@vantuz-subhuman is angry 
Thatās true. There could be a lot of things that help people to mess up with addresses less. And we are getting there. As Andreas Antonopoulos was talking about - where we are now is the same as internet in 1990 - when you had to use command line to send emails. In the future of course thereās gonna be something cool, like named addresses, maybe SelfKey-like stuff where your identity is stored on the blockchain along with your address, so anyone can easily verify it thru software and not by eyes.
But it definitely will not include a service that can just arbitrarily roll-back transactions or give you money, if youāve lost yours.
2 Likes
Dont be too sure of that, it certainty could be that there will be roll-back features, and I even think that will be most likely. You are assuming the completely immutable blockchain, without any central point of authority will win out - and that is not a sure thing.
If governments roll out their own crypto, as an addition to their FIAT, they will certainty have that - and by Law, they can force this as to be as valid as their national currency by accepting tax payments in it.
That is just one example.
Iām just talking about real blockchains, yes. Iām discussing what features might be helpful to users-security in true blockchains. If we gonna discuss things that other people pose as blockchains - sure then anything is possible. Letās rollback anything and anytime, why not. Iām just saying that I donāt care for systems where you would have to trust someone to not rollback wrong things. And why would anyone 
Well there is no such thing as a true blockchain, blockchain is just a technology for a distributed ledger.
Governments has every incentive to move to a crypto-currency, it would give them complete control and taxing power.
At the end of the day, it is not about trust, since government has the power of force. If they make taxes only payable in their Cryptocurrency/fiat, there is no choice other than to use it, it is just like their FIAT. We will see how things play out, but yes this would be absolutely terrible, but it is a real threat.
On a side note, I agree with you, on principle that there should be no central power in the money of my choice.
@jon-oh this thread from december with nice ideas might interest you Transactions Made On Invalid Addresses. Everyone find the idea cool but no one from the core dev team seems to have noticed / picked it up.
Also this solution from Stellar with their Federation protocol to reduce the risk of errors when transacting.
https://www.stellar.org/developers/guides/concepts/federation.html
1 Like
To be clear:
- Public blockchains should never ever adopt those kinds of features, but they can have some escrow services adopted, but those are not for reverting transactions, but acting like some decentralised signatory entities.
- Private blockchains (centralised) can do whatever they want, yes that means they can steal your money either, like the banks do often (remember 2008).
ETH reverted transactions after the DAO attack, and thatās one of the reasons why I like ETC much-much better, but this kind of discussion would not lead anywhereā¦
You know, Idols do not stand up by themselves, we people stand them up.
1 Like
They were not just reverted, a hard fork had to be madeā¦ I am sure you know, but for anyone who doesnātā¦ So basically, this is not a sustainable way to do it, and it is something they couldnāt do on a regular basis.
This is one important reason why IOHK is working on human readable addresses.
True. But if the bank only protects me from myself (since in crypto the BC protects me from anyone else), then I donāt see an urgent need for it. Iāll take my chances 
1 Like
Yes, thatās how ETC was born and sorry I was not clear because I meant to revert transactions and therefore revert blocks is hard fork, as what they can only practically do is to make a hard fork before the affected block, and build a new chain on that fork, and thatās what they did.
Afaik, there was a proposal for soft work just for blocking the fund on the child DAO, but the bigger issue was the vulnerability in DAO which is still subject to some another similar attack, and you are right, as they decided to go /w hard fork later before the fund is undreleased in that DAO.
1 Like
Nano is getting sued, because they have ability to revert the hack but they didnt do anything about it. I will assume that will be the same case if people lose millions.
And whoās gonna get sued if people lose millions in Cardano?
Readable human address is the same thing, what if you mis-spelled somoething and you spent 1m ADA. Thats it? Goodbye?
Thought we are talking 3rd Gen here? How we can unbank the bank if on banks you pay fees but you are more secured than on blockchain you pay cheap transaction fees but if you do a simple mistake might cost you millions?
IOHK, same with nano, the nano team is in charged coz they are the one controlling. So you think if its decentralised no one is liable?
IOHK will not controll Cardano network after Q4 this year. Whoās gonna get sued then?
Them, coz theres a contract till 2020, even though they dont control the network, they are the one in charge. Im explaining here a REAL CASE which is happening to NANO and might happened to any blockhains too.
They are not in charge. They are contractors to produce the software. Software is not the network. People running the software - is the network. IOHK does not control their customers.
Doesnt matter, same case. Who has ability to revert the transaction? Do a hard fork and update the network and revert like ETH did? IOHK. Same with NANO. They have ability but they didnt revert so they getting sued.
IOHK will not have the ability to revert transactions. They will not control the network.
You can try to sue 100+ relatively anonymous staking-nodes, tho. Good luck with that )