Blockchains are irrevocable and unalterable, which removes two useful tools (reversing and changing transactions), and replaces them with nothing workable.
But so are events in the real world. When you think about "reversing or changing a transaction" what you really mean is creating a new transaction that brings an equivalent amount back to the person that paid it.
This is done in the real world by knowing the identity of the receiver person or entity and threatening them with consequences if the money is not returned. It seems to me more a problem of being able to identify the parties in a transaction rather than of mutability of the ledger.
Also, there are limits on how old a transaction can be when a bank goes and rewrites history. In my experience the limit is about six months. Transactions older than than are considered settled.
If this is a feature that people want in a cryptocurrency, it shouldn't be hard to achieve with smart contracts. The problem right now is just that you need a solid settlement layer before you work on features supporting the politics of rejiggering unsettled transactions.
Also, provided there is community consensus (this differs based on whether your currency is proof of work or proof is stake) blockchains can be altered after-the-fact to undo a threat. It happens: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/ethereu...
It's just that for most currencies, it's currently a political affair that occurs at a risk to the stability of the overall system. But there are (what appear to be) good technical solutions to that (decred, for example, has a neat approach to post-fork-attempt stability https://medium.com/decred/detailed-analysis-of-decred-fork-r...).
As far as deciding whether a transaction ought to be settled in the first place, people are experimenting with some really interesting approaches (https://particl.wiki/learn/market/mad-escrow for instance).
It's probably not time to forget your bank password and switch to crypto, but if we want to eventually have good solutions to our fraud problems then we should be working to shape crypto into the system we want, not dismissing it as inflexible.
The rest of the things on the list aren't in significant use at the moment, and might never be. Measures that are not ready for prime-time are as good as nonexistent. We're talking about money here!
That's not how technology works. To become fruitful it requires patience and investment. Nobody is saying you have to be an early adopter of these currencies.
> We're talking about money here!
...and particularly whether it's current feature set is amenable to fraud prevention. I work at a traditional payments company and the waste is infuriating--there has to be a better way.
This here is probably the source of our disagreement. As far as I can tell, tons of people actually are saying "get in now", which means we're no longer in the patience and investment stage, and any deficiencies in the cryptocurrency ecosystem have real consequences.
I'm interested in the tech and I want to work on it--so I'm just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss it.
If you have the interest, now might be a good time to diversify in that direction, but it's nowhere near ready to compete with fiat currency in terms of usage by the masses.