> A blockchain is necessary for decentralization.Every blockchain initiative being explored by financial institutions is not decentralized. Unless you're tossing out the banking system to directly transact with other parties using digital currencies, in which case: good luck, I don't have a rebuttal except to say I doubt that will become mainstream enough to be ubiquitous and convenient, but maybe I'm wrong.
> 1. Censorship resistance.
I don't personally care about this; do you think most people do?
> 2. Irreversibility of payments.
That's admittedly cool, but I personally don't want that either. Great for vendors I suppose, but I like being able to e.g. issue chargebacks with AmEx when there is legitimate fraud. I don't think there is a technical solution that satisfies both buyers and sellers and mitigates fraud on both sides.
> 3. Permissionless.
I don't really understand this, I have accounts with several banks that didn't run credit checks before I opened an account. They did an identity verification, but they didn't care about my creditworthiness for a checking account. Moreover, these were national banking chains with online account signup and approval, so it isn't limited to regional availability.
Other than that - I agree permissionless is a cool feature, but I don't particularly want to transact with people in a permissionless system. The natural extrapolation of a permissionless system is one in which there are fewer safeguards for e.g. verifying a user's identity, and (speaking as someone who works in cryptography research here), I don't think schemes that enable two parties to transact without mutually trusting each other are a worthwhile problem for a technical solution in the real world.