Hacker News Reader

The distinction is certainly one worth making (reversibility within the ledger vs. "meta-reversibility" in the context of the social/legal system that ledger is embedded), and not just at an academic level as underlined by your example.

In my view, both matter when trying to understand a payment system.

View on HN

I don't understand - how is the custody even part of the payment system, though?

For example, if I keep all my money in the bank, then cash is only as reversible as my bank account is solid. But "cash as a payment method is reversible, if you store the proceeds in a bank account" is not a statement that tells you anything about cash, it's a statement about my bank account.

It would be a solid article if it attempted to argue the point it proves, which is that "there is no such thing as unseizable". But it doesn't, so it isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com