I totally understand why blockchain isn't the standard for everything right now; my statement was in regards to formal methods to ensure correctness. For example, "reversing" a transaction could totally be modeled in TLA+ (and probably other systems, I'm just most familiar with TLA+ than most other systems), which would provide model checking (and possibly even proofs) that you would not otherwise have.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fait%20accompli
There's probably a better term but English isn't my first language.
It seems to me that having every bit of evidence on their end to prove that they are guaranteeing our transactions would be a really good thing....I suppose this solution might just work itself out if banks actually start relying on some kind blockchain to secure their transactions.
Its cheaper for everyone for them to say oops and give you the money back.
Its more expensive for you to sue than for them to be sued.
In fact you would immediately seek another job if you came from formal methods practice and then saw production code at just about any of the different animals called banks.
I find it funny that the reason we want the cryptocurrencies to be formally verified is because we want rock-solid financial transactions so that this distributed story is always accurate (which is good), but actual banks don't seem to have these same requirements.
NOTE: Could be wrong on that last point, getting my information about banks third-hand, it's possible that banks are using formal verification. Can someone who works at a bank confirm?