3 ms·

You can build reversibility on top of non-reversible platforms. Not the other way around. Look into bitcoin “vaults” for some interesting research in this area.

ivalm 5y ago
But I literally don't want non-reversible transactions. I cannot think of a case where non-reversibility is desired. I understand you can build reversibility on top, but why? Better to just have an underlying fully-reversible platform -- something that traditional finance is moving towards. Edit: looking at vaults looks like it is just a way to secure your cold storage wallet. But I want reversibility in my hot wallets, that's the one that's most likely to be compromised anyways.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  > But I literally don't want non-reversible transactions. I cannot think of a case where non-reversibility is desired. I understand you can build reversibility on top, but why? Others do have use cases for such transactions. And even if you want reversibility, different transactions may call for different policies and implementations for reversibility. If you hard-code one reversibility mechanism in the lowest layer, you prevent alternative policies. Consider, for instance, a monetary exchange. You pay X in one currency, and get Y in another. If the transaction in X is reversible, someone can pay X, get Y, then get X back. Even if Y is reversible, it's not guaranteed that the two are linked such that either both transactions happen or neither do. If you build reversibility on top of an underlying system, you can provide many different implementations of it. For instance, you could use an escrow service, which guarantees that they hold two things to be exchanged before passing along either one. Consider a domain name escrow service (confirm exclusive ownership of the domain before releasing payment), or an artistic commission escrow service (provide a watermarked/partial preview, release the full version and the payment at the same time). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle , which argues for a simple network with additional features layered on top, rather than a complex network with all features mandatory. Tying this back to the article: it's absolutely a high risk to make large quantities of money subject to a fully automated system with no oversight or controls. On the other hand, fully automated systems enable systems and experiments that wouldn't be possible otherwise. There's value in having both reversible and non-reversible systems, and selecting an appropriate system for the type of transaction and the value and risk involved.
  - ivalm 5y ago
    While I agree with that wiki page, we currently have a system that works and is resource efficient. Crypto offers a system that doesn't work and is currently resource inefficient. Is there some future state with PoS/lightning network/etc that will make crypto more attractive than traditional finance? maybe! But it's hard for me to see bitcoin being that. More than anything, finance should not be a dark forest.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> You can build reversibility on top of non-reversible platforms. Not the other way around. You totally can. Bitcoin could be built on top of versioned filesystems and it would be just as reversible as regular Bitcoin.
- ivalm 5y ago
  A versioned filesystem is not reversible (since the pre-reversion version would still exist, only the new version will have the reversion). In that sense it's like normal blockchain where you can append an equal and opposite transaction (so final state looks like a reversion).
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Okay: traditional undo / redo chain, then.

ivalm 5y ago

But I literally don't want non-reversible transactions. I cannot think of a case where non-reversibility is desired. I understand you can build reversibility on top, but why? Better to just have an underlying fully-reversible platform -- something that traditional finance is moving towards. Edit: looking at vaults looks like it is just a way to secure your cold storage wallet. But I want reversibility in my hot wallets, that's the one that's most likely to be compromised anyways.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
> But I literally don't want non-reversible transactions. I cannot think of a case where non-reversibility is desired. I understand you can build reversibility on top, but why? Others do have use cases for such transactions. And even if you want reversibility, different transactions may call for different policies and implementations for reversibility. If you hard-code one reversibility mechanism in the lowest layer, you prevent alternative policies. Consider, for instance, a monetary exchange. You pay X in one currency, and get Y in another. If the transaction in X is reversible, someone can pay X, get Y, then get X back. Even if Y is reversible, it's not guaranteed that the two are linked such that either both transactions happen or neither do. If you build reversibility on top of an underlying system, you can provide many different implementations of it. For instance, you could use an escrow service, which guarantees that they hold two things to be exchanged before passing along either one. Consider a domain name escrow service (confirm exclusive ownership of the domain before releasing payment), or an artistic commission escrow service (provide a watermarked/partial preview, release the full version and the payment at the same time). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle , which argues for a simple network with additional features layered on top, rather than a complex network with all features mandatory. Tying this back to the article: it's absolutely a high risk to make large quantities of money subject to a fully automated system with no oversight or controls. On the other hand, fully automated systems enable systems and experiments that wouldn't be possible otherwise. There's value in having both reversible and non-reversible systems, and selecting an appropriate system for the type of transaction and the value and risk involved.
- ivalm 5y ago
  While I agree with that wiki page, we currently have a system that works and is resource efficient. Crypto offers a system that doesn't work and is currently resource inefficient. Is there some future state with PoS/lightning network/etc that will make crypto more attractive than traditional finance? maybe! But it's hard for me to see bitcoin being that. More than anything, finance should not be a dark forest.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

> You can build reversibility on top of non-reversible platforms. Not the other way around. You totally can. Bitcoin could be built on top of versioned filesystems and it would be just as reversible as regular Bitcoin.

ivalm 5y ago
A versioned filesystem is not reversible (since the pre-reversion version would still exist, only the new version will have the reversion). In that sense it's like normal blockchain where you can append an equal and opposite transaction (so final state looks like a reversion).
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Okay: traditional undo / redo chain, then.