4 ms·

- Customer UX: This really isn't as straightforward as you put it. The main issue for customers is that if they loose their wallet, they loose everything. This

- Customer UX: This really isn't as straightforward as you put it. The main issue for customers is that if they loose their wallet, they loose everything. This has to be accounted as part of UX, even making transactions is simple and straightforward. - Settlement/Certainty time: Blockchains combine these into one. They depends heavily on the specific chain. For some networks, its basically instant. Eth seems to be around a minute or so. Bitcoin is around 60 minutes. - Reversibility: Agreed, although whether this is good or bad depends on the user. I like the way it was said in the article, these are all axes of comparison. Consumers choose products based on a set of criteria. For many, irreversibility or the risk of loosing everything due to a lost wallet is a dealbreaker, even if transfers may be much faster than other methods.

baby 5y ago
> Customer UX: This really isn't as straightforward as you put it. The main issue for customers is that if they loose their wallet, they loose everything. This has to be accounted as part of UX, even making transactions is simple and straightforward. At scale people will want to use custodians for large amounts of money. So basically banks will always be a thing. Only the backbone is changing.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  If people are using banks at scale, what is the advantage over just using banks currently? I guess international transfers but using blockchain implies all the banks handling most of the digital currencies (or all using the same one) and so I don’t see the appeal above some fast centralised clearing house for transfers.