Quote from: dayfall on March 13, 2013, 11:29:37 PM

Quote from: aric on March 13, 2013, 07:19:32 PM

WTF? Scenario:

Buyer pays you 100 BTC for something.
BTC's worth doubles in USD.
You don't send what Buyer ordered.
Buyer (obviously) wants a refund.
You'd then try to only owe Buyer 50 BTC?

The only one getting screwed would be the Buyer. Comparative value is meaningless. The Buyer cares about what he paid in his/her bitcoin. Alternatively, if bitcoin became half as much in USD, Buyer would still be owed 100 BTC. How is it possible to not see how unfair it is to be refunded in anything other than the original amount?

Suppose, the Gold coin was sent. The buyer still gets screwed (because his good is only worth 50 when he paid 100) by that logic.

In your way, the buyer takes the risk and the seller may manipulate the refund for their own profit. If the value rises then give the goods. If the value falls then "oops, we were actually out of stock" and give a refund. (I know it didn't happen in this case, but I have no doubt that it has happened)

In my way the seller takes the risk and buyer doesn't' care if the refund happens. Independent of the value of Bitcoins and whether the refund occurs, the Buyer still has the same buying power and may buy the same product elsewhere. Independent of a corrupt seller, the buyer can end up with what they wanted by loosing no extra money!

(And people think about the value of their Bitcoins anytime they make a purchase, not the number. If that wasn't the case then no one would have bought a pizza for 10,000.)

I actually can't see how your method is fair and mine is unfair. I would say that refunding only 100 if the value dropped was unfair. I would certainly feel cheated and suspect foul play.

I mean no offense but I'm having a hard time following your points. You might be completely misrepresenting what I said and the situation at hand, but it's hard to decipher your conclusions. The risk is always with the Seller if he or she doesn't provide the product. That's how almost all respectable and honest businesses operate, naturally.

You're posing a new hypothetical where the gold is sent? If the gold is sent and it's legit (i.e. the correct amount of gold is sent) then matters of returns and refunding depend on the time frame of a Seller's policies and guarantees. Assuming the transaction was honest and delivered, the Buyer could not later seek a full refund in BTC (such as if BTC is relatively worth more). The discretion of the Seller's policies come into play on how to reimburse. However, let's say the gold was sent but it was a fake or half the gold or some such. Then the buyer would still be entitled to a full refund in the original BTC amount. None of this is the actual situation that took place, though.

That's why smart retailers don't write checks their asses can't cash. They don't spend a customer's money until a safe time period has passed, as to ensure against loss -- especially when dealing with the risk of fluctuating markets. Many retailers in USD, for instance, generally never treat sales as usable revenue until at least 30-90 days have passed. That ensures against the risk of chargebacks, ACH reversals, returns, and failures -- like the failure to deliver. Sellers handling BTC bear the responsibility for keeping that BTC on hand in the event of such failures. It's not the Buyer's burden. Even more offensive is the notion that a business would spend someone else's BTC when they can't and won't deliver, and then try to delay matters and make off with all or part of that person's BTC payment. Can't pay what's due? Can't handle the risks? Can't resolve matters kindly and promptly? I know what I call a service that does that. Maybe they started out with better intentions but it doesn't negate current behavior.