Worried...

[camosoul]

CONSUMER FRIENDLY
In Evolution you can connect direct with merchants and get moderated refunds on all purchases or even setup auto-debits to pay subscriptions automatically. Every merchant that integrates Dash is searchable on the blockchain and you can rate purchases so the community can decide who’s providing a good service or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This really concerns me. Will participation in this model be compulsory?

If so, I absolutely will not be accepting DASH.

The biggest scam in the current Credit/Debit Marketplace is fraud committed by the card's owner; simply lying. This form of fraud is entirely unreported because the banks assist with it.

This defeats the very purpose of Crypto; irreversible TX. If I give someone's money back, it'll be because I issue the refund, not because liars and snowflakes voted for free shit... If this is to be based on some form of consensus vote of MNs or some other moderator, count me (and any business person with an IQ above room temperature) out of ever using DASH. The parties involved have already proven that they are utterly untrustworthy and dishonest.

There is a reason why Visa and Amazon are not the same entity. You fixed the double-spend problem, but then created an "official" way to scam vendors for free stuff? Guaranteed payment reversals! Why not just use Bitcoin? At least the technical ability to double-spend escapes most users, and they won't bother even when they know it's a possibility. The loss ratio will be much lower than an integrated "slander and get free stuff" button.

You're out of scope. You need to reign this back in and just be money, not a vendor/customer forum.

You seem to be moving towards the opposite of privacy... Connecting everything like this eliminates privacy and creates an environment that is worse for the vendor, not better. When can we expect mixing/PS to be removed? It's going to be nullified with this, so why bother?

Is this how you get vendors to adopt DASH? By promising to screw them?

In one single paragraph you outline how you're going to eliminate two advantages that DASH had/has; privacy and irreversible TXes. Advantages that every other cryptocurrency will retain to one degree or another. Further, you convert one of them into a liability! Then you go on and create an additional liability out of thin air that money itself has no business doing in the first place.

Its this kind of thinking that makes me wonder if you ever think about vendors at all, or just the whimsical demands of the snowflakes? It's like you're trying to fill a role that is already filled, and forgetting the advantages you could be offering above it... We already have Credit/Debit Cards. Quit trying to be exactly like them. It's the same problem as the stupid ATM projects... You keep trying to emulate the old by eliminating your own advantages.

Why can't you understand that you need to be good at what everyone else CAN'T do? You have to capitalize on your advantages, not deliberately throw them away! We don't need a new angle on the same problems we already have. Quit emulating the defective! We already have ATMs and Credit Cards. Do all of the stuff they can't, instead of throwing away those advantages and doing the same old. There's no incentive for businesses to use DASH the way you keep neutering it... If nobody can actually use DASH, then it won't be used... Duh!

 

[Macrochip]

There should be a checkmark box in "My Shop Settings" which says "Enable Arbitration" or something. Then the market will decide which merchant will be successful with or without it. If it's not opt-in only we're in trouble.

 

[TroyDASH]

I don't think we can judge this without knowing the mechanism for the refunds, or getting clarification from the team on whether the searchable/rating purchases thing is actually compulsory. Too early to tell without the specs.

 

[camosoul]

Why be silent about it after all this time if not to be sneaky about something they know is a bad feature?

Do we even have info on how the new 12.1 "fixed" governance works?

I'm still not seeing any hard docs/info on what it is we've got now, much less what's supposedly coming...

Just a lot of ambiguous hype. Make Dash Great Again? Please?

I realize they've been super crazy busy doing way more than originally planned. So, there should be a lot to talk about...

 

[Minotaur]

I think we fully agree on this, that this should be an optional arbitration where both merchant and client decide ahead of time to enter into a moderated transaction. Then we leave it up to the free market what merchants and users want to use this feature.

Of course we are early in the process and there is time to fine tune the mechanics of some of this concepts. But I think you are right to bring this up for clarification.

Finally, this is just my personal opinion but I do expect that it should be something we can easily agree on in the team.

 

[camosoul]

There should be a checkmark box in "My Shop Settings" which says "Enable Arbitration" or something. Then the market will decide which merchant will be successful with or without it. If it's not opt-in only we're in trouble.

The problem is that this presumes that DASH monopolizes the market. DASH is barely a presence, much less the one that get to call the shots. The too-big-for-their-britches mentality is long on this perspective... DASH is nobody, and it;s already trying to tell the world how it better adjust itself to DASH? I can just keep using the existing infrastructure, which I don't have to teach my customers how to use, or convince them it's a good idea.

 

[Minotaur]

Why be silent about it after all this time if not to be sneaky about something they know is a bad feature?

Do we even have info on how the new 12.1 "fixed" governance works?

I'm still not seeing any hard docs/info on what it is we've got now, much less what's supposedly coming...

Just a lot of ambiguous hype. Make Dash Great Again? Please?

I realize they've been super crazy busy doing way more than originally planned. So, there should be a lot to talk about...

12.1 governance is a complete reimplementation of the 12.0 governance under a new object based architecture - Sentinel. So any flaws that are perceived to be present in the 12.0 version would still be present in 12.1. Now Sentinel opens the opportunity for changes and improvements in subsequent versions but not on this one.

 

[camosoul]

I think we fully agree on this, that this should be an optional arbitration where both merchant and client decide ahead of time to enter into a moderated transaction. Then we leave it up to the free market what merchants and users want to use this feature.

Of course we are early in the process and there is time to fine tune the mechanics of some of this concepts. But I think you are right to bring this up for clarification.

Finally, this is just my personal opinion but I do expect that it should be something we can easily agree on in the team.

I hope so, because it looks like you're trying to define the marketplace according to some snowflake Utopian vision that will never work. You are in no position to be making demands.

If I want a flaky, dishonest, unstable arbitration model; I've already got it. Give me a reason to use DASH, or I'll just keep using what I've got.

I'm a fully informed vendor, and I'm not using DASH. How are you going to convince people who already have a dim view of crypto, while you set them up for the very same problem they've already got?

I could see it being useful in a contract model, or even as a built-in conditional escrow...But beyond that, DASH would be shooting itself in the foot to damage the one trait that is the most attractive reason to consider it...

The reason the ETH/ETC is silly is because there is no enforcability. Who's going to make it so? The ETH police? It's a nonsense concept, but look at the market cap... If DASH chose to morph the retractable payment concept into an enforceable contract, you'd kick their asses. I could see it useful for large money movements. Buying a house and such.

 

[Minotaur]

I hope so, because it looks like you're trying to define the marketplace according to some snowflake Utopian vision that will never work. You are in no position to be making demands.

If I want a flaky, dishonest, unstable arbitration model; I've already got it. Give me a reason to use DASH, or I'll just keep using what I've got.

I'm a fully informed vendor, and I'm not using DASH. How are you going to convince people who already have a dim view of crypto, while you set them up for the very same problem they've already got?

I could see it being useful in a contract model, or even as a built-in conditional escrow...But beyond that, DASH would be shooting itself in the foot to damage the one trait that is the most attractive reason to consider it...

You are right again, the idea behind Evolution is to be the maistream friendly product, but all other options will still be available, Electrum, hardware wallets, full clients, etc. So anyone savvy enough can just completely ignore the Evolution wallet if it does not add value to them.

Also some of these concepts on potential features like the arbitration could end up being uinmportant for users. They may just end up completely ignoring them is a bit early to tell, but clearly the market is king regardless of what we may think it wants it will be up to the users in the end.

 

[camosoul]

Let me preface this by saying, it's nice that this conversation is possible.

I guess my point is this:

Point to the customer(s) that I would lose by refusing to enable the "lie and get free stuff" button?

You can't. They don't exist.

Even if they do, the platform I've already got has this in it.

Where's the motivation? What do I get out of it?

When making a ratiometric comparison to 0, I'm left with the inverse; infinity.

I have everything to continue gaining, and nothing to lose, by continuing to not use DASH.

You're trying to drive adoption backwards by continuing to dangle carrots in front of the Snowflake, and becoming so desperate that this doesn't work, that you're taking carrots away from the already carrot-barren Vendor incentive. It's just getting heavier in the wrong direction because you're trying to drive adoption with carrots that don't matter, because the real problem is that there's nowhere to use it. Hammering even harder on that is only going to further dis-incentivise already skeptical Vendors who have been asking you for 2 years now; "Why should I care?" You taking away what little they had to care about to begin with, instead of sweetening the pot. All in the name of polishing a turd that's already shiny enough. No matter how shiny you make it for the Snowflakes, if you're giving the vendors no reason to care, it will remain useless. You're ignoring the other half of the equation so completely that I don't think you realize the damage done. It's as if you don't think it matters or that there is no consequence.

I have no doubt that the market will decide. I've seen it before many times, and I know what that decision is in situations like this... Way too much liability, nothing to gain, stagnation because the sellers don't want to touch it, and the snowflakes just can't understand why it's not working because they're too self absorbed to notice.

I've used this crude example before, but I'll say it again. You can make it really easy for a girl to blow you by walking right up to her, whipping it out, and proceeding to convince her how you's is better than everyone else's. But, regardless of how easy that is, she's going to scream and run away, if she doesn't mace you... You're continuing down the same road with DASH and Vendors. Vendors are users, too, and the experience for them seems to be getting worse... They'll simply opt out. I WANT it to work, and I've opted out...

 

[halso]

You are right again, the idea behind Evolution is to be the maistream friendly product, but all other options will still be available, Electrum, hardware wallets, full clients, etc. So anyone savvy enough can just completely ignore the Evolution wallet if it does not add value to them.

Also some of these concepts on potential features like the arbitration could end up being uinmportant for users. They may just end up completely ignoring them is a bit early to tell, but clearly the market is king regardless of what we may think it wants it will be up to the users in the end.

Can I now move my MNs to Trezor wallet?

 

[Minotaur]

Can I now move my MNs to Trezor wallet?

I don't think this is the thread for this, but maybe a moderator can move this later @UdjinM6 @fernando. To answer your question 12.1 was a requirement to be able to enable MNs operation from hardware wallets not only Trezor but also KeepKey, not sure about Ledger yet. So now that 12.1 is out this becomes a possibility. We are now lacking tools to make it easy, so operators can sign the masternode start message from the hardware wallet. There is a current script implementation by our dev @chaeplin but this is still more for the technical folks and not yet something we would consider ready for public consumption. With the dev team largely focused on the network transition. I think it would be wise to wait a few weeks for the easy ways to run the MNs from hardware wallets to come out.

I am personally giving it a month or so after enforcement before I expect the first wave of easier to use guides to do this, but it certainly now becomes a possibility.

 

[demo]

I have no doubt that the market will decide.

And I have no doubt that the market will not decide.

The market never decides.The army and the government decide and the market always follows and implements their decisions. The market cannot exist without being protected by an army, and the army cannot exist without being commanded by a government. And the government cannot exist without politics. And politcs cannot exist without faith.

So it is a strategic error for Dash to focus in market needs. You should focus in government and politics. The market is a whore so it is wrong to take her seriously or invest on its needs. You should better take seriously the market's pimps (the current army and the government) and invest on how you could overthrown them and replace them with your own army and goverment. You should invest in politics and in faith. Politics and faith can overthrow the current pimps of the whore. You should inspire faith, you should vote the numbers, because so do the pimps of today and they control the market whore.

 

[lynx]

I agree with OP. It should be optional. And I don't think Dash should provide moderation and ratings, it should allow multiple competitors to try to come up with the best solutions.

Something like this:

"This merchant supports refund moderation.

[Check box] Enable third-party moderation
Select arbitration provider [Drop down menu]"

 

[camosoul]

I continued inquiry regarding Trezor/KeepKey on the electrum section of the forum. Read there.

I was mulling the retractable payment concept a bit, and came up with some constructive input instead of just a list of reasons it won't work... I realize I come across as impatient and rather annoying a lot of the time. Sometimes it's intentional, but sometimes its simply that I have shit to do other than think about this and play on forums.

If there were a fee associated, and not a percentage fee... Maybe a stepped fee, that was nearly punitive in nature, it would assure that such a moderation service were only used under circumstances where it were truly warranted.

The only issue I see with involving an agent party, or the MNs themselves, with such a concept, is that it puts DASH, and any decision making parties, is a position of explicitly approving, and thus condoning, transactions. How can we know the legalities of certain goods and services in all jurisdictions of the planet, and also assure that the disputing parties actually are who they say there, and are located where they say they are? This opens a huge can of worms. This completely destroys privacy while putting the entire network on the hook for legal liability. With the trend of government being wildly out of control in most places of the world, is there any way to prevent that liability? Will DASH have a disclaimer and use restrictions extreme enough to avoid all possible objections?

This demonstrates the consequence of scope over-reach in yet another category. Just be money. Don't stick yourself in the middle where you don't belong. You speak of letting the marketplace decide. And you're right. Let the marketplace deal with marketplace problems. Don't try to intervene where you don't belong. Don't try to solve the marketplace's problems for it. When you do, you incur all of the liabilities that come with it. I can't see how anyone on this project could want that. I believe that it simply haven't been thought of. Nerds pushing new horizons, not thinking about he scope of the project, and the detrimental impact of going where you shouldn't.

This is the second aspect where we see DASH trying to be something that money is not supposed to be, and failing to think of the consequences. I get it. A bunch of nerd programmers see a world of really cool features they can add. Features that Snowflakes might like. Just because you can do a thing, does not make it a good idea.

The endless desire to pander to Snowflakes because you falsely believe that it will lead to adoption, is driving these tangents of scope creep. The problem facing adoption is not a lack of draw from the Snowflake side. It's a lack of ability to actually use it for anything. The only way to fix that is to start giving a damn about the needs of Vendors instead of leading yourself down a road that drives them off because you're too focused on a false problem to realize it.

The problem here is unconsidered scope creep, and what's driving it is a false identification of the adoption problem. You've reached a point that you're trying to polish a turd that is already shiny enough, and you're grasping at ideas that put you in a bad place without thinking it through. You need to stop imagining that polishing the turd further is the answer. You're wrong about this. Listen to me. More shiny is not what you need. You need to focus on the meat of it and let it be useful. Let it have substance in the real world. Start thinking about what the Vendors' needs and stop trying to use a feature set to attract more Snowflakes. We don't need more Snowflakes. We need usefulness. It won't matter how great your product is if nobody can use it. Vendors should be your focus. If people can actually use DASH, they'll actually put up with a lack of features.

I agree with making it Grandma-usable, to an extent. But these other things are just dangerous scope creep that actually hurt the view from the Vendor perspective, which makes it clear you aren't even thinking about that when it should be the top priority.

For my trolls and detractors; Am I just looking for problems to complain about? Yes. Yes I am. That;'s what successful people do. Successful people look for all possible ways that something could go wrong, and have a plan to mitigate them in advance. Successful people, and successful projects, always table the idea that "maybe this is just a bad idea?" This is why some people look like they just can't stop winning. They don't start something unless they already know it will win!

 

[TanteStefana]

You are right again, the idea behind Evolution is to be the maistream friendly product, but all other options will still be available, Electrum, hardware wallets, full clients, etc. So anyone savvy enough can just completely ignore the Evolution wallet if it does not add value to them.

Also some of these concepts on potential features like the arbitration could end up being uinmportant for users. They may just end up completely ignoring them is a bit early to tell, but clearly the market is king regardless of what we may think it wants it will be up to the users in the end.

Then again, arbitration services might end up being something that law firms provide, as they do now. It would probably be a market for choosing which company to do the work. This would mostly be useful when large amounts are being exchanged, such as buying a business or car, or something. I can see these firms also providing title searches, etc... and that the funds only release when that work is completed. There are all kinds of things that can be done with this feature. Maybe even bulk handling like paypal does. Item didn't arrive? then Paypal reverses the transaction, maybe that will be done for those who want it by some large insurance firms? Anyway, plain old dashd should always be available regardless.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

..and dash wouldn't be having such problems if it had actually bothered engaging with it's end-users and vendors

 

[Solarminer]

Then again, arbitration services might end up being something that law firms provide, as they do now. It would probably be a market for choosing which company to do the work. This would mostly be useful when large amounts are being exchanged, such as buying a business or car, or something. I can see these firms also providing title searches, etc... and that the funds only release when that work is completed. There are all kinds of things that can be done with this feature. Maybe even bulk handling like paypal does. Item didn't arrive? then Paypal reverses the transaction, maybe that will be done for those who want it by some large insurance firms? Anyway, plain old dashd should always be available regardless.

This concept of reversible transactions is a nice buzzword, but it doesn't work in the real world.

What you want is an independent party you can trust to make a decision if a transaction should be refunded or not. This is typically Paypal or Visa. Most of the time this type of charge back requires a person at the company to review it to see if there is reasonable evidence to reverse. So who pays for these people, the system to coordinate chargebacks, to log transactions, and to identify both seller and buyer? See what is happening? This isn't private anymore, this isn't free, and it isn't decentralized. And now you should expect to pay 1%+ for this service. The merchant will probably also tack on a 5% fee because of fraud chargebacks. You basically want a 3rd part to do it. Like one of these guys.
https://www.bitrated.com/
https://escrowmybits.com/

Ok, so we just circled back to the paypal or visa system of fees. What are gaining? Cheaper? Decentralized? Private? Doesn't look like anything better and a big pain to trade in and out of Dash. Let a 3rd party do it. Of course, it would be interesting to see if the IRS will figure out how to force a sales tax on every transaction on the Dash evolution network since user, vender, and amount are known.

 

[camosoul]

This concept of reversible transactions is a nice buzzword, but it doesn't work in the real world.

What you want is an independent party you can trust to make a decision if a transaction should be refunded or not. This is typically Paypal or Visa.

The major cryptocurrency carrot is that the Vendor themselves becomes this party. Just like Cash in the Cash Register Drawer; the "gimmie free shit" Snowflakes have no way to leverage the money away and grant themselves free stuff. This is a major concern with the most recent generation. Vendors need protection from this form of fraud, and Banks sure as hell don't care. Hell, they help out! It definitely doesn't get reported as Fraud, or added to any form of Fraud statistics. The entire existing payment infrastructure simply doesn't care because it doesn't hurt them. Fuck the Vendor. Hell, Visa even tacks on a charge back fee, so you not only get to give away free stuff, but Visa incentivises themselves right out of your bank account for doing it!

From very direction, Vendors are being robbed of control of their own money. Cryptocurrency offered the only salvation from this. And you're going to throw away the primary selling point??

Aren't you calling it Digital Cash? So why are you converting it back into a Credit Card? No doubt, snowflakes like to yank their money back and keep the stuff. Or get you to provide free services by stealing the money back and slandering the Vendor. Does Visa care? Fuck no! They actually get paid extra because they invented the Charge Back Fee for themselves!

It's not Digital Cash anymore, if you do this.

And, while I appreciate that @Minotaur is entertaining the idea of making this optional, you don't think everyone is going to demand it if it's there?

It won't hurt Vendors at all. They'll just continue to not use DASH. They already have a system like that. What they want is something better. If DASH cuts it's own balls off in the delusional belief that the turd still isn't shiny enough; continuing to go down this path of catering to the wrong party's interests, all it will do is introduce a stalemate of demands that Vendors have no incentive to meet. Why bother with the DASH platform at all?

@Minotaur is right. The market will decide. And the choice is obvious; we'll just keep using Visa because DASH is no better and has too many risks and barriers to entry that we can just as easily ignore for the same trouble or less... The Problem that @Minotaur isn't recognizing, because he and the rest of the team have their heads in an echo chamber, is that the marketplace is not just crypto. Continuing to pointlessly appeal to the narcissism of Cryptotard Snowflakes is going to hurt DASH's already slim sales pitch, and kill off the only strong point that it offers. They're already to the point of grasping at out-of-scope tangents in an effort to polish the already-shiny turd. They're mentally locked into a path and they need to break this defective way of thinking or DASH will never go anywhere.

It's 100% true that this is a feature that will appeal to the Snowflakes. And they won't step off of it. They're entitled brats. "My way or forget it." It's that very arrogance which will result in there being no reason to bother with DASH if this feature is provided. Catering to this is not going to result in adoption. Yes, it's a shiny new feature. But it removes the feature that gave DASH, nay, all cryptos, any advantage in the first place. We already have that system, and we don't have to convert people to anything new to use it. They already have cards in their wallets and they already know how to use them. Why bother going to all the extra trouble just to end up with the same thing we already have?

And this ignores the fact that an arbitration system makes the entire DASH network complicit in a transaction. Any arbitration process would have to know the identities of bother parties, the product and/or service involved, and the locations and jurisdictions of all of the above. Approval of the transaction will automatically make the entire network complicit. And what of bias? Lets ignore the law for a moment. I want to sell a gun to Job Blow. As long as it's not a federally prohibited gun, and does not cross state lines, it's perfectly legal for me to sell it to Job Blow whoever just because I feel like it in pretty much everywhere in the USA. Will the arbiter know this? Many times the entire purpose of such a transaction is because it's private. Gun buyers don't like being spied on, harassed, targeted by corrupt government officials operating outside of the law to press their personal agendas, intimidation, etc... It happens all the damned time and is the very reason why privacy is important. Will the arbiter be an anti-gun snowflake? We've already seen the extreme left-fringe slant of the MNOs. They'll do anything they can to cause trouble for people they hate. What about contraband items that you'd never realize are contraband? There are all kinds of books and movies that are illegal in China. That we kinda of expect. But did you know similar things exist in Cambodia and Thailand? Forget prostitution. In Laos, it's illegal for a foreigner to have sex with a Lao Citizen, period. Even if they just feel like it and it's not a business transaction. And what about places where Prostitution is perfectly legal? How will you know the parties involved aren't simply lying and end up approving something that occurred in a different jurisdiction? Simply forbid these uses? Really? And lets not even think about all the drugs that people buy and sell. Do you really want DASH to be in a position of arbitrating that? How will DASH even know?

Further, evidence. Not criminality, but of the material facts of the dispute. When moderating a dispute, evidence is submitted by both sides. How will this be done? Are you going to store high-resolution Pictures and Video on the Blockchain every time some petty dickhead wants a free lunch? We're talking YouTube-scale datastorage that even DashDrive cannot expect of it's MasterNodes if shard resilience is to be maintained...

It's as if none of this has even been considered just because some nerds had a cool idea... I'm all for exploring cool ideas that technology can give us, but this is obviously not well considered.

I like that idea of a nearly punitive fee for the moderation service so that it is only used when truly needed, but this still doesn't clear the liability issues that could bring a hammer down on ever MNO without even knowing it. This is a bad idea and "the axe" needs to be a consideration, not a "Keep on pushing because it's soooo coool!"

This is a textbook example of feature-creep being driven by a failure to recognize the actual problem. If the car doesn't run, and you filled the gas tank, and it still doesn't run... filling the passenger compartment with gas isn't going to fix it. The problem is elsewhere, and they're not looking. They're just adding more and more gas thinking that this will eventually fix the engine...

 

[Solarminer]

The major cryptocurrency carrot is that the Vendor themselves becomes this party. Just like Cash in the Cash Register Drawer; the "gimmie free shit" Snowflakes have no way to leverage the money away and grant themselves free stuff. This is a major concern with the most recent generation. Vendors need protection from this form of fraud, and Banks sure as hell don't care. Hell, they help out! It definitely doesn't get reported as Fraud, or added to any form of Fraud statistics. The entire existing payment infrastructure simply doesn't care because it doesn't hurt them. Fuck the Vendor. Hell, Visa even tacks on a charge back fee, so you not only get to give away free stuff, but Visa incentivises themselves right out of your bank account for doing it!

From very direction, Vendors are being robbed of control of their own money. Cryptocurrency offered the only salvation from this. And you're going to throw away the primary selling point??

Aren't you calling it Digital Cash? So why are you converting it back into a Credit Card? No doubt, snowflakes like to yank their money back and keep the stuff. Or get you to provide free services by stealing the money back and slandering the Vendor. Does Visa care? Fuck no! They actually get paid extra because they invented the Charge Back Fee for themselves!

It's not Digital Cash anymore, if you do this.

And, while I appreciate that @Minotaur is entertaining the idea of making this optional, you don't think everyone is going to demand it if it's there?

It won't hurt Vendors at all. They'll just continue to not use DASH. They already have a system like that. What they want is something better. If DASH cuts it's own balls off in the delusional belief that the turd still isn't shiny enough; continuing to go down this path of catering to the wrong party's interests, all it will do is introduce a stalemate of demands that Vendors have no incentive to meet. Why bother with the DASH platform at all?

@Minotaur is right. The market will decide. And the choice is obvious; we'll just keep using Visa because DASH is no better and has too many risks and barriers to entry that we can just as easily ignore for the same trouble or less... The Problem that @Minotaur isn't recognizing, because he and the rest of the team have their heads in an echo chamber, is that the marketplace is not just crypto. Continuing to pointlessly appeal to the narcissism of Cryptotard Snowflakes is going to hurt DASH's already slim sales pitch, and kill off the only strong point that it offers. They're already to the point of grasping at out-of-scope tangents in an effort to polish the already-shiny turd. They're mentally locked into a path and they need to break this defective way of thinking or DASH will never go anywhere.

I guess I should have rephrased that. You don't need or want the payment system itself to be reversible. If you have a transaction you want to escrow then use a service that specializes in it and don't expect to be anonymous or free.

More and more it seems that Dash is focusing on features that sound cool (office space, bank accounts with interest, usernames, reversible transactions, coinfirm, marketplace, etc.) vs features that are actually useful for users (iphone wallets, stealth addresses, ix detection, merchant instant dash to fiat conversion, variable blocksize). Maybe the intent is just to bring in investors to increase the price with no long term goal to actually be useful.