3 ms·
Every few months, my credit card blocks one of my purchases because its statistical algorithm decides it looks sketchy and wants me to respond to a verification
by DennisP 4y ago
Every few months, my credit card blocks one of my purchases because its statistical algorithm decides it looks sketchy and wants me to respond to a verification email. How is this any more trusting?
Both systems recognize the existence of fraudulent actors, and handle the problem in different ways. Blockchains use cryptographically-signed transactions, so merchants get no information they can use against you. Credit cards hand your credentials over to every merchant and try to fix their fundamental insecurity by flagging unusual transactions, insuring against losses, and issuing new credentials when bad actors get them (which brings lots of associated hassle, that I've gone through a couple times in the last few years). Bank transfers handle the problem by simply delaying full access to the money, at least for larger amounts, until banks on both ends have checked everything.
The same applies to more complex systems. Blockchains try to build systems with extreme transparency and security (and sometimes fail at that). Traditional finance builds systems reliant on centralized actors, and adds lots of regulation, oversight, and incentives such as criminal penalties to keep those actors in check (and sometimes fails at that).
We certainly should strive for a more idealistic future. But legacy banking/finance is not doing that. Blockchain platforms at least provide the possibility of building something new that's better; on top of an open trustless platform, you can build your own system assuming whatever level of trust and altruism you like.
Two examples on Ethereum: optimistic rollups are more scalable second layers, in which withdrawals work more like bank transfers: withdrawals aren't cryptographically verified, but have a delay during which anyone can submit proof of fraud. A more idealistic example is Gitcoin, in which people donate to public goods and the money is allocated with a quadratic funding system.
- strogonoff 4y ago> Bank transfers handle the problem by simply delaying full access to the money, at least for larger amounts, until banks on both ends have checked everything. They are doing it for good reasons, presence of malicious agents (money launderers, etc.) exploiting trust requires it. (In fact, I’d argue banks are getting away with not doing it enough with very moneyed customers.) Blockchain does not eliminate this need in current age—either equivalent institutions would have to be reproduced all anew, or we need to end the motivations that make people want to exploit financial system in the first place. And if we do address the latter (the only sustainable solution in the long run), then what is the benefit of blockchain and all? Isn’t it just pure overhead then?
- junofan 4y ago> what is the benefit of blockchain and all? The design space is way bigger, so you can create better solutions. “Trust institution X” is a special case. I can open a position on my favorite DEX (trusting the DEX administer, which can be a centralized authority, not to push an upgrade that drains my balance) and also trust that my position can be liquidated (due to incentives for anybody to submit the liquidation transaction, thereby not having to trust that a centralized liquidation bot won’t have somehow failed at that exact moment). You could design a brokerage system where accountholders must trust the broker with personal details like SSN, etc, but don’t have to trust the broker not to disable buy/sell buttons due to solvency issues.
- strogonoff 4y ago> don’t have to trust There we go again. Why are we avoiding trust?