Calling VRC for what it is....is not FUD. It is pointing out the truth.
View it how you want. VRC is tarnished.
Only in the eyes of certain parties...namely the crypto decentralization purists. The truth is, to most random people (that would be the folks necessary to bring to crypto to ever make it 'mainstream'), Bitcoin is far more tarnished thanks to things like Silk Road and Gox than Vericoin will be by this. In the eyes of the everyday person, this will appear to many as being safer, knowing action can be taken to thwart a massive attack such as this.
While I normally give your serious commentary a fair bit of weight in the reading I do around here, I think that people who are viewing this occurrence in such a fashion are thinking too narrowly. For the average person, centralization and decentralization are not the black and white concepts they are viewed as here.
Occasionally, it is necessary to venture beyond the echo chamber of these forums to understand what still must come to pass before cryptocurrency can ever be a tool of the average Joe.
Please answer to me how VRC will be viewed as "safer" when there can be rollbacks in the future?
Personally I wouldn't want to accept VRC for payment if there is the possibility of a rollback that could take my coins for goods or services I sold to another person.
Please tell me how VRC will be viewed as "safer" because of this new precedent?
Well, lets look at the facts, without the scary talk. The rollback was done as a direct reaction to a theft which would have been of nearly 2 million USD, from innocent (albeit incredibly stupid) random people. The theft also would have damaged the integrity of the coin, as it would have essentially made it highly likely that a single party would be able to attack the network.
The reality is also that a comparative very small number (and value) of transactions were conducted beyond this theft. I think that had the volume of transactions been higher, this may not have occurred. The way those other transactions in question are handled in retrospect is a factor that also has yet to be seen.
Another fact is that the speculation that another rollback will be done in the future under a different set of circumstances is simply that, pure speculation, and that is immutable and unarguable point of fact. It is being thrown around with the same ominous scary bedtime story feel that most of failllings posts have regarding Bitcoin. Pure speculation, and literally nothing more.
And another fact is that merchants already carry inherent risks of a reversible transaction. It happens through consumer protection on credit cards, and can be written off as fraud. I would say that if you were to use the speculation of the threat of a rollback to a merchant, it is only fair to speculate that a merchant could seek recompense through a fraud write off that they could already do with any credit card transaction.
Yes, this rollback has
some ominous undertones if it is specifically viewed in such a light...and I think many here are trying to make that out to be the only case. But I think at this point in time, if you truly weigh facts against facts, and speculation against speculation, this is still more likely to be favorably viewed by John Q Public.
nice words, thx