Another way to think about that is like cash. When someone gives you some cash, should they be able to sneak into your sock drawer and take it back? Would you accept payment that came with a remote control held by someone else when you have no such way to recover your goods or services or time?
Insurance and dispute resolution are separate jobs from the job of the money itself.
> Insurance and dispute resolution are separate jobs from the job of the money itself.
But if you layer those on top of the money does not the whole stack loose the purported benefits of crypto-currency? What I mean is if you have intermediaries to handle Insurance and dispute resolution (which are needed since people want that) do you still get any anonymization or irreversibility benefits from crypto-currency?
What's the point of crypto-currency if we need to add layers on top of it that remove all the benefits?
"But if you layer those on top of the money does not the whole stack loose the purported benefits of crypto-currency?"
No.
I don't even know where to begin with unpacking all the invalid assumptions you just made.
The job of the money is just to be a counting system. It's just a variable that holds a value. What you do with that value is whatever you want.
You want to make some transaction be tentative and have recourse and strings? You can arrange for that an infinite number of ways besides processing through Visa in exactly the same way Visa does it this moment.
And of course you don't always want recourse. Eventually you want a transaction to be done and irrevokable.
Insurance and dispute resolution are separate jobs from the job of the money itself.