> The larger a percentage of the economy that is transacted via a public blockchain, the less opportunity for all sorts of crime.
Talk about unsupported assertions. You do realize the article you're commenting on is titled 153K Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack.
Others have noted your confusion about what "consumer protections" means. It is patently obvious that paying out $153,000 in insurance claims would be more expensive than reversing the fraudulent transactions.
I think your confusion is that you think the immutability mechanism is a flaw. Addressing the fraud should be done via insurance, since otherwise we need to trust yet another party to be sure transactions can't be mutated/reversed.
I think if you examine all the assumptions leading up to your conclusion you may find that it is erroneous.
There's no confusion. I've pointed out that protecting consumers from immutable fraud via insurance premiums, as you propose, is much costlier than having a trusted intermediary police and reverse fraud. You have pointed to no errors in my assumptions or logic.
You simply believe that we "should" not trust intermediaries, which is fine, but you must accept the consequence that consumer protections will be weaker and/or costlier to implement. This is why Bitcoin was for the most part never more attractive to consumers than cards.
Talk about unsupported assertions. You do realize the article you're commenting on is titled 153K Ether Stolen in Parity Multi-Sig Attack.
Others have noted your confusion about what "consumer protections" means. It is patently obvious that paying out $153,000 in insurance claims would be more expensive than reversing the fraudulent transactions.