A reputable supplier of vape cartridges gains nothing from having a verified supply chain - people trust them anyway and they maintain a supply of good cartridges to protect that reputation.
A non-reputable supplier of vape cartridges doesn't care, and only sells to people who don't care what they're buying. Their lack of good reputation doesn't matter, and their lack of a verifiable supply chain won't matter either.
If the customer wants a dodgy black market vape cartridge, that's what they'll buy. If they want a quality one from a reputable source, they can already do this.
But still, the perpetrators here are not technically capable of pulling off a convincing forgery, so if the kids were sensitive to this issue in the first place then I guess there would indeed be no reason to insert a blockchain into the situation.
So let's take a scenario where the middle men are indeed capable of convincing forgeries: sneakers. Cardano is working on a supply chain integration there too:
https://beincrypto.com/new-balance-to-use-cardano-technology...
And my wife's students (she's a teacher) are really into their sneakers. They're also largely unaware that chain/web of trust type measures exist at all for validation of product authenticity--but if Nike started doing this, they'd become experts overnight. And then, after school, when offered a sketchy vape product, they might think twice.
Maybe that's a weak argument too. Still, I like the ability to use the same channels you money would flow through to determine if your upcoming purchase came from where you think it did, and I think that that's a capability that's going to be hard for fiat currency to mimic.
Bitcoin is incredibly wasteful. If we're talking about digital transactions we already have credit cards and digital transfers. A block chain isn't required for those benefits.
Supply chain tracking is interesting but literally no one is talking about that. Its also an even harder problem. Its really not verifiable at all because you're now relying on data from outside the chain, ie how many widgets were created, whether the label on the real life widget is unique or forged, etc.
Also, what kind of consumer protections would you want to see in a currency? It seems to me that ensuring that you actually got what you paid for pretty much sums it up but I'm probably overlooking something.
Why would blockchain be required for that? In case of drugs and food there recalls are being done using batch number of day of production.
> Joe runs the factory and gave this cartridge to Bob. Bob have it to Mary.
The assumption is that if you buy it then the site will then say:
> And Mary gave it to aiCeivi9
What reason do you have to believe that the website contents are accurate or that people accepting vape cartridges from Joe Bob and Mary are still alive?
In the blockchain case, you can see that Joe Bob and Mary have sold thousands of these and that very few of the transactions are in dispute over authenticity. Also, rather than trusting some faceless 4.6 star rating you can see which of the people that supplied the rating are ones that you know, and which of those are ones that you trust. You can also see if you trust people who trust Joe Bob and Mary. This let's you make a more informed decision about the quality of the thing you're buying.
Blockchains are irrevocable and unalterable, which removes two useful tools (reversing and changing transactions), and replaces them with nothing workable.
But so are events in the real world. When you think about "reversing or changing a transaction" what you really mean is creating a new transaction that brings an equivalent amount back to the person that paid it.
This is done in the real world by knowing the identity of the receiver person or entity and threatening them with consequences if the money is not returned. It seems to me more a problem of being able to identify the parties in a transaction rather than of mutability of the ledger.
Also, there are limits on how old a transaction can be when a bank goes and rewrites history. In my experience the limit is about six months. Transactions older than than are considered settled.
If this is a feature that people want in a cryptocurrency, it shouldn't be hard to achieve with smart contracts. The problem right now is just that you need a solid settlement layer before you work on features supporting the politics of rejiggering unsettled transactions.
Also, provided there is community consensus (this differs based on whether your currency is proof of work or proof is stake) blockchains can be altered after-the-fact to undo a threat. It happens: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/ethereu...
It's just that for most currencies, it's currently a political affair that occurs at a risk to the stability of the overall system. But there are (what appear to be) good technical solutions to that (decred, for example, has a neat approach to post-fork-attempt stability https://medium.com/decred/detailed-analysis-of-decred-fork-r...).
As far as deciding whether a transaction ought to be settled in the first place, people are experimenting with some really interesting approaches (https://particl.wiki/learn/market/mad-escrow for instance).
It's probably not time to forget your bank password and switch to crypto, but if we want to eventually have good solutions to our fraud problems then we should be working to shape crypto into the system we want, not dismissing it as inflexible.
The rest of the things on the list aren't in significant use at the moment, and might never be. Measures that are not ready for prime-time are as good as nonexistent. We're talking about money here!
That's not how technology works. To become fruitful it requires patience and investment. Nobody is saying you have to be an early adopter of these currencies.
> We're talking about money here!
...and particularly whether it's current feature set is amenable to fraud prevention. I work at a traditional payments company and the waste is infuriating--there has to be a better way.
This here is probably the source of our disagreement. As far as I can tell, tons of people actually are saying "get in now", which means we're no longer in the patience and investment stage, and any deficiencies in the cryptocurrency ecosystem have real consequences.
I'm interested in the tech and I want to work on it--so I'm just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss it.
If you have the interest, now might be a good time to diversify in that direction, but it's nowhere near ready to compete with fiat currency in terms of usage by the masses.
1. A scammer cheating someone out of their life savings through social engineering
2. A central bank "unjustly" inflating currency and giving the newly printed money to specific industry/people etc
3. A person paying for merchandise with a stolen credit card or refusing payment after services/good is delivered.
Fiat solves 1 and 3 (recovery) does not think 2 is a problem.
Crypto solves 2 and 3. People say it is meant for solving 1.
It's difficult to argue that low and predictable rates of USD inflation has had more of an adverse impact on holders of USD over the last few years than crypto fraud on holders of crypto.
Indeed, given that most cryptoassets have actually lost significant amounts of value against the USD since the end of 2017, it's difficult even to argue that the crypto world has adequately solved 2
Credit card fraud is regulated such that the consumer is protected after a manageable amount of theft, $50 in the US last I looked. If you use a bank you receive some protections but at that point the implantation is abstracted and not that relevant.
IMO Cryrto is significantly worse in case 3.
You can set a withdrawal limit of say, $50 and you can set a few recovery addresses (of friends, family or other personal wallets).
So if I have $10,000 in my ethereum wallet and I post my private key in every forum and every chatroom on the internet then the most I lose is $50. Before 24 hours pass I send my remaining $9,950 to a pre-defined recovery address which is excluded from the withdrawal limit.
Consumer protections are actually pretty good. The trouble is getting these tools in the hands of users.
So, this is strictly worse than using a credit card.
I don't think I ever spend that much in a single day though. The limit will differ from person to person.
>The independent ability to send all your money to a recovery address is a new security risk.
It's not new and it's not a risk. You could always send all your money to another address. And the recovery addresses are meant to be trusted. I could send my money to a secondary wallet sitting in a safe or to a trusted family member. That isn't a risk.
>Further, you need to notice the issue which means you could be our far more than 50$ unless you happen to be checking how much is in the wallet constantly.
Your balance is printed in big letters whenever you open the wallet. It's hard to not notice really. There's also these things called automatic notifications, not difficult to set up.
>So, this is strictly worse than using a credit card.
But this is supposed to replace cash not credit cards. It is objectively better than cash in terms of consumer protections.
> objectively better than cash
Many people don’t use cash just credit cards. They might keep 50$ or less in their wallets, but that’s about it.
Further, Billions of people can hack my PC, only those I come into contact with can take my cash.
>Many people don’t use cash just credit cards. They might keep 50$ or less in their wallets, but that’s about it.
Because they value convenience over privacy and freedom.
>Further, Billions of people can hack my PC, only those I come into contact with can take my cash.
Even if someone managed to gain access to your wallet they would still have to decrypt your private key. So, it isn't an issue if you use a strong password.
Pick your favorite consumer protection mechanism, and I'll pick my favorite cryptocurrency and let's compare:
A) the up front implemention cost of the protection mechanism in fiat currency
B) the up front implemention cost of the protection mechanism in the crypto
C) the year-over-year cost in fiat
D) the year over year cost in crypto
I bet A and C are going to be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, while B is going to be in the tens of millions and D is going to be in the thousands of dollars.
Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
https://www.ccn.com/cardano-to-help-ethiopia-grow-coffee-usi...
Consider the recent news regarding contaminated black market vape cartridges--that's going to be insanely expensive to fix, because there's nothing about high schoolers passing around dollars after school that gives those students any insight into the supply chain of the cartridges they're buying. But if some vape company did with their supply chain what Cardano is trying to do with coffee, they could provide consumers (and authorities) a way to trace their products back to their origins, a capability that already would have saved several lives.
It's not surprising that Libra is a dumpster fire, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.