censoring the user because i massively respect them as a cryptographer and they design algorithms and theoretically research i could only dream of...
but this isn't exactly a good argument for cryptocurrencies.
read image description
ALT
2
1
Conversation
just adding that i have huge respect for this person: just, this argument feels weak.
1
if your basis of a future decentralized protocol is based on various different assets that are interchanged, but a major issue for users is that they can't be reversed... and you can only implement this with centralized trust? well, it undermines the core idea.
3
2
Replying to
It doesn't have to be implemented with centralized trust. For example, a merchant could give you a choice of payment arbitrators. Even Bitcoin can do this with multisig and time locks. It's how Lightning works where your Lightning node force closes if the other end misbehaves.
1
Replying to
yeah, i know this but this is what the respected cryptographer said. but yeah, an escrow would also work.
1
Replying to
Ah, I get it now.
What I meant is not really escrow but rather having a time lock where merchant can spend it once that's over but there's a way for customer + arbitrator to block that via 2-of-2 multisig where arbitrator then decides if the merchant or customer can spend it.
2
1
Payment processor doesn't have to be completely trusted to hold the money but rather to not collude with customer or merchant. For a huge purchase like a house there could be more complex multisig. That kind of thing is the purported use case for private blockchains and yet...
... I don't see what you're getting beyond just trusting that company to process it using a traditional database. The whole point of the overall approach is that you don't have to trust a centralized party that way, otherwise what's the point? Yet that's what is tied to.