[josephcsible]

> If the client had paid with stolen crypto (as they paid with a stolen CC), then, yes, the freelancer would have been paid, but the person whose money was stolen would have been screwed.

Since delivery of products/services isn't reversible, all that making transactions reversible accomplishes is changing which party gets screwed when there's fraud.

[Wowfunhappy]

Agreed! But my base assumption is that suppliers are generally better-equipped than consumers to absorb sudden, unexpected costs.

But I also feel this is all extraneous to the larger point, which is that we can set up a fiat-based finance system in whatever way we feel, just like we could develop a blockchain-based system that allows transactions to be reversed under certain conditions. I'd like to use the one which releases an order of magnitude less carbon.