Quote from: aric on March 14, 2013, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: dayfall on March 14, 2013, 03:59:52 PM

Quote from: aric on March 14, 2013, 12:16:12 AM

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

We both know that Coinabul made a bogus argument when it said it sold the BTC and hence couldn't return it, so I don't know why you are explaining this to me. You have not explained why my method is not "kindly", you have only explained what a business should do if your refund method is used. I don't care one bit how the business handles the money internally.

Quote from: aric on March 14, 2013, 12:16:12 AM

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.

OK, I'll explain it this way. You say the risk is with the seller, and you say the buyer should get the refund in the original amount of BTC. So, if the bitcoin crashes and the seller (whoops) can't ship the product, then it can, without any foul, refund the original amount of Bitcoins. But there is no risk to the seller. This is a contradiction. Hence one of your two premises are incorrect. Because the seller normally has the choice of refunding or shipping the product, the seller has no risk. The seller may do whichever gives the most profit.

If however, the value must be refunded then the seller has all the risk, because no matter what, the seller must give to the buyer the value of the good. If Bitcoin crashes then it is the sellers tough luck. If Bitcoin rises then it is the sellers good luck. There is no risk to the buyer.

Quote from: aric on March 14, 2013, 12:16:12 AM

Sellers handling BTC bear the responsibility for keeping that BTC on hand in the event of such failures.

This is what is being argued. You can't just state this in bold as if it is you argument. (which I really think it is your argument)

Quote from: aric on March 14, 2013, 12:16:12 AM

and then try to delay matters and make off with all or part of that person's BTC payment.

I don't understand this. Because, the value of Bitcoin increased during this transaction, the seller will make off with the profit anyway.

On a side note: Conabul refunding $1600 for $1900, equivalent, is very rotten. Very, very.

He paid paid 90+ BTC yet the product never shipped. You still don't understand this.

Stop tying BTC to USD. You want to tie it to USD now? 90.78 BTC x ~47 USD = $4267

That's the buyer's money (not the seller's money) currently valued in USD. Coinabul is sitting on that. When they couldn't provide the product, they should've refunded his 90.78 BTC with lightning-fucking-speed. Coinabul spent, took, or squandered his bitcoins? That's their responsibility.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Coinabul's policy states that their refunds will be in USD equivalent, not BTC.

Now, if you want to argue the potential for gain on other investments in the timeframe that Coinabul held on to his money (i.e., interest), I think that is a fair argument to make. But it would be up to a court of law to determine specific damages, and it most assuredly would not follow the BTC price.