Comment by yokem55
19 hours ago
Reversibility is a trade-off. It's great if you are on the sending end of a transaction. It can be a nightmare on the receiving end. Irreversibility is the other way around. And both approaches have different costs and assumptions.
I think it’s less about reversibility itself and more the larger system within which it works. Banking works because the companies agree to follow rules so there’s a social context where if I make a mistake you will help fix it because the odds are fair that you will make a mistake at some point, too. In contrast, cryptocurrency is a political movement so the ideological “trust less” purity test matters more than whether the system is actually used. There is no technical reason why a system couldn’t have something like a settlement period to allow fraud reversal.
A settlement period wouldn't even run against the ideology, only the convenience factor (and implementation complexity, and perhaps transaction fees). More generally, I think a number of the issues with crypto are rooted in things happening immediately.
The ideology I was referring to was more of the trust-less design and “be your own bank” philosophy: many of these problems become easier if you have a third party who can do things like reverse transactions, but then you’re not getting rid of banks and are acknowledging that governments have power over the system. They do anyway, but there’s been a lot of desire to say otherwise.
3 replies →
bank error in your favor