>> One of the biggest drawbacks for blockchain is that transactions can't be revoked after the fact (with the only exception being costly forks of the entire ledger), and there's no additional human oversight (like I'd get when sending a large amount of money through a bank) to protect me.
>> With crypto, a software flaw used to steal crypto can kill an entire company. They're largely powerless to stop it once the transaction has gone through.
>> With crypto, a xss attack or a misplaced password can cost me all of my coins.
>> With crypto, I have to triple check the address I'm sending coins to because I can't undo it.
>> With crypto, I have to spend what's sometimes a significant amount of money just to complete a transaction, and transactions can take minutes or hours to complete.
> You can transfer money to an escrow smart contract that reverts the transaction if a third party confirms malicious activity.
In practice, who would you trust with such significant transactions as a company though? If you want to get anywhere close to the level of protection that you'd get in the "old" system, you'd need to thoroughly vet both the smart contract and the third party to be sure that there are no additional bugs in the contract (after all, it's just software like anything else, so there can be exploitable bugs) and that the third party won't screw you over. Some sort of neutral third party that both the buyer and seller can trust due to being known for such trusted transactions...like a bank. How is this any different than what we have, just with extra steps?
>> With crypto, a software flaw used to steal crypto can kill an entire company. They're largely powerless to stop it once the transaction has gone through.
>> With crypto, a xss attack or a misplaced password can cost me all of my coins.
>> With crypto, I have to triple check the address I'm sending coins to because I can't undo it.
>> With crypto, I have to spend what's sometimes a significant amount of money just to complete a transaction, and transactions can take minutes or hours to complete.
> You can transfer money to an escrow smart contract that reverts the transaction if a third party confirms malicious activity.
In practice, who would you trust with such significant transactions as a company though? If you want to get anywhere close to the level of protection that you'd get in the "old" system, you'd need to thoroughly vet both the smart contract and the third party to be sure that there are no additional bugs in the contract (after all, it's just software like anything else, so there can be exploitable bugs) and that the third party won't screw you over. Some sort of neutral third party that both the buyer and seller can trust due to being known for such trusted transactions...like a bank. How is this any different than what we have, just with extra steps?