we just have to make the best with what we have. 

[loufiethecat]

Great advice that we will be utilizing from now on always.

Triple B Mining, a mining bond on LTC GLOBAL has had its BTC for a batch#3 Avalon stolen through non-delivery and refusal to acknowledge the order or give a refund to the amount which has clearly been paid via the blockchain. I'm still holding out for Yifu to make good on this unit but I don't think it'll happen...

So where does the third party payment processors (i.e. Bitpay, walletbit etc etc) sit in this game of stabby stabby run run? Do they hold any accountability? Is there any recourse through them? Did they not help facilitate the fraud?

Very sad to see so much greed over something that is meant to free us from Fiat money grubbing... so sad and so shameful... Humans can be utterly disgusting at times, especially to each other. BTC is meant to help the planet and change lives ... not destroy business's and ruin people and their families, that's the fiat game.

Feeling very human and very stupid and very sick over this.

Loufie

Triple B Mining

[driksson]

Can peeps help advise w.r.t. US law? How is that affected state to state? I will update above with any succinct relevant material as and when it's shared below. Thanks!

Take note, swedish regulations differ B2C And B2B rights. If we as clients purchase a complete miner, its b2c. But if we only buy chips, its B2B company to company have different set of rules.
KonsumentVerket = The consumer Agency. Which only regulates the end client.

However if you have paid by card within the UK (and EU) at least;

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable?!

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

This could be, but sweden has its own protection for the swedish consumers, to protect them. And it mostly only covers b2c inside sweden from what i know.

From UK's http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

If you're running a business, you may make contracts with other businesses to buy their goods or services. But as a business, you may not have the same rights and protection as an ordinary consumer.

Your rights will depend almost completely on what's in your contract.

So, in short, NO, a business does NOT have the same rights as a consumer. Don't go assuming this, AT ALL. Read the fine print, that's where the "interesting" stuff is hidden.

International sales between businesses are even worse (think lawsuit in a foreign country, as the applicable law is usually the one of the seller). Consumer sales within the EU are regulated though, so, if you want maximum protection, you need to buy as a consumer, not a business.

KS either you haven't read what I wrote, or you are repeating it.

It comes down to whether, or what 'exclusion clauses' exist in a vendor's T&C's that may affect your statutory consumer rights, otherwise they exist in the same capacity (in the UK).

but if its Sweden and you buy as a consumer, they can't exclude you of any rights.. so for sure, kncminer could be beneficial to buy as private person.

[KS]

but if its Sweden and you buy as a consumer, they can't exclude you of any rights.. so for sure, kncminer could be beneficial to buy as private person.

Only their T&C states that you are buying as a business. You have to agree to these T&C if you want to purchase from them, so you are effectively buying as a business. If you're not a business, it's misrepresentation on your part. No fault of theirs.

[ProfMac]

I have an Avalon.  I think that 1,500 orders have been received through their web site.

With that many cutting edge gadgets, there are failures in the field.  I have repaired 1 Avalon for a customer, and there are reports of other failures resulting from various owner actions.

I think it would make sense to have Avalon bitcoin insurance.  Insurance is a regulated business, and my sense is that the regulations protect existing companies at least as much as they protect the purchasers of insurance.  That is, the insurance companies would be quick to produce unwelcome paperwork for anyone who set up insurance without all the i's dotted and t's crossed.

Nonetheless, someone should pursue this.

[CYPER]

I went to Metro bank branch today and got my shiny new CC, which has zero commision on foreign purchases and the good news is that according to Section 75 if you deposit extra money on top of your credit limit and you make a purchase then that deposit is covered on equal basis as the money from the bank.
Basically if you have 100GBP CC limit and deposit 5900GBP on top, then if you make a purchase for 6000GBP and the retailer goes bust, then you have an equal claim against the bank for the full 6000GBP

So in terms of protection I think that is the best way to purchase from UK

[Bitcoinorama]

Bitcoinorama, do you know if money deposited on top of my CC limit are protected under Section 75?
For example if my CC limit is 3000GBP I can make a deposit of 2000GBP to my CC account and thus my available balance will be 5000GBP.

If I make a purchase for 5000GBP then for what amount is the bank liable?

You asked me this the other day, and I answered you in this thread, it looks like they protect any funds in which the credit card had been the vehicle for payment, but don't be lazy and ask on a forum. Ring your bank and let everyone know here.

[CYPER]

Bitcoinorama, do you know if money deposited on top of my CC limit are protected under Section 75?
For example if my CC limit is 3000GBP I can make a deposit of 2000GBP to my CC account and thus my available balance will be 5000GBP.

If I make a purchase for 5000GBP then for what amount is the bank liable?

You asked me this the other day, and I answered you in this thread, it looks like they protect any funds in which the credit card had been the vehicle for payment, but don't be lazy and ask on a forum. Ring your bank and let everyone know here.

Your answer was about the case, where you pay a small deposit on the CC and the rest from a debit card, which is a different case and on top of all it would not work with the way KNCMiner website works.

[Bitcoinorama]

Bitcoinorama, do you know if money deposited on top of my CC limit are protected under Section 75?
For example if my CC limit is 3000GBP I can make a deposit of 2000GBP to my CC account and thus my available balance will be 5000GBP.

If I make a purchase for 5000GBP then for what amount is the bank liable?

You asked me this the other day, and I answered you in this thread, it looks like they protect any funds in which the credit card had been the vehicle for payment, but don't be lazy and ask on a forum. Ring your bank and let everyone know here.

Your answer was about the case, where you pay a small deposit on the CC and the rest from a debit card, which is a different case and on top of all it would not work with the way KNCMiner website works.

I realise that. I'm not a card issuer, but I did attach Section 75 in it's entirety. You can take a look. I believe as I said, it comes into play by using the credit card as a vehicle of payment our respective of whether you load it up with some cash amount prior, or not. Call your card issuer and ask. Read Section 75.

You could always ask KnC to split payments. They might, ask.

[CYPER]

Bitcoinorama, do you know if money deposited on top of my CC limit are protected under Section 75?
For example if my CC limit is 3000GBP I can make a deposit of 2000GBP to my CC account and thus my available balance will be 5000GBP.

If I make a purchase for 5000GBP then for what amount is the bank liable?

You asked me this the other day, and I answered you in this thread, it looks like they protect any funds in which the credit card had been the vehicle for payment, but don't be lazy and ask on a forum. Ring your bank and let everyone know here.

Your answer was about the case, where you pay a small deposit on the CC and the rest from a debit card, which is a different case and on top of all it would not work with the way KNCMiner website works.

I realise that. I'm not a card issuer, but I did attach Section 75 in it's entirety. You can take a look. I believe as I said, it comes into play by using the credit card as a vehicle of payment our respective of whether you load it up with some cash amount prior, or not. Call your card issuer and ask. Read Section 75.

You could always ask KnC to split payments. They might, ask.

Did you actually read my post HERE?

[Bitcoinorama]

Bitcoinorama, do you know if money deposited on top of my CC limit are protected under Section 75?
For example if my CC limit is 3000GBP I can make a deposit of 2000GBP to my CC account and thus my available balance will be 5000GBP.

If I make a purchase for 5000GBP then for what amount is the bank liable?

You asked me this the other day, and I answered you in this thread, it looks like they protect any funds in which the credit card had been the vehicle for payment, but don't be lazy and ask on a forum. Ring your bank and let everyone know here.

Your answer was about the case, where you pay a small deposit on the CC and the rest from a debit card, which is a different case and on top of all it would not work with the way KNCMiner website works.

I realise that. I'm not a card issuer, but I did attach Section 75 in it's entirety. You can take a look. I believe as I said, it comes into play by using the credit card as a vehicle of payment our respective of whether you load it up with some cash amount prior, or not. Call your card issuer and ask. Read Section 75.

You could always ask KnC to split payments. They might, ask.

Did you actually read my post HERE?

Yes. Did you read section 75?

Did you check with KnC whether they take a part payment?

If they take a part payment you can pay by cc and debit card to satisfy the Section 75 that way.

Section 75 applies to credit cards only, and thus it protects payments for those payments made using a credit card as the vehicle of payment.

You should check with you card issuer about what occurs of you add balance to your card. I'm not going to pick S75 apart for you when it's here and available for you to make your own mind up. It appears that Metrobank will assume equal liability by your prior statement. Call them and make sure you explain specifically what this if for, where it is being purchased from and the timescale to delivery, explain how you wish to add funds and can they confirm that they will cover beyond the credited amount to include the positive balance as well. I believe it is as you are using the card to make the purchase. Check again with your bank.

[CYPER]

Yes. Did you read section 75?

Did you check with KnC whether they take a part payment?

If they take a part payment you can pay by cc and debit card to satisfy the Section 75 that way.

Section 75 applies to credit cards only, and thus it protects payments for those payments made using a credit card as the vehicle of payment.

You should check with you card issuer about what occurs of you add balance to your card. I'm not going to pick S75 apart for you when it's here and available for you to make your own mind up. It appears that Metrobank will assume equal liability by your prior statement. Call them and make sure you explain specifically what this if for, where it is being purchased from and the timescale to delivery, explain how you wish to add funds and can they confirm that they will cover beyond the credited amount to include the positive balance as well. I believe it is as you are using the card to make the purchase. Check again with your bank.

I'm confused. My post, that I pointed to stated that I already did that and you keep telling me to do it.
I was in the bank today and the bank manager confirmed that whatever money are on the credit card they are all covered.

[Bitcoinorama]

Yes. Did you read section 75?

Did you check with KnC whether they take a part payment?

If they take a part payment you can pay by cc and debit card to satisfy the Section 75 that way.

Section 75 applies to credit cards only, and thus it protects payments for those payments made using a credit card as the vehicle of payment.

You should check with you card issuer about what occurs of you add balance to your card. I'm not going to pick S75 apart for you when it's here and available for you to make your own mind up. It appears that Metrobank will assume equal liability by your prior statement. Call them and make sure you explain specifically what this if for, where it is being purchased from and the timescale to delivery, explain how you wish to add funds and can they confirm that they will cover beyond the credited amount to include the positive balance as well. I believe it is as you are using the card to make the purchase. Check again with your bank.

I'm confused. My post, that I pointed to stated that I already did that and you keep telling me to do it.
I was in the bank today and the bank manager confirmed that whatever money are on the credit card they are all covered.

So what are you asking me exactly?

[CYPER]

Yes. Did you read section 75?

Did you check with KnC whether they take a part payment?

If they take a part payment you can pay by cc and debit card to satisfy the Section 75 that way.

Section 75 applies to credit cards only, and thus it protects payments for those payments made using a credit card as the vehicle of payment.

You should check with you card issuer about what occurs of you add balance to your card. I'm not going to pick S75 apart for you when it's here and available for you to make your own mind up. It appears that Metrobank will assume equal liability by your prior statement. Call them and make sure you explain specifically what this if for, where it is being purchased from and the timescale to delivery, explain how you wish to add funds and can they confirm that they will cover beyond the credited amount to include the positive balance as well. I believe it is as you are using the card to make the purchase. Check again with your bank.

I'm confused. My post, that I pointed to stated that I already did that and you keep telling me to do it.
I was in the bank today and the bank manager confirmed that whatever money are on the credit card they are all covered.

So what are you asking me exactly?

Nothing.
My post #58 was just a statement of my findings today and your reply to it was telling me to ring my bank and ask, when I was actually in the bank and asked.
Basically you told me to do something, that I already did and said I did in the post above.

[Bitcoinorama]

Yes. Did you read section 75?

Did you check with KnC whether they take a part payment?

If they take a part payment you can pay by cc and debit card to satisfy the Section 75 that way.

Section 75 applies to credit cards only, and thus it protects payments for those payments made using a credit card as the vehicle of payment.

You should check with you card issuer about what occurs of you add balance to your card. I'm not going to pick S75 apart for you when it's here and available for you to make your own mind up. It appears that Metrobank will assume equal liability by your prior statement. Call them and make sure you explain specifically what this if for, where it is being purchased from and the timescale to delivery, explain how you wish to add funds and can they confirm that they will cover beyond the credited amount to include the positive balance as well. I believe it is as you are using the card to make the purchase. Check again with your bank.

I'm confused. My post, that I pointed to stated that I already did that and you keep telling me to do it.
I was in the bank today and the bank manager confirmed that whatever money are on the credit card they are all covered.

So what are you asking me exactly?

Nothing.
My post #58 was just a statement of my findings today and your reply to it was telling me to ring my bank and ask, when I was actually in the bank and asked.

Sorry man, been out all day, it's late, I'm tired. Glad it' good news then!

[CYPER]

Yes. Did you read section 75?

Did you check with KnC whether they take a part payment?

If they take a part payment you can pay by cc and debit card to satisfy the Section 75 that way.

Section 75 applies to credit cards only, and thus it protects payments for those payments made using a credit card as the vehicle of payment.

You should check with you card issuer about what occurs of you add balance to your card. I'm not going to pick S75 apart for you when it's here and available for you to make your own mind up. It appears that Metrobank will assume equal liability by your prior statement. Call them and make sure you explain specifically what this if for, where it is being purchased from and the timescale to delivery, explain how you wish to add funds and can they confirm that they will cover beyond the credited amount to include the positive balance as well. I believe it is as you are using the card to make the purchase. Check again with your bank.

I'm confused. My post, that I pointed to stated that I already did that and you keep telling me to do it.
I was in the bank today and the bank manager confirmed that whatever money are on the credit card they are all covered.

So what are you asking me exactly?

Nothing.
My post #58 was just a statement of my findings today and your reply to it was telling me to ring my bank and ask, when I was actually in the bank and asked.

Sorry man, been out all day, it's late, I'm tired. Glad it' good news then!

Apologies accepted. I feel much more protected now
It can't get any more secured than that.

[Big Time Coin]

Please UNSTICKY this thread!

The way I read him, Bitcoinorama is a paid shill that bashes bitcoin as a payment mechanism every chance he gets, and promotes the use of credit cards and paypal, which are inferior payment mechanisms.  The is classic sock-puppet behavior, either he wants to discourage use of bitcoin, discourage re-investment in asic mining equipment, or some other agenda, but this post and all his posts are pure opinion, no facts.  And that opinion is negative. 

He has polluted many threads except the KNCMiner thread, like Hashfast and avalon threads, with his annoying garbage posts touting the benefits of the decades-old 16 + 7 digit and string plaintext based payment technology that employs tens of thousands of paper pushers to work at all, not to mention the armies of police and investigators to try to hold it all together from rampant fraud and abuse.  I'm sick of reading about how great credit cards are on a bitcoin forum.  This guy needs to shut up.

All he does is slander our businesses and bitcoin itself - he is unworthy of a sticky.

As to visa and mastercard - did you know that they recently had to pay a $6 billion settlement - that's 6 X the market cap of bitcoin itself - for unconscionable business practices with there merchants over a several year period?  Well they did!  And the amount of money that ASIC manufacturers would get or could raise from credit card payments is far less than from bitcoin payments.  Everyone knows this if they think about it for a few minutes, so please take Bitcoinorama's comments with a huge grain of salt.

[CYPER]

Please UNSTICKY this thread!

The way I read him, Bitcoinorama is a paid shill that bashes bitcoin as a payment mechanism every chance he gets, and promotes the use of credit cards and paypal, which are inferior payment mechanisms.  The is classic sock-puppet behavior, either he wants to discourage use of bitcoin, discourage re-investment in asic mining equipment, or some other agenda, but this post and all his posts are pure opinion, no facts.  And that opinion is negative.  

He has polluted many threads except the KNCMiner thread, like Hashfast and avalon threads, with his annoying garbage posts touting the benefits of the decades-old 16 + 7 digit and string plaintext based payment technology that employs tens of thousands of paper pushers to work at all, not to mention the armies of police and investigators to try to hold it all together from rampant fraud and abuse.  I'm sick of reading about how great credit cards are on a bitcoin forum.  This guy needs to shut up.

All he does is slander our businesses and bitcoin itself - he is unworthy of a sticky.

As to visa and mastercard - did you know that they recently had to pay a $6 billion settlement - that's 6 X the market cap of bitcoin itself - for unconscionable business practices with there merchants over a several year period?  Well they did!  And the amount of money that ASIC manufacturers would get or could raise from credit card payments is far less than from bitcoin payments.  Everyone knows this if they think about it for a few minutes, so please take Bitcoinorama's comments with a huge grain of salt.

So you live in dreamland and believe that the present banking system will just die piecefully and give way to the glorious bitcoin to take over the world of payments?
Maybe in year 3265
Until then I would use my CC whenever I can

[Bitcoinorama]

Please UNSTICKY this thread!

The way I read him, Bitcoinorama is a paid shill that bashes bitcoin as a payment mechanism every chance he gets, and promotes the use of credit cards and paypal, which are inferior payment mechanisms.  The is classic sock-puppet behavior, either he wants to discourage use of bitcoin, discourage re-investment in asic mining equipment, or some other agenda, but this post and all his posts are pure opinion, no facts.  And that opinion is negative.  

He has polluted many threads except the KNCMiner thread, like Hashfast and avalon threads, with his annoying garbage posts touting the benefits of the decades-old 16 + 7 digit and string plaintext based payment technology that employs tens of thousands of paper pushers to work at all, not to mention the armies of police and investigators to try to hold it all together from rampant fraud and abuse.  I'm sick of reading about how great credit cards are on a bitcoin forum.  This guy needs to shut up.

All he does is slander our businesses and bitcoin itself - he is unworthy of a sticky.

As to visa and mastercard - did you know that they recently had to pay a $6 billion settlement - that's 6 X the market cap of bitcoin itself - for unconscionable business practices with there merchants over a several year period?  Well they did!  And the amount of money that ASIC manufacturers would get or could raise from credit card payments is far less than from bitcoin payments.  Everyone knows this if they think about it for a few minutes, so please take Bitcoinorama's comments with a huge grain of salt.

B*llocks numbnuts, I'm a total proponent of Bitcoin, but there's a lot more wannabe vendors here that would rather claim to be 'supporting the distribution of the network' by preying on your ignorance and naivety then offer you a welcome and secure deal, and I do not want to see anymore people, some too lazy or stupid to bother to research this crap get burnt. Yes, it's quite UK centric, as that' where I live. As I've stated if you've got something worthwhile to add from another location and I'll add it. And err...where have I left out the facts exactly? I've linked and quoted everything I possibly could to help. When it came to reporting back on a company I offered to ask forum members questions for them, which I did and specifically take the time to painstakingly write out the responses word for word in dialect format, for what reward? My own piece of mind and a few 0.1BTC denominations and 1x0.25BTC denomination bringing the total to just over a 1 BTC, not even the cost of one of the flights. I wrote in that manner so there was no loss in translation through subjectivity.

This thread isn't just about card payment, which is clearly the most secure form of payment for pre-ordering, which is why the travel industry relies on them. Practically everything is a pre-payment there. are you ready to book a future package holiday and pay ahead with BTC yet?  This thread is meant to explore various avenues of consumer protection, which may well be very useful to some members in light of recent events. Clearly there are opportunities for forward thinking individuals to provide BTC related solutions to this.

Most of the info is available on consumer sites like MoneySavingExpert.com, but few here have bothered to look into this before purchasing. Inform yourself before giving away your hard earned to unknowns, and get off the high horse KnC trashing BS with me, I'm done with hearing about it. I went and visited them, big deal, I wrote up a report as requested by people here. There were other members of the forum that went. One wrote up an article days earlier. Others could have shared but didn't. Of course I want to see competition, but no ones going through the stringent process of verification with issuing banks and payment processors, which takes a hell of a lot more confirmation than, "hi, I want to make an ASIC, I believe in Bitcoin, here, I have a website, I'm open for pre-orders".

If you bother to read my posting history from the beginning I first tried to convince ASICrigs.com let me visit and check them out. If you bother to read the KnC thread from the beginning, I'm the reason they agreed to take cards as I pressured them to accept a protected payment means. It's from looking into that over weeks I have research to share. I'm proactive and have justifiable trust issues with companies that have come and gone through here. I know how to cover myself against loss of funds which I don't need to lose. The recent Bitsyncom evasiveness and BFL refund debacle had me look into the fraud aspect and who to contact subsequent to being denied refund or breech of agreement to deliver as anticipated.

No third party will cover an outfit not prepared to agree to their terms, yet it's open to all western companies that choose to pursue it and wish to be held accountable for their promises. It's a damn strong step in the right direction in proving you're a legitimate outfit and not some flyby night chancers that want to risk other people's money without the consequences. I would happily welcome other ASIC vendors that permit real consumer protection against reckless behaviour. I've got no beef against Hashfast, or Cointerra, but the former is currently playing roulette with pre-order funds. How will they fulfil refunds on orders should they catastrophically miss targets? With what equity once funds are spent? Whose liability? No third party, that's for sure.

I do not slander Bitcoin, but currently it's not offering people the protection they warrant from pre-orders. Fact.
Bitpay have refunded in some instances out of goodwill, but can't afford to cover all yet. MCard and issuing banks explicitly agree to, and in some countries have no choice but have to. Amazingly some people don't know this and aren't looking for it. MCard aren't about to go bankrupt yet dude.

I think any decentralised currency is healthy, regardless of whether Bitcoin succeeds or fails, crypto is here to stay and Bitcoin has the first mover advantage and most distributed and supported network. Still doesn't mean you should pre-order with it, if you want to be safe and if unknown companies want to be seen as responsible.

And for the record, aside from Cyper above who's clearly happy he confirmed his card issuer will protect him for any payment made in the denominations he wished to purchase in, this guy started a thread having been in the other side when BFL refused to honour a refund;

If I didn't purchase on AMEX through paypal, I would be toast.

AMEX saved the day for me.


Butterfly labs implosion is now imminent as I bet their new orders are way down, so they don't have cash to keep the scam rolling.

Unless by some miracle they were smart enough to hold onto all those bitcoins they got paid and made a fortune in bitcoin speculation.

But I do not think butterfly labs and smart can ever go into the same sentence without the internet breaking.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=272585.0

If ASICminer want to charge in BTC, fine at least they have something tangible to dispatch, and are proven trustworthy w.r.t. mailing items (choice of pricing itself is debatable), same as Bitfury now. A least you're not held in limbo, crossing fingers and toes wishing for a product to exist and hoping your cash is safe for a future delivery.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Most of this is available on consumer sites like MoneySavingExpert.com, but few here have bothered to look into this before purchasing. Inform yourself before giving away your hard earned to unknowns, and get off the KnC trashing BS with me. I went and visited them, big deal, I wrote up a report as requested by people here. There were other members of the forum that went. One wrote up an article days earlier. Others could have shared but didn't. Of course I want to see competition, but no ones going through the stringent process of verification with issuing banks and payment processors, which takes a hell of a lot more confirmation than, "hi, I want to make an ASIC, I believe in Bitcoin, here, I have a website, I'm open for pre-orders".

What stringent verification?

https://stripe.com/
https://paypal.com/

You can start accepting credit card payments for just about anything overnight.  Nobody cares what you are accepting it for.  There isn't even a place to enter a business purpose of stripe's website.  All you need is a bank account to deposit the funds.

Maybe in 1980 there was extensive verification of merchants that accepted credit cards but those days are long gone.  Your make it seem like these companies are shinning a flashlight into the detailed operations of the companies and thus accepting credit cards is some seal of approval.  There is nobody stripe and PayPal don't accept unless the underlying business violates their TOS (like say gambling, or illegal drugs).  That means if selling ASICs is allowed then it is allowed and if it isn't then it isn't.

[Bitcoinorama]

Most of this is available on consumer sites like MoneySavingExpert.com, but few here have bothered to look into this before purchasing. Inform yourself before giving away your hard earned to unknowns, and get off the KnC trashing BS with me. I went and visited them, big deal, I wrote up a report as requested by people here. There were other members of the forum that went. One wrote up an article days earlier. Others could have shared but didn't. Of course I want to see competition, but no ones going through the stringent process of verification with issuing banks and payment processors, which takes a hell of a lot more confirmation than, "hi, I want to make an ASIC, I believe in Bitcoin, here, I have a website, I'm open for pre-orders".

What stringent verification?

https://stripe.com/
https://paypal.com/

You can start accepting credit card payments for just about anything overnight.  Nobody cares what you are accepting it for.  There isn't even a place to enter a business purpose of stripe's website.  All you need is a bank account to deposit the funds.

Maybe in 1980 there was extensive verification of merchants that accepted credit cards but those days are long gone.  Your make it seem like these companies are shinning a flashlight into the detailed operations of the companies and thus accepting credit cards is some seal of approval.  There is nobody stripe and PayPal don't accept unless the underlying business violates their TOS (like say gambling, or illegal drugs).  That means if selling ASICs is allowed then it is allowed and if it isn't then it isn't.

Nope. These aren't mom 'n' pop type turnovers. Not for these kind of rapid unexplained purchases cumulatively valued in the millions you cannot, and especially not when they find out they are ASIC pre-orders, they want quite a lengthy verification and a unique set of terms they demand you agree to since they experienced the 'Butterfly' effect. You get treated very differently with these volumes and payment transfers.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Most of this is available on consumer sites like MoneySavingExpert.com, but few here have bothered to look into this before purchasing. Inform yourself before giving away your hard earned to unknowns, and get off the KnC trashing BS with me. I went and visited them, big deal, I wrote up a report as requested by people here. There were other members of the forum that went. One wrote up an article days earlier. Others could have shared but didn't. Of course I want to see competition, but no ones going through the stringent process of verification with issuing banks and payment processors, which takes a hell of a lot more confirmation than, "hi, I want to make an ASIC, I believe in Bitcoin, here, I have a website, I'm open for pre-orders".

What stringent verification?

https://stripe.com/
https://paypal.com/

You can start accepting credit card payments for just about anything overnight.  Nobody cares what you are accepting it for.  There isn't even a place to enter a business purpose of stripe's website.  All you need is a bank account to deposit the funds.

Maybe in 1980 there was extensive verification of merchants that accepted credit cards but those days are long gone.  Your make it seem like these companies are shinning a flashlight into the detailed operations of the companies and thus accepting credit cards is some seal of approval.  There is nobody stripe and PayPal don't accept unless the underlying business violates their TOS (like say gambling, or illegal drugs).  That means if selling ASICs is allowed then it is allowed and if it isn't then it isn't.

Nope. These aren't mom 'n' pop type turnovers. Not for these kind of rapid unexplained purchases cumulatively valued in the millions you cannot, and especially not when they find out they are ASIC pre-orders, they want quite a lengthy verification and a unique set of terms they demand you agree to since they experienced the 'Butterfly' effect. You get treated very differently with these volumes and payment transfers.

Yeah sure.  BTW I did $5M in PayPal transactions this year.  No lengthy verification or analysis.  Only the most basic identity and account verification.  Nothing more.  The margins on credit card processing are about 0.2%, that right 0.2%.*  Even big companies like PayPal can't (or maybe don't want to) spend more than the absolute basics.  They certainly don't want to dig into the details of a company operation.  

* People forget there are a lot of slices to the 3% pie.  VISA gets a cut for using their network, the originating bank (card issuer) gets the a cut, the destination bank also gets a cut.  The payment processor just collects a small amount. 

[Bitcoinorama]

Most of this is available on consumer sites like MoneySavingExpert.com, but few here have bothered to look into this before purchasing. Inform yourself before giving away your hard earned to unknowns, and get off the KnC trashing BS with me. I went and visited them, big deal, I wrote up a report as requested by people here. There were other members of the forum that went. One wrote up an article days earlier. Others could have shared but didn't. Of course I want to see competition, but no ones going through the stringent process of verification with issuing banks and payment processors, which takes a hell of a lot more confirmation than, "hi, I want to make an ASIC, I believe in Bitcoin, here, I have a website, I'm open for pre-orders".

What stringent verification?

https://stripe.com/
https://paypal.com/

You can start accepting credit card payments for just about anything overnight.  Nobody cares what you are accepting it for.  There isn't even a place to enter a business purpose of stripe's website.  All you need is a bank account to deposit the funds.

Maybe in 1980 there was extensive verification of merchants that accepted credit cards but those days are long gone.  Your make it seem like these companies are shinning a flashlight into the detailed operations of the companies and thus accepting credit cards is some seal of approval.  There is nobody stripe and PayPal don't accept unless the underlying business violates their TOS (like say gambling, or illegal drugs).  That means if selling ASICs is allowed then it is allowed and if it isn't then it isn't.

Nope. These aren't mom 'n' pop type turnovers. Not for these kind of rapid unexplained purchases cumulatively valued in the millions you cannot, and especially not when they find out they are ASIC pre-orders, they want quite a lengthy verification and a unique set of terms they demand you agree to since they experienced the 'Butterfly' effect. You get treated very differently with these volumes and payment transfers.

Yeah sure.  BTW I did $5M in PayPal transactions this year.  No lengthy verification or analysis.  Only the most basic identity and account verification.  Nothing more.  The margins on credit card processing are about 0.2%.  That right 0.2%.  Even big companies like PayPal can't (or maybe don't want to) spend more than the absolute basics.  They certainly don't want to dig into the details of a company operation.  

Yes they do. They do very, very much now because of BFL. They are being more vigilant. You may do $5M in a year with a long iterative growth over time for them to logically trust you. Presumably for products that you have in stock?

Try opening an account, and receiving $5m in two weeks from an onslaught of random individuals globally. It kinda sets off alarm bells, thphey pick up on unusual trading volumes, and become cautious, especially when they find out it's for a product to be made months and delivered in the future outside of their standard payment protection and terms of sale. Then you're required to step up to the table and pass an extensive background check. Ask around.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Try opening an account, and receiving $5m in two weeks from an onslaught of random individuals globally. It kind sets off alarm bells, especially when they find out it's for a product to be made months in the future outside of their standard payment protection and terms of sale. Then you're required to step up to the table and pass an extensive background check. Ask around.

No they don't.  What exactly are they going to verify.  The company has an address, it has employees, it has a bank account, it has business partners.  Ok all ASIC ventures to date pass that.  It doesn't mean they are capable of delivering on time and on spec.  

You think PayPal can do a risk analysis on if company ABC can delivery a custom designed processor doing x GH/s (a very niche usage) on a y nm manufacturing process by date z, based on their funding, expertise, and suppliers? There aren't very many people in the world who can do that kind of analysis and exactly 0 of them work for PayPal.  What you think they are going to spend money and hire outside experts to provide them detailed risk analysis?  

If they think the company is high risk they will increase the hold % to hedge their bets and that is about it.  There is very little merchant side credit card fraud.  Merchants can't away with fraud without a paper trail.  I mean say you got $5M into your corporate bank account opened by a corporate officer using both EIN and his/her personal SSN along with copies of incorporation documents and personal identification.  Verified by both the bank and PayPal.  Ok now what?  Just ask for $5M in $100 bills and hop on a plane?  It isn't a very effective strategy.

I would point out that to date there has been no "fake a product and hop on a plane fraud" more "lets over promise and under deliver because we really don't have the skills to do this right".  PayPal isn't going to catch that kind of fraud/risk but then again they don't have to, merchant credit card fraud happens but it is a rounding error.  Holding the merchant under a microscope does nothing to combat the very real threat of fraudulent card usage and so called "friendly fraud".  The kind of made of analysis you are talking about is expensive.  So spend huge amounts of money doing detailed research of questionable value to fight a non-problem while $10B annually is stolen via card user fraud?  Awesome business strategy.  Please tell me PayPal hired you.


TL/DR
A company accepting credit cards mean absolutely nothing other than you can do a chargeback.  Not saying that isn't worth something but you pretending processors are some kind of paladins against corporate fraud and a company accepting credit cards means they are beyond reproach is just stupid.  Well actually it isn't stupid, just transparent given your posting history.

[Bitcoinorama]

Try opening an account, and receiving $5m in two weeks from an onslaught of random individuals globally. It kind sets off alarm bells, especially when they find out it's for a product to be made months in the future outside of their standard payment protection and terms of sale. Then you're required to step up to the table and pass an extensive background check. Ask around.

No they don't.  What exactly are they going to verify.  The company has an address, it has employees, it has a bank account, it has business partners.  Ok all ASIC ventures to date pass that.  It doesn't mean they are capable of delivering on time and on spec.  

You think PayPal can do a risk analysis on if company ABC can delivery a custom designed processor doing x GH/s (a very niche usage) on a y nm manufacturing process by date z, based on their funding, expertise, and suppliers? There aren't very many people in the world who can do that kind of analysis and exactly 0 of them work for PayPal.  What you think they are going to spend money and hire outside experts to provide them detailed risk analysis?  

If they think the company is high risk they will increase the hold % to hedge their bets and that is about it.  There is very little merchant side credit card fraud.  Merchants can't away with fraud without a paper trail.  I mean say you got $5M into your corporate bank account opened by a corporate officer using both EIN and his/her personal SSN along with copies of incorporation documents and personal identification.  Verified by both the bank and PayPal.  Ok now what?  Just ask for $5M in $100 bills and hop on a plane?  It isn't a very effective strategy.

I would point out that to date there has been no "fake a product and hop on a plane fraud" more "lets over promise and under deliver because we really don't have the skills to do this right".  PayPal isn't going to catch that kind of fraud/risk but then again they don't have to, merchant credit card fraud happens but it is a rounding error.  Holding the merchant under a microscope does nothing to combat the very real threat of fraudulent card usage and so called "friendly fraud".  The kind of made of analysis you are talking about is expensive.  So spend huge amounts of money doing detailed research of questionable value to fight a non-problem while $10B annually is stolen via card user fraud?  Awesome business strategy.  Please tell me PayPal hired you.

I know you like labour a point in the belief you are all knowing until people just give in, so my suggestion to you is call Paypal, call Stripe, speak to Sam at KnC about what happened when they blocked their account for a week after the first few days of sporadic payments for unusally large sums, specifically from Asian locations as the address format is not recognised. Ask about the terms set down due to the pre-order debacle specifically with Butterfly Labs and reselling of vapourware on eBay. It happened, they had to bend over backwards to appease, it's part of the reason they had to manage and confirm any pre-order transfers and discourage eBay resale. Paypal won't stand for it any longer. It would have been a hell of a lot easier to sack it off and just accept BTC, but they wanted the brand affiliation.

Take a look at this;

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1iyzkg/if_you_get_caught_selling_bitcoin_hardware_on/

A lot of my assumed 'loyalty' for KnC stems from the fact they went to these lengths to provide greater protection for customers. You can't fault that.

TL/DR
A company accepting credit cards mean absolutely nothing other than you can do a chargeback.  Not saying that isn't worth something but you pretending processors are some kind of paladins against corporate fraud and a company accepting credit cards means they are beyond reproach is just stupid.  Well actually it isn't stupid, just transparent given your posting history.

TL/DR basically means you start disagreements, then refuse to accept any other way of thinking but you're own, or rudely can't be arsed reading replies.

Payment processors will initiate chargebacks, the credit card's issuing bank will assume liability of the purchase if the merchant won't refund. The liability is recovered through the large APRs they charge if you do not wish to settle and cover within 56 days (in the UK). No where did I ever assume payment processors to be Paladins against corporate fraud. Consumer protection is part of the many compelling offers a card issuer lures people into applying for their financial service. If it's there, why not use it? Or do you enjoy the emotional roller coaster of gambling your hard earned on unknowns?


--
EDIT: as of the 18/08/2013 Butterfly Labs is no longer supported by Paypal, and offers no secured method of purchase;

Further to the “all sales are final” position, Butterfly Labs is no longer accepting PayPal as a method of payment; instead, only taking bitcoin or bank transfers as payment. Both of these are irreversible payment methods.

http://www.coindesk.com/butterfly-labs-monarch-miner-announcement-angers-existing-customers/

[dan99]

Try opening an account, and receiving $5m in two weeks from an onslaught of random individuals globally. It kind sets off alarm bells, especially when they find out it's for a product to be made months in the future outside of their standard payment protection and terms of sale. Then you're required to step up to the table and pass an extensive background check. Ask around.

No they don't.  What exactly are they going to verify.  The company has an address, it has employees, it has a bank account, it has business partners.  Ok all ASIC ventures to date pass that.  It doesn't mean they are capable of delivering on time and on spec.  

You think PayPal can do a risk analysis on if company ABC can delivery a custom designed processor doing x GH/s (a very niche usage) on a y nm manufacturing process by date z, based on their funding, expertise, and suppliers? There aren't very many people in the world who can do that kind of analysis and exactly 0 of them work for PayPal.  What you think they are going to spend money and hire outside experts to provide them detailed risk analysis?  

If they think the company is high risk they will increase the hold % to hedge their bets and that is about it.  There is very little merchant side credit card fraud.  Merchants can't away with fraud without a paper trail.  I mean say you got $5M into your corporate bank account opened by a corporate officer using both EIN and his/her personal SSN along with copies of incorporation documents and personal identification.  Verified by both the bank and PayPal.  Ok now what?  Just ask for $5M in $100 bills and hop on a plane?  It isn't a very effective strategy.

I would point out that to date there has been no "fake a product and hop on a plane fraud" more "lets over promise and under deliver because we really don't have the skills to do this right".  PayPal isn't going to catch that kind of fraud/risk but then again they don't have to, merchant credit card fraud happens but it is a rounding error.  Holding the merchant under a microscope does nothing to combat the very real threat of fraudulent card usage and so called "friendly fraud".  The kind of made of analysis you are talking about is expensive.  So spend huge amounts of money doing detailed research of questionable value to fight a non-problem while $10B annually is stolen via card user fraud?  Awesome business strategy.  Please tell me PayPal hired you.

I know you like labour a point in the belief you are all knowing until people just give in, so my suggestion to you is call Paypal, call Stripe, speak to Sam at KnC about what happened when they blocked their account for a week after the first few days of sporadic payments for unusally large sums, specifically from Asian locations as the address format is not recognised. Ask about the terms set down due to the pre-order debacle specifically with Butterfly Labs and reselling of vapourware on eBay. It happened, they had to bend over backwards to appease, it's part of the reason they had to manage and confirm any pre-order transfers and discourage eBay resale. Paypal won't stand for it any longer. It would have been a hell of a lot easier to sack it off and just accept BTC, but they wanted the brand affiliation.

Take a look at this;

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1iyzkg/if_you_get_caught_selling_bitcoin_hardware_on/

A lot of my assumed 'loyalty' stems from the fact they went to these lengths to provide greater protection for customers. You can't fault that.

TL/DR
A company accepting credit cards mean absolutely nothing other than you can do a chargeback.  Not saying that isn't worth something but you pretending processors are some kind of paladins against corporate fraud and a company accepting credit cards means they are beyond reproach is just stupid.  Well actually it isn't stupid, just transparent given your posting history.

TL/DR basically means you start disagreements, then refuse to accept any other way of thinking but you're own, or rudely can't be arsed reading replies.

Payment processors will initiate chargebacks, the credit card's issuing bank will assume liability of the purchase if the merchant won't refund. The liability is recovered through the large APRs they charge if you do not wish to settle and cover within 56 days (in the UK). No where did I ever assume payment processors to be Paladins against corporate fraud. Consumer protection is part of the many compelling offers a card issuer lures people into applying for their financial service. If it's there, why not use it? Or do you enjoy the emotional roller coaster of gambling your hard earned on unknowns?

Good point but many will argue otherwise because they cannot afford Paypal as one of their payment options.

[Bitcoinorama]

Take a look at this;

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1iyzkg/if_you_get_caught_selling_bitcoin_hardware_on/

A lot of my assumed 'loyalty' stems from the fact they went to these lengths to provide greater protection for customers. You can't fault that.

TL/DR
A company accepting credit cards mean absolutely nothing other than you can do a chargeback.  Not saying that isn't worth something but you pretending processors are some kind of paladins against corporate fraud and a company accepting credit cards means they are beyond reproach is just stupid.  Well actually it isn't stupid, just transparent given your posting history.

TL/DR basically means you start disagreements, then refuse to accept any other way of thinking but you're own, or rudely can't be arsed reading replies.

Payment processors will initiate chargebacks, the credit card's issuing bank will assume liability of the purchase if the merchant won't refund. The liability is recovered through the large APRs they charge if you do not wish to settle and cover within 56 days (in the UK). No where did I ever assume payment processors to be Paladins against corporate fraud. Consumer protection is part of the many compelling offers a card issuer lures people into applying for their financial service. If it's there, why not use it? Or do you enjoy the emotional roller coaster of gambling your hard earned on unknowns?

Good point but many will argue otherwise because they cannot afford Paypal as one of their payment options.

Dan, after the abuse that has taken place with unsecured funds here this Spring and Summer, any additional fees from using Paypal as at least a secure option to make buyers feel safe could quite easily be passed onto buyers who would willingly pay the 2.9% Paypal fee to know they are protected. I would, and am happy to pay an additional 3% to know I won't be scammed or be part of a reckless gamble to build someone else's empire.

[dan99]

Take a look at this;

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1iyzkg/if_you_get_caught_selling_bitcoin_hardware_on/

A lot of my assumed 'loyalty' stems from the fact they went to these lengths to provide greater protection for customers. You can't fault that.

TL/DR
A company accepting credit cards mean absolutely nothing other than you can do a chargeback.  Not saying that isn't worth something but you pretending processors are some kind of paladins against corporate fraud and a company accepting credit cards means they are beyond reproach is just stupid.  Well actually it isn't stupid, just transparent given your posting history.

TL/DR basically means you start disagreements, then refuse to accept any other way of thinking but you're own, or rudely can't be arsed reading replies.

Payment processors will initiate chargebacks, the credit card's issuing bank will assume liability of the purchase if the merchant won't refund. The liability is recovered through the large APRs they charge if you do not wish to settle and cover within 56 days (in the UK). No where did I ever assume payment processors to be Paladins against corporate fraud. Consumer protection is part of the many compelling offers a card issuer lures people into applying for their financial service. If it's there, why not use it? Or do you enjoy the emotional roller coaster of gambling your hard earned on unknowns?

Good point but many will argue otherwise because they cannot afford Paypal as one of their payment options.

Dan, after the abuse that has taken place with unsecured funds here this Spring and Summer, any additional fees from using Paypal as at least a secure option to make buyers feel safe could quite easily be passed onto buyers who would willingly pay the 2.9% Paypal fee to know they are protected. I would, and am happy to pay an additional 3% to know I won't be scammed or be part of a reckless gamble to build someone else's empire.

Yes I would prefer over escrow. a new line of financing rather than your hard cold cash and your financial institution are protecting you in the event you wanna a refund.

[KS]

(...)
Well I haven't touched the whole B2B or B2C uncertainty, so you never know, but at least I will feel more secure that way.
(...)

I have verified this with my general counsel in Belgium and, in case of problem, you will have to sue as a business in a B2B case, in Belgium, for Belgium.

I can't say what the situation would be in the UK, but as I stated multiple times before, it's likely to be similar in other EU countries.

OP will not verify that with a UK lawyer, so you should probably put that in your agenda before following his "legal advice".

[CYPER]

(...)
Well I haven't touched the whole B2B or B2C uncertainty, so you never know, but at least I will feel more secure that way.
(...)

I have verified this with my general counsel in Belgium and, in case of problem, you will have to sue as a business in a B2B case, in Belgium, for Belgium.

I can't say what the situation would be in the UK, but as I stated multiple times before, it's likely to be similar in other EU countries.

OP will not verify that with a UK lawyer, so you should probably put that in your agenda before following his "legal advice".

I make my own research, draw my own conclusions and make my own choices. I will face my own consequences if any without shifting blame to anyone else.

[Bitcoinorama]

I'm not offering legal advice. I'm sharing and collating information from renown and respected consumer sites, and where possible from governmental bodies or affiliate organisations that oversee their citizens advice.

KS please, your a known troll, please keep to the threads you lurk in and not ruin another thread with your usual spite. If you have an axe to grind, stop pursuing me from one place to the next and just keep it to PMs.

This thread as I said if for continuous development as and when members have something relevant and useful to share from their location.

[KS]

This "troll" has done his due diligence, called his lawyer, and is not trying to "win" arguments by calling others "troll" while either avoiding to answer questions in a debatable manner or deflecting them by throwing empty accusations

Contact your lawyer and validate/invalidate my point.

Easy peasy.

[Bitcoinorama]

This "troll" has done his due diligence, called his lawyer, and is not trying to "win" arguments by calling others "troll" while either avoiding to answer questions in a debatable manner or deflecting them by throwing empty accusations

Contact your lawyer and validate/invalidate my point.

Easy peasy.

I'm not trying to 'win' arguments with you. I've already stated I want nothing to do with you. Your intentions are not sincere, anyone who reads through your posting history can see that. You relentlessly pursue me from one thread to the other in some bizarre game of one-up-manship. This is trolling.

I hope both of our orders arrive on time, but I have no interest in communicating with an angry little man who just won't quit.

Just give it up. I'm not interested, you're on ignore.

[KS]

Good. I don't care about winning an argument, I'm asking for answers that you refuse to provide, for you own mysterious reasons.

Is it too difficult for you to have your claims checked by an actual lawyer? Are you afraid of what he/she may say?

Apart from laziness, I'm struggling to see why you'd refuse to do that, given you're so into defending the consumers.

[Bitcoinorama]

Good. I don't care about winning an argument, I'm asking for answers that you refuse to provide, for you own mysterious reasons.

Is it too difficult for you to have your claims checked by an actual lawyer? Are you afraid of what he/she may say?

Apart from laziness, I'm struggling to see why you'd refuse to do that, given you're so into defending the consumers.

Because I don't bloody need to, when I've found what I need from the UK Government's own bloody ruling and the official Citizen's Advice Beaureau, and pasted their precise stance and provided links to their official sites. It's why they exist.

Are they they responsible for setting the legal precident, or is some guy that will charge me to regurgitate the exact same information?

You have no basis for any argument, and you are so desperate to take the high road, this feeble attempt to retain some form of superiority, you're honestly baiting me to spend cash to prove you wrong. Don't need to, you pay for a lawyer familiar with UK consumer law. He'll just dig up the same as I have, why? Because it's from the horses mouth;

http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/index/equality/statutory-duty.htm
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/aboutus/cab_key_facts.htm

Also there's been no laziness on my part, I've spent hours looking into this.

[murraypaul]

While it is true that a B2B contract may not take away all of the consumer protection that would apply to a B2C contract, it does take away considerable portions of it, such as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which do not apply to B2B contracts. The Distance Selling Regulations would also not apply.
And, in general, when interpreting B2B contracts, courts will take the view that each side has received appropriate advice, and negotiated a contract that matches their wishes, while with a standard fixed B2C contract that the consumer does not have the opportunity to negotiate, they will recognise the imbalance of arms, and construe all terms in a way that favours the consumer.

[Bitcoinorama]

While it is true that a B2B contract may not take away all of the consumer protection that would apply to a B2C contract, it does take away considerable portions of it, such as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which do not apply to B2B contracts. The Distance Selling Regulations would also not apply.
And, in general, when interpreting B2B contracts, courts will take the view that each side has received appropriate advice, and negotiated a contract that matches their wishes, while with a standard fixed B2C contract that the consumer does not have the opportunity to negotiate, they will recognise the imbalance of arms, and construe all terms in a way that favours the consumer.

Thank-you Murray.

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable? (Note: this is UK focused)

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

[murraypaul]

In particular, sections 10 and 11 of the Distance Selling Regulations, which would otherwise have given an absolute right to cancel, will not apply to a pre-order written as a B2B contract rather than a B2C one. In the particular field of Bitcoin ASIC miner pre-orders, I think that is quite a significant loss!

Edit: If by repeating that quote, you intend to imply that there is no loss of protection, you are simply wrong.

From the Distance Selling Regulations:

“consumer” means any natural person who, in contracts to which these Regulations apply, is acting for purposes which are outside his business;
[...]
Right to cancel
10.—(1) Subject to regulation 13, if within the cancellation period set out in regulations 11 and 12, the consumer gives a notice of cancellation to the supplier, or any other person previously notified by the supplier to the consumer as a person to whom notice of cancellation may be given, the notice of cancellation shall operate to cancel the contract.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by these Regulations, the effect of a notice of cancellation is that the contract shall be treated as if it had not been made.

This simply does not apply to businesses.

Similarly for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations:

What terms are not covered?

Most standard terms are covered by the UTCCRs. The exceptions are those:

    that reflect provisions which by law have to be included in contracts
    that have been individually negotiated
    in contracts between businesses
    in contracts between private individuals
    in certain contracts that people do not make as consumers – for example, relating to employment or setting up a business
    in contracts entered into before 1995.

And, from the OFTs guidance on the UTCCR:

The fact that certain customers – even a majority – are not consumers does not justify exclusion of liability that could affect consumers. However, there is no objection under the Regulations to terms which cannot affect consumers, for example those which exclude liability for business losses, or losses to business customers.

[KS]

While it is true that a B2B contract may not take away all of the consumer protection that would apply to a B2C contract, it does take away considerable portions of it, such as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which do not apply to B2B contracts. The Distance Selling Regulations would also not apply.
And, in general, when interpreting B2B contracts, courts will take the view that each side has received appropriate advice, and negotiated a contract that matches their wishes, while with a standard fixed B2C contract that the consumer does not have the opportunity to negotiate, they will recognise the imbalance of arms, and construe all terms in a way that favours the consumer.

While it is true that a B2B contract may not take away all of the consumer protection that would apply to a B2C contract, it does take away considerable portions of it, such as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which do not apply to B2B contracts. The Distance Selling Regulations would also not apply.
And, in general, when interpreting B2B contracts, courts will take the view that each side has received appropriate advice, and negotiated a contract that matches their wishes, while with a standard fixed B2C contract that the consumer does not have the opportunity to negotiate, they will recognise the imbalance of arms, and construe all terms in a way that favours the consumer.

Thank-you Murray.

Business to business sales, are consumer rights applicable? (Note: this is UK focused)

In short, yes, unless the company you are dealing with has specifically underwritten terms in their Terms and Conditions negating aspects of your consumer rights. This is known as an exclusion clause, and is yet another reason why Terms and Conditions should always be read and thoroughly discussed in your respective thread.

How do you know if the contract (business to business) takes away your statutory rights?

If the person who sold you the goods or services has taken away your statutory rights, there should be something in your contract about this. For example, it might say  the seller isn't responsible for goods that are unsatisfactory, don't match their description or aren't fit for purpose. Or it might say that the seller isn't responsible for any loss you've suffered because of their lack of care or skill. This type of content in a contract is called an exclusion clause.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

In particular, sections 10 and 11 of the Distance Selling Regulations, which would otherwise have given an absolute right to cancel, will not apply to a pre-order written as a B2B contract rather than a B2C one. In the particular field of Bitcoin ASIC miner pre-orders, I think that is quite a significant loss!

Edit: If by repeating that quote, you intend to imply that there is no loss of protection, you are simply wrong.

From the Distance Selling Regulations:

“consumer” means any natural person who, in contracts to which these Regulations apply, is acting for purposes which are outside his business;
[...]
Right to cancel
10.—(1) Subject to regulation 13, if within the cancellation period set out in regulations 11 and 12, the consumer gives a notice of cancellation to the supplier, or any other person previously notified by the supplier to the consumer as a person to whom notice of cancellation may be given, the notice of cancellation shall operate to cancel the contract.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by these Regulations, the effect of a notice of cancellation is that the contract shall be treated as if it had not been made.

This simply does not apply to businesses.

Similarly for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations:

What terms are not covered?

Most standard terms are covered by the UTCCRs. The exceptions are those:

    that reflect provisions which by law have to be included in contracts
    that have been individually negotiated
    in contracts between businesses
    in contracts between private individuals
    in certain contracts that people do not make as consumers – for example, relating to employment or setting up a business
    in contracts entered into before 1995.

And, from the OFTs guidance on the UTCCR:

The fact that certain customers – even a majority – are not consumers does not justify exclusion of liability that could affect consumers. However, there is no objection under the Regulations to terms which cannot affect consumers, for example those which exclude liability for business losses, or losses to business customers.

Thank you murraypaul.

It seems I wasn't such a douche after all.

[Bitcoinorama]

Extra protection for sole traders

If you're a sole trader and you paid by credit, you may be able to make a claim against the credit company if things go wrong. Only ordinary consumers and sole traders have this right – it doesn't apply to other types of business trader.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_problems_with_business_to_business_services_e/consumer_protection_for_businesses.htm

[murraypaul]

Again, noone is saying that you have no protection with a B2B contract.
But you do not have the same level of protection that you would with a B2C contract. You just don't. The Distance Selling Regulations, which would otherwise provide a complete right to a refund, do not apply, and you do not have the same protection from unfair contract terms. Those are just the facts.

[Bitcoinorama]

Again, noone is saying that you have no protection with a B2B contract.
But you do not have the same level of protection that you would with a B2C contract. You just don't. The Distance Selling Regulations, which would otherwise provide a complete right to a refund, do not apply.

True and that will effect those that have paid with BTC and wire transfers.

[murraypaul]

Again, noone is saying that you have no protection with a B2B contract.
But you do not have the same level of protection that you would with a B2C contract. You just don't. The Distance Selling Regulations, which would otherwise provide a complete right to a refund, do not apply.

True and that will effect those that have paid with BTC and wire transfers.

Or by credit card, or by debit card, or by cash, or any other method.
Edit: You have protection from your credit card company if you can prove that the [supplier] company has failed to live up to the contract. But you do not have the benefit of consumer protection when deciding whether they have lived up to the contract or not. You don't have a right to cancel, so they can't have failed to provide you that right. You certainly aren't without rights, but you have fewer rights than you would have with a B2C contract.

Edit 2: In general, I am certainly in agreement that paying by credit card is by far the safest method of paying for goods. (Offtopic: But a very poor method for paying for ongoing services)

[Bitcoinorama]

Again, noone is saying that you have no protection with a B2B contract.
But you do not have the same level of protection that you would with a B2C contract. You just don't. The Distance Selling Regulations, which would otherwise provide a complete right to a refund, do not apply.

True and that will effect those that have paid with BTC and wire transfers.

Or by credit card, or by debit card, or by cash, or any other method.

Unless you have called your card issuing bank, explained the circumstances and they have said they are content with offering you protection when making the purchase.

[KS]

Again, noone is saying that you have no protection with a B2B contract.
But you do not have the same level of protection that you would with a B2C contract. You just don't. The Distance Selling Regulations, which would otherwise provide a complete right to a refund, do not apply, and you do not have the same protection from unfair contract terms. Those are just the facts.

What would a private person (consumer) be considered to be in court (B2C or B2B) if ordering products specifically stated as being sold only to businesses (and the consumer agrees by the T&C to be a business)?

Would he/she still be considered a consumer or a "business"? (I'm assuming UK law)

Incidentally, without prior approval by the bank/CC company, could the CC company deny a refund on the basis that it's a B2B (vs B2C) case? (is B2C/B2B misrepresentation by the customer an issue?)

So great to have finally s.o. who knows what he's talking about.

[murraypaul]

I'm not a lawyer, and wouldn't claim to be, although I do ahve an interest in the law. My responses are based on reading the relevant legislation and the guidance for it.
The issue isn't whether the credit card company would refuse to give you a refund when you were entitled to one, they wouldn't.
The difference is when you are entitled to one. That depends on two things:
a) the contract of sale, and interpretation of that, both in terms of interpreting clauses and in possibly finding some to be void, differs whether it is B2C or B2B
b) specific consumer protection legislation, such as the Distance Selling Regulations
If you went to court you may well be able to demonstrate the the B2B clause was a sham, and that you should be entitled to be treated as a consumer, but who is going to go to that level of hassle?
And finally, it may well be in Bitcoinorama's cause he has made an agreement which provides him with an equivalent level of protection, so as a practical matter for him it makes no difference.
My disagreement is with the broader statement that all levels of consumer protection apply to B2B contracts as they do to B2C ones, that isn't true.

Regardless of this, paying by credit card, even with a B2B clause in the agreement, provides you with much greater protection than paying with Bitcoin, where you have essentially no enforceable rights without going to court to set a precedent.

[KS]

I'm not a lawyer, and wouldn't claim to be, although I do ahve an interest in the law. My responses are based on reading the relevant legislation and the guidance for it.
The issue isn't whether the credit card company would refuse to give you a refund when you were entitled to one, they wouldn't.

OK but....

The difference is when you are entitled to one. That depends on two things:
a) the contract of sale, and interpretation of that, both in terms of interpreting clauses and in possibly finding some to be void, differs whether it is B2C or B2B
b) specific consumer protection legislation, such as the Distance Selling Regulations
If you went to court you may well be able to demonstrate the the B2B clause was a sham, and that you should be entitled to be treated as a consumer, but who is going to go to that level of hassle?

...given the above, in a B2B case, would you still need to sue first (and win) before getting a CC refund?

And finally, it may well be in Bitcoinorama's cause he has made an agreement which provides him with an equivalent level of protection, so as a practical matter for him it makes no difference.

I find this unlikely (maybe he'll confirm/rebute)

My disagreement is with the broader statement that all levels of consumer protection apply to B2B contracts as they do to B2C ones, that isn't true.

I've been trying to bring the point home for a while but failed spectacularly in his case. If he weren't so vocal and stubborn, things might have proceeded in a more civil manner.

Regardless of this, paying by credit card, even with a B2B clause in the agreement, provides you with much greater protection than paying with Bitcoin, where you have essentially no enforceable rights without going to court to set a precedent.

Right, so it's not because it's BTC vs CC, but obviously it is easier for you to use the current legislation (CC) vs trying to set a precedent (BTC / + you need to win!).

Thank you for your enlightened comments, I hope they'll help turn the discourse back to a more civil direction (no pun intended ).

[Bitcoinorama]

Murraypaul, with all due respect, I for one appreciate your stance, and sorry for KS's efforts in trying to embroil you in this.  He hasn't the slightest interest in helping others in this case (please see the KnC thread for ref).  

He's not a purchaser of any products with this company, or with secure payment means, he's not from the UK, so our law is of no real concern to him, he purely wishes to disrupt their progress as he has from the start.

He has a significant purchase in Avalon bulk chips, thousands of dollars worth, which obviously he has a lot less recourse for, so it's bizarre he's so vehmenet in making this his supposedly sincere concern, or for that matter why he'd apparently contact a Belgian lawyer, and discuss this, over his own purchase, which apparently he's nonchalant about.  He spent an inordinate amount of time crying scam with many false allegations that were proven time and time again to be of no genuine concern, again they are in the beginning of that thread for all to see.

He relentlessly pursues me from thread to thread trying to discredit me wherever possible. He is a troll in the absolute truest sense, and now he is intent on destroying a thread meant to benefit others, under the guise he pretends to care. I know where I stand legally, I spoke to my issuing bank who is offering to assume third party liability as oart of their own purchase protection, and I no longer have any interest in entertaining this weird stalker of a character, or his sudden interest in UK law.

Again Murraypaul if you have anything you wish me to update the beginning of the thread with, that you feel is of value, than by all means, please let me know, but for your sake, do not feed the troll.

[murraypaul]

Right, so it's not because it's BTC vs CC, but obviously it is easier for you to use the current legislation (CC) vs trying to set a precedent (BTC / + you need to win!).

With CC vs anything else, be it Bitcoin, debit card, whatever, your protection is much greater with the credit card.
This is because a credit card purchase is a three party contract, where your CC provider agrees to stand in place for the merchant in case of refund or other issues, and reimburse you directly.
Whether your CC company manage to then recover anything from the merchant is their problem, and doesn't affect you at all. If they don't, it is their loss, not yours.
With any other payment method, it is a two party contract between you and the merchant, and if they just run off with your money, or become insolvent, you are left with effectively no redress, you are just another unsecured creditor, unlikely to see any of your money back.
For any large single purchase, credit card is the most secure method, as it the only one which introduces a trusted, solvent, third party to effectively act as guarantor for the merchant.
(This is why some businesses find it so difficult to find a CC processor, because the CC company view them as too high risk.)
(All of this relating to the UK, I don't know the position elsewhere)

[CYPER]

Right, so it's not because it's BTC vs CC, but obviously it is easier for you to use the current legislation (CC) vs trying to set a precedent (BTC / + you need to win!).

With CC vs anything else, be it Bitcoin, debit card, whatever, your protection is much greater with the credit card.
This is because a credit card purchase is a three party contract, where your CC provider agrees to stand in place for the merchant in case of refund or other issues, and reimburse you directly.
Whether your CC company manage to then recover anything from the merchant is their problem, and doesn't affect you at all. If they don't, it is their loss, not yours.
With any other payment method, it is a two party contract between you and the merchant, and if they just run off with your money, or become insolvent, you are left with effectively no redress, you are just another unsecured creditor, unlikely to see any of your money back.
For any large single purchase, credit card is the most secure method, as it the only one which introduces a trusted, solvent, third party to effectively act as guarantor for the merchant.
(This is why some businesses find it so difficult to find a CC processor, because the CC company view them as too high risk.)
(All of this relating to the UK, I don't know the position elsewhere)

Well put 

[Bitcoinorama]

Right, so it's not because it's BTC vs CC, but obviously it is easier for you to use the current legislation (CC) vs trying to set a precedent (BTC / + you need to win!).

With CC vs anything else, be it Bitcoin, debit card, whatever, your protection is much greater with the credit card.
This is because a credit card purchase is a three party contract, where your CC provider agrees to stand in place for the merchant in case of refund or other issues, and reimburse you directly.
Whether your CC company manage to then recover anything from the merchant is their problem, and doesn't affect you at all. If they don't, it is their loss, not yours.
With any other payment method, it is a two party contract between you and the merchant, and if they just run off with your money, or become insolvent, you are left with effectively no redress, you are just another unsecured creditor, unlikely to see any of your money back.
For any large single purchase, credit card is the most secure method, as it the only one which introduces a trusted, solvent, third party to effectively act as guarantor for the merchant.
(This is why some businesses find it so difficult to find a CC processor, because the CC company view them as too high risk.)
(All of this relating to the UK, I don't know the position elsewhere)

Thank-you.