OP is about NFTs failing due to an Instagram account being hacked. No, it is very much not perfect.
The fact that banks aren’t running off with people’s life savings is empirical evidence that the system works. They might try to find legal loopholes, like reordering transactions to make overdraft fees come out higher, but they are strongly incentivized to never fuck with the audit system. This stuff gets written down.
It’s not failing in the technical sense, in the same way tech-support-scams aren’t a failure of online-banking.
You can consider the unfixable nature of such scams an inherent flaw of the system, I suppose it is. An inevitable tradeoff for the automated nature such a system has, where a central authority would have the ability to roll things back.
On the other hand, plenty of online financial scams are not able to be rolled back, often enough banks simply pay you out of an insurance pool. The same could be implemented for blockchains I suppose. Or on top as a regular insurance specialized for “blockchain trading” or whatever. You could also enforce transaction locks, similar to a lot of bank transactions, though that would slow purchases in the same way.
About banks not running off with stuff, I mean rarely they are but usually not yes. There is a reason the core audience of blockchain technologies are paranoid people.
The legitimate usecases for fungible blockchain (crypto currencies) is countries (and corporations) regulting and limiting anonymity and even ability of transactions. That has applications from drug purchases (meth) to drug purchases (hormone therapy under anti-lgbt regimes).
The usecase of blockchain contracts for example is for simple digital trade, currently I can only think of crypto currency exchange, since this fundamentally only makes sense for goods that are themselves on a blockchain.
The legitimate usecase of non-fungible blockchain (nft) is
OP is about NFTs failing due to an Instagram account being hacked. No, it is very much not perfect.
The fact that banks aren’t running off with people’s life savings is empirical evidence that the system works. They might try to find legal loopholes, like reordering transactions to make overdraft fees come out higher, but they are strongly incentivized to never fuck with the audit system. This stuff gets written down.
It’s not failing in the technical sense, in the same way tech-support-scams aren’t a failure of online-banking.
You can consider the unfixable nature of such scams an inherent flaw of the system, I suppose it is. An inevitable tradeoff for the automated nature such a system has, where a central authority would have the ability to roll things back.
On the other hand, plenty of online financial scams are not able to be rolled back, often enough banks simply pay you out of an insurance pool. The same could be implemented for blockchains I suppose. Or on top as a regular insurance specialized for “blockchain trading” or whatever. You could also enforce transaction locks, similar to a lot of bank transactions, though that would slow purchases in the same way.
About banks not running off with stuff, I mean rarely they are but usually not yes. There is a reason the core audience of blockchain technologies are paranoid people.
The legitimate usecases for fungible blockchain (crypto currencies) is countries (and corporations) regulting and limiting anonymity and even ability of transactions. That has applications from drug purchases (meth) to drug purchases (hormone therapy under anti-lgbt regimes).
The usecase of blockchain contracts for example is for simple digital trade, currently I can only think of crypto currency exchange, since this fundamentally only makes sense for goods that are themselves on a blockchain.
The legitimate usecase of non-fungible blockchain (nft) is