8 ms·
I think your confusion is that you think the immutability mechanism is a flaw. Addressing the fraud should be done via insurance, since otherwise we need to tr
by grandalf 9y ago
I think your confusion is that you think the immutability mechanism is a flaw. Addressing the fraud should be done via insurance, since otherwise we need to trust yet another party to be sure transactions can't be mutated/reversed.
I think if you examine all the assumptions leading up to your conclusion you may find that it is erroneous.
- abalone 9y agoThere's no confusion. I've pointed out that protecting consumers from immutable fraud via insurance premiums, as you propose, is much costlier than having a trusted intermediary police and reverse fraud. You have pointed to no errors in my assumptions or logic. You simply believe that we "should" not trust intermediaries, which is fine, but you must accept the consequence that consumer protections will be weaker and/or costlier to implement. This is why Bitcoin was for the most part never more attractive to consumers than cards.