You are saying two contradictory things. First that those with the most money control Ethereum, and then that transactions can't be controls be reversed, indicating that you want a human layer of control that is currently missing. This is a conflating of layers and evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of of how it works.
The fact that these types of get off my lawn comments get voted to the top of HN that make me wonder if I'm on a ship of fools that is no longer the center of gravity of interesting and creative tech thought.
Crypto has been around for over a decade and isn't going away, and it's an complex technology that has massive depth and a lot of interest. These sorts of negative superficial comments that get repeated ad infinitum are tiring and provide no value.
If you prefer credit cards then use them. No one is taking that away from you. That isn't the main use case that Ethereum is going after.
>You are saying two contradictory things. First that those with the most money control Ethereum, and then that transactions can't be controls be reversed
No, absolutely not. I'm saying it's controlled by those with the most money, and history has show as that transactions __can__ be reversed when those large players throw their weight around in a too-big-to-fail sort of way.
I'm also saying that I don't mind there being a human layer of judgment, but also that it goes very much against the trustless ethos of crypto. And also that the currently layer of human judgement is vastly less accessible to the average crypto hold than it is in traditional banking & finance.
The reversal was not great, but also just a one time thing that still required the concensus of many entities and widespread code change and deployment distributed across countless nodes. If it was a bad call then it wouldn't have been adopted or would have forked the network in a more serious fashion than ETC. If reversals a regular occurance, then ETH would not be trusted and it would lose traction. It's like comparing an asteroid strike with a car accident. The DAO reversal is a single event and says almost nothing about the general reversibility of individual small transactions. Future reversals are very unlikely now and would have to be some huge event and gather concensus like any other change to the protocol.
A singular huge change is just not comparable to credit card chargebacks that can be executed by anyone. Not comparable at all. Chargebacks are part of the CC protocol. Eth has no such mechanism.
(1) in both traditional finance and crypto, a relatively small group of big players control the rules of the game
(2) in traditional finance, there are established ways for small players (Eg consumers) to appeal to big players (eg retail bank) to make exceptions and provide redress
(3) in crypto, there are not yet established pathways for small players to petition big players for redress in this way.
This makes a false equivalency. Petition in traditional finance is with regards to individual transactions. In crypto, petition would be how the protocol works. The equivalent in traditional finance would be the credit card EULA, rules and conditions. Small players definitely have no redress here.
The fact that these types of get off my lawn comments get voted to the top of HN that make me wonder if I'm on a ship of fools that is no longer the center of gravity of interesting and creative tech thought.
Crypto has been around for over a decade and isn't going away, and it's an complex technology that has massive depth and a lot of interest. These sorts of negative superficial comments that get repeated ad infinitum are tiring and provide no value.
If you prefer credit cards then use them. No one is taking that away from you. That isn't the main use case that Ethereum is going after.