Hacker News Reader

Comment by glennvtx | Hacker News Reader

There is nothing inherent to cryptocurrency that prevents the ability to reverse a payment, it can be done in a contract, only both sides must agree to use it. Personally i see the inability of government ( or anyone else ) to arbitrarily modify transactions as crypto's greatest strength. Want reversibility? you can have it. Want a custodial institution to manage your account? you can have that too, Nothing stopping you. The system is flexible and secure in ways the traditional financial system is not.

View on HN

The parent is referring to reversibility without both parties agreeing. I send merchant money from my bank to buy widget. Merchant doesn’t send me widget. Bank can reverse transaction without needing merchant permission. And the buck stops with the courts who can enforce the final action.

Can you really say this and not see the problem with it? Is it possible so many people have become this utterly complacent they can’t see tyranny when it’s right in front of their faces?

The same banks that caused 2008 and got bailed out can unanimously control transactions. The same banks that cause endless global conflict, that fix elections, that manipulate politicians, that rig the fabric of capitalism and democracy all around the world, that enable socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor…those same banks are the ones you trust to “reverse transactions without permission”.

This is the problem crypto fixes. It removes the banks power. It has reversibility; it just needs to be integrated with the/a identity mechanism and legal system. The main purpose is to cut out the bankers.

I just want to be able to get a refund if the toaster that I ordered doesn't get delivered. How would crypto go about doing that without it being in the sole discretion of the seller?

How do you do that now, with a market like Amazon?

It works the same way. You can introduce voluntary trusted market intermediaries and utilize things like escrow. Big enough markets can provide liquidity such that all transactions appear realtime, but sellers can provide a deposit to the market to cover problems.

That is one method among a gazillion.

We do not need banks. All bank functions need to be mathematically automated with no trusted parties.

There is nothing preventing the use of neutral third party contracts, For example a non profit arbiter of such cases, recognized for impartiality in an open market. Just like the better business bureau, or similar organizations. Merchants can display a "your purchase protected by" banner, the market itself will determine the best form the material incentives for such an organization would take, perhaps "loser pays the fee" could work, or a subscription model, more like a traditional bank.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com