What is this supposed to be a detriment relative to? If someone compromises your device then they can also transfer all of the money out of your bank account, use it to buy gold bullion and be on a beach in a non-extradition country before you get your next bank statement.
"Your bank will refund you for fraudulent charges" doesn't prevent fraud, it puts the cost of fraud insurance into the cost of banking. Which may be significantly less efficient when the user or anyone other than the bank is the lowest cost avoider for preventing fraud.
They also won't refund you for fraudulent charges unless you report them quickly enough.
You've drifted off-course. We were talking about whether or not double spends are possible in Bitcoin and now you're arguing about how banks deal with fraud refunds. peace!
It prevents double spends under a set of assumptions. One of the assumptions it makes is that the Bitcoin code on your device faithfully implements the system in the paper. It doesn't claim to be the thing that causes that assumption to be valid; you have to ensure that using separate means.
Therefore, Bitcoin code has to have been always free of bugs (malicious or accidental). That has not been the case and will not be the case. The assumption doesn't hold, and double spends are therefore possible.
