4 ms·

> But if decentralization doesn't matter, then what's the point of these technologies? I don't think "decentralization" is a good term to define cryptocurrenci

> But if decentralization doesn't matter, then what's the point of these technologies? I don't think "decentralization" is a good term to define cryptocurrencies like bitcoin or ethereum. There are lot of properties in these systems. For example limited supply, untamperability of history, irreversable transactions, permissionless use etc. You can compare to older systems offering similar features and how well these systems work compared to them. Transaction capacity & speed is most often not the primary point of blockchain systems, somehow many seem to assume that. For example it is no possible to create truly irreversible transactions in centralized system, since centralized system is always prone to forceful intervention.

Nursie 8y ago
Most people, most use cases, don't want irreversibility. Reversible transactions are a huge positive.
- jerguismi 8y ago
  Well I guess when you are receiving you want irreversibility, when you are sending you prefer reversibility...
  - Nursie 8y ago
    > Well I guess when you are receiving you want irreversibility I think that's a little simplistic. Without reversibility you're not going to receive as much. People are far less likely to trust smaller or newer merchants without these sorts of features. You probably also want your customers to be able to rectify mistakes, such as sending money to the wrong place. I guess we could say when you are receiving you want irreversibility if you're planning to rip off your customers or otherwise not fulfil your contract with them
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      With old money, reversibility is handled by return policies, merchant account charge-backs, liens, and civil lawsuits. If you hand a bearer instrument like a bank note to someone, that transaction is technically irreversible. They put it in their pocket, and you can't recover it without a physical assault. You have to trust them to provide the goods or services that you just paid for. Or you have to trust the justice system that it will allow you to (eventually) recover your payment if the other party reneged. These remedies are often not available with cryptocurrency. You may be unaware of the counterparty's physical location or true identity, and even if you did, they may be in a different legal jurisdiction altogether. You can't round up a posse to go get the money back. If you pay with a finance system account, you can dispute the charge with the payments processor, and your payment may be reversed by them, even after the cash balances have already been altered, by withholding payment from a future transaction through that processor. Criteria for reversal may vary between processors. If consumers trust the reversal policy of the processor, the merchants get more money, because consumers don't have to trust them or the formal justice system. They can get refunded now, and let the processor and the merchant argue over the details. This remedy is available to cryptocurrencies. While individual transactions are irreversible, it is possible to redirect future transactions through a trusted intermediary or a smart contract. Basically, everyone wants an escrow mechanism of some sort built in to the system, so that if a customer doesn't get the goods or services, the merchant doesn't get their money; and if a merchant doesn't get paid, the customer doesn't get goods or services. As long as the transactions are irreversible, someone can get ripped off, and they have to go out-of-band for a remedy. As long as transactions are trivially reversible, someone can get ripped off, and they have to go out-of-band for a remedy. Conveyance of money and delivery of goods or services are each half-trades. We don't like those half-trades. They're too much like gifts, in that there is too little ability to enforce reciprocity without a preexisting social link. If you conduct business in half-trades, you still have to trust, and people can still get ripped off. So far, cryptocurrencies only technologically validate the money-conveyance half-trade. What it needs is a way to validate the other half-trade, for goods or services, and bundle them both into an atomic whole-trade that either reverses or becomes permanent as a single unit. Trade chains would be nice, too, but atomic transactions are what people need to trust the system instead of trusting each other.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      People already have multiple choices of reversible currencies. The point is that it is useful to both have reversible, and irreversible currencies existing in the world at the same time. That way people who want to use reversible currencies can use that, and people who instead prefer irreversible ones can use those.
- wpietri 8y ago
  I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted. I often use a charge card because I want the protection of being able to reverse a transaction. And merchants like this too. By reducing shopper risk, people are more willing to spend money and try new things. We want it at the systemic level, too. I used to work for financial traders. One day one of our traders made a quick profit by buying something at an absurdly low price. It turned out that a major market participant had fat-fingered a trade offer; they lost enough that the company could well go out of business. Eventually the exchange stepped in, reversed all the transactions, and put things back the way they were. I thought our trader would be mad, but he just shrugged. And why not? The rules protected them all.

Nursie 8y ago

Most people, most use cases, don't want irreversibility. Reversible transactions are a huge positive.

jerguismi 8y ago
Well I guess when you are receiving you want irreversibility, when you are sending you prefer reversibility...
- Nursie 8y ago
  > Well I guess when you are receiving you want irreversibility I think that's a little simplistic. Without reversibility you're not going to receive as much. People are far less likely to trust smaller or newer merchants without these sorts of features. You probably also want your customers to be able to rectify mistakes, such as sending money to the wrong place. I guess we could say when you are receiving you want irreversibility if you're planning to rip off your customers or otherwise not fulfil your contract with them
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    With old money, reversibility is handled by return policies, merchant account charge-backs, liens, and civil lawsuits. If you hand a bearer instrument like a bank note to someone, that transaction is technically irreversible. They put it in their pocket, and you can't recover it without a physical assault. You have to trust them to provide the goods or services that you just paid for. Or you have to trust the justice system that it will allow you to (eventually) recover your payment if the other party reneged. These remedies are often not available with cryptocurrency. You may be unaware of the counterparty's physical location or true identity, and even if you did, they may be in a different legal jurisdiction altogether. You can't round up a posse to go get the money back. If you pay with a finance system account, you can dispute the charge with the payments processor, and your payment may be reversed by them, even after the cash balances have already been altered, by withholding payment from a future transaction through that processor. Criteria for reversal may vary between processors. If consumers trust the reversal policy of the processor, the merchants get more money, because consumers don't have to trust them or the formal justice system. They can get refunded now, and let the processor and the merchant argue over the details. This remedy is available to cryptocurrencies. While individual transactions are irreversible, it is possible to redirect future transactions through a trusted intermediary or a smart contract. Basically, everyone wants an escrow mechanism of some sort built in to the system, so that if a customer doesn't get the goods or services, the merchant doesn't get their money; and if a merchant doesn't get paid, the customer doesn't get goods or services. As long as the transactions are irreversible, someone can get ripped off, and they have to go out-of-band for a remedy. As long as transactions are trivially reversible, someone can get ripped off, and they have to go out-of-band for a remedy. Conveyance of money and delivery of goods or services are each half-trades. We don't like those half-trades. They're too much like gifts, in that there is too little ability to enforce reciprocity without a preexisting social link. If you conduct business in half-trades, you still have to trust, and people can still get ripped off. So far, cryptocurrencies only technologically validate the money-conveyance half-trade. What it needs is a way to validate the other half-trade, for goods or services, and bundle them both into an atomic whole-trade that either reverses or becomes permanent as a single unit. Trade chains would be nice, too, but atomic transactions are what people need to trust the system instead of trusting each other.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    People already have multiple choices of reversible currencies. The point is that it is useful to both have reversible, and irreversible currencies existing in the world at the same time. That way people who want to use reversible currencies can use that, and people who instead prefer irreversible ones can use those.
wpietri 8y ago
I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted. I often use a charge card because I want the protection of being able to reverse a transaction. And merchants like this too. By reducing shopper risk, people are more willing to spend money and try new things. We want it at the systemic level, too. I used to work for financial traders. One day one of our traders made a quick profit by buying something at an absurdly low price. It turned out that a major market participant had fat-fingered a trade offer; they lost enough that the company could well go out of business. Eventually the exchange stepped in, reversed all the transactions, and put things back the way they were. I thought our trader would be mad, but he just shrugged. And why not? The rules protected them all.