>We are not talking about capital; we are talking about access
They are the same thing. It's true of any proof-of-work system and proof-of-stake only makes it worse.
>without having to ask for anyone's consent or approval
No. This is absolutely and completely wrong. Realistically you need consent of several intermediaries if you're doing business on a blockchain. The bare minimum you need is consent from the miners or stakeholders to accept your transactions. It's the same as any other financial system. What you are describing is so far from reality that it's baffling to me.
>You can say that this is a terrible idea, but to say that it isn't something new that blockchain has enabled is simply denial.
No I'm sorry but there's no denial. Unregulated finance isn't new. Blockchain didn't invent it at all. It is actually the default state of any finance without the proper infrastructure around it. It's extremely frustrating that anyone tries to present this as some kind of technological advance. It's not.
>you are not even able to access your own account data in read-only mode, without going through a third party provider
Which is exactly the same as blockchains, you need to go through a large third party network of mining pools and exchanges to access your funds.
>If you want to make it impossible for regulators to censors the financial protocols written by random teenagers (the design requirement)
I don't want that. That's a terrible design requirement. There is no explanation for why that is a design requirement. I'm sorry but I don't want to make it impossible to censor random teenagers (or anybody of any age) who is engaging in fraud. And no cryptocurrency can do that anyway because none of them are immune to regulation.
>but you also want certain actors to be able to revert transactions, then you may find that those two goals are in tension with each other.
No they are not. You seem to be suggesting that from the point of view of a financial system, all teenagers are indistinguishable from scammers. I don't know where this idea comes from. It's complete and utter nonsense.
They are the same thing. It's true of any proof-of-work system and proof-of-stake only makes it worse.
>without having to ask for anyone's consent or approval
No. This is absolutely and completely wrong. Realistically you need consent of several intermediaries if you're doing business on a blockchain. The bare minimum you need is consent from the miners or stakeholders to accept your transactions. It's the same as any other financial system. What you are describing is so far from reality that it's baffling to me.
>You can say that this is a terrible idea, but to say that it isn't something new that blockchain has enabled is simply denial.
No I'm sorry but there's no denial. Unregulated finance isn't new. Blockchain didn't invent it at all. It is actually the default state of any finance without the proper infrastructure around it. It's extremely frustrating that anyone tries to present this as some kind of technological advance. It's not.
>you are not even able to access your own account data in read-only mode, without going through a third party provider
Which is exactly the same as blockchains, you need to go through a large third party network of mining pools and exchanges to access your funds.
>If you want to make it impossible for regulators to censors the financial protocols written by random teenagers (the design requirement)
I don't want that. That's a terrible design requirement. There is no explanation for why that is a design requirement. I'm sorry but I don't want to make it impossible to censor random teenagers (or anybody of any age) who is engaging in fraud. And no cryptocurrency can do that anyway because none of them are immune to regulation.
>but you also want certain actors to be able to revert transactions, then you may find that those two goals are in tension with each other.
No they are not. You seem to be suggesting that from the point of view of a financial system, all teenagers are indistinguishable from scammers. I don't know where this idea comes from. It's complete and utter nonsense.