So I take it as a "yes" then. You would falsely claim a hack/unauthorized access to reverse a F&F transaction.
Statements like this don't support your case that your judgement should be relied upon by others.
What's your interpretation then:
I need to claim unauthorized access in order to charge back if scammed and that easily results in account suspension if found out to be a lie
What plausible reason is there to claim unauthorized access if there wasn't any unauthorized access?
You just said I was sending bitcoins, how am I receiving them?
What the hell are you on about?
Now you're starting to annoy me.
It is an explanation on why there's 'risk' in that transaction and you know it yourself!
If I wrote there isnt' any risk for the sender in an I&S transaction because you can charge it back, would that mean I would falsely claim I haven't received an item?
You're hilarious.
Why are you trying so hard to paint me as an immoral man?
I never said anything about you sending bitcoins. I'm talking about your trust ratings that you left for others where they sent bitcoins to you and you sent PayPal payments. You're receiving bitcoins therefore you don't have any risk in the transaction and you shouldn't hand out positive trust for that.
A chargeback of an I&S transaction would not be false if you indeed didn't received the item. It could still be a problem if you were engaged in a trade that is against PayPal policy or not covered by buyer protection, which most likely applies to bitcoins.
A false claim of unauthorized access in an F&F transaction is not a "risk", it's fraud.
