undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdist1ll4y ago0 comments

> How is this any different than what we have, just with extra steps?

It's declarative. There's no vagueness about the state of the transaction, and settlement can be cryptographically proven. This creates transparency and accountability. It's also sovereign. Not every transaction NEEDS this level of customer protection. Paying in person at a restaurant or supermarket can be done with a simple transaction.

Also, some transactions like subscriptions (which are very common) need a cancel functionality that follows strict rules: perfect for a smart contract.

And finally, even your bank won't be able to protect you in many cases.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

saghm4y ago· 1 in thread

> It's declarative. There's no vagueness about the state of the transaction, and settlement can be cryptographically proven. This creates transparency and accountability. It's also sovereign.

What's to stop network effects from this just ending up with a bunch of centralized verifiers that in practice make it impossible not to use them for most daily things?

dist1llOP4y ago

Even if that would happen, it's very different from today. Because these centralized verifiers now have an incentive to perform well.

1. I can ALWAYS choose to transact on L1 with others. This option is non-existant in our current system.

2. Because payment provision and customer protection are now split, it means that there can be more competition. You don't need to be a payment provider at the same time.

And most importantly: have you ever had to deal with scams and chargebacks? These "verifiers" (paypal, visa) are often utterly useless, with lots of unclear rules.

It turns out that many people don't actually WANT this "protection". What people want is an efficient, global payment system with strong authentication methods. And maybe a way to lock their account (which is much easier to realize with DLTs)

rhyzomatic4y ago

What is the vagueness present in a basic credit card transaction? (Not saying there isn't any, just curious what you mean)

Not every transaction needs that level of customer protection, but it's very nice to have. Currently, banks that provide consumer protections are motivated to hunt down fraud, which helps everyone, not just credit card users. It keeps the level of fraud overall low.

And while I do agree some transparency would be gained through smart escrow contracts as opposed to credit card transactions, I disagree it's any more "sovereign". For the system you're describing to function, you need established third parties that both you and sellers trust. These third parties may choose to revoke your access, restrict your purchases, etc in the same way banks do now. In short, crypto still has not solved the trust problem.

(Also, while smart contracts do work for cancelable contracts, being able to "issue" a new credit card for each company as a consumer and then cancel it whenever solves it better and without any blockchain this or that)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse