A reference post rather than a discussion. Corrections are the point; I would rather this be right than mine. It is about paying for it, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.
What is actually established
The trade-off is reversibility against privacy and there is no option that gives you both. Card payments are reversible and disclose the most; crypto discloses least and is irreversible, which is precisely why pressure toward it is a warning sign when it comes from a seller rather than a buyer. Escrow only means anything where the escrow agent is independent of both parties, which is rarely the case in practice.
The condition it depends on
One detail people underrate: an irreversible payment removes your only leverage in a dispute, so it should be the last step rather than the first.
What I am not sure about
What I actually want to know is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both. I have searched first, so if this is covered somewhere point me at it and I will read it.
CryptoCarl said:The trade-off is reversibility against privacy and there is no option that gives you both.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
CryptoCarl said:The trade-off is reversibility against privacy and there is no option that gives you both.
I read this differently from CryptoCarl, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsTaking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
DanielChem_CHI said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.