Maybe blockchain solutions are near full adoption in its current state. As in, (almost) all of the people who want to roll their own in the current tools have done so.
It's kinda like, when people would log into a BBS, in that era, that technology basically reached 100% adoption for the people willing and able to use a BBS. Then the Internet came along and it was almost an extension to what people used BBSs for.
In that scenario, the only reason people increased adoption for the Internet was because it got easier to use. In the beginning, you had to be rather savvy. There were a lot of historical requirements to launch an ISP (e.g.: you had to host a copy of usenet).
As popularity would rise, tools improved, things got bundled, availability slowly improved while technical requirements of the individual user would fall.
I could see something like that happening in crypto. A centralized "CSP" (cryptographic service provider) could bridge the gap. We have some of that already, like with Coinbase, to some extent.
My grandmother doesn't need to know what TCP/IP is, but she can post her cat photos.
Likewise, my grandmother could bank with a "CSP" that offers familiar services but powered by blockchain solutions. Is it better? For her, maybe. It might be able to shield her from that double-edged sword you referred to. Would the people who currently use the Bitcoin-QT wallet want these solutions? Probably not.
I agree decentralization is not the magic bullet. We're in a phase where people think decentralization is always the solution and if it has any centralization, it's automatically bad. We might need to rethink that.
I will make an over simplfied metaphoric comparision\scenario, look at it this way, because it seems like, and I can see how so, but we all seem to be comparing bitcoin wallets and likes to bank accounts, when in actual fact what we should be comparing it to is your physical wallet with paper currency. If you handed paper cash to a stranger, its mostly final, non-refundable as you will probably never see that person physically again, so you can't get your cash back.
Think back also to when paper currency was also replacing precious metal coins, a lot of people would have been very sceptical of this concept. They would have wondered if the paper was really a representation of the precious metals, i.e backed by them (i'm only trying to paint a picture of the scenario here nothing else). So it's basically the mindset and shift of conceptual thinking.
Your grandmother can post pictures on the internet? well just imagine her when she firt saw a computer? she would never have thought of ever finding a use for it.
Now back to the paper cash in a wallet, if you went to a legal registered vendor like a supermarket, you could give up your papaer currency in exchange for goods, but you could get a refund if the goods were faulty( depending of the terms of the sale of course). The point I'm trying to make here is that you can do exactly the same thing here with crypto currency. So it needs to be thought of conceptually as simple physical wallet rather than a bank account. tow very different things. ( mind you I drastically over simplified how much more effective crytpo currency is here). So what seems totally nonsensical because of a change of concept will just become the norm, its just that there are no authorities enforcing this.
By the way, as far as I know, if you transfer money from your bank account to the wrong person, it's gone too. There is no way to 'reverse' the transaction unless the other party agrees to send it back to you.
Yep,but you can contact the institution and maybe get a bit more information etc.. but fair call, could be hard
BBS is a great analogy.
Ok, you just took several pieces of the crap I have been spewing at you for three years and rephrased it so it sounded better and made sense. WTF? Maybe you forgot, you say something super cryptic, then I slowly figure out what it means and tell somebody else. If you start doing this on a regular basis I will have no alternative to believe you are either getting smarter, dumber, or better at talking to dumber people. I hope it is the last one because I am definitely getting dumber.
Another thought, assuming the above analogy is solid, can we please stop effing around with BBS and get on with the Internet? I am guessing there are still some people floating around in the dungeons of BBS only sticking their heads out to check if the paper came so they can read the news and talk about it with their buddies. For crap sake, this stuff is neat, but the wait for something useful you can share with your peers, let alone your parents or grandparents, is murder.
It's only semi-solid. Technically, BBS technology is younger than Internet technology. But in terms of popular adoption, that's probably not important.
Then again, if we want to make the analogy more solid, maybe we're currently using pre-BBS Internet (current crypto). And now we have to wait for the BBS nerds (second tier crypto) to get popular so that the true Internet becomes more feasible (third tier crytpo like Dash Evolution tried to define).
That's Dash Evolution saying, "Oops, we bit off more than we can chew. Stand by." At least they'll have an "Official user-friendly Wallet" sometime this year (even though it was supposed to be released December 2017).