Even in a world in which taxis and other institutions are corrupt, it stretches credulity that my real concern when getting a late night taxi is that the merchant service might run away with my $25 and my credit card company might not refund me.
I've been in countries where there are major trust issues with taxis, and the very worst case I could imagine would be a service which signals to anyone watching that I'm on the street in the middle of the night, holding a smartphone which also has the ability to make irreversible transactions of a large portion of my cash holdings to an anonymous endpoint, and I'll probably get into the next vehicle to stop for me.
For a significant proportion of mooted cases where trustlessness is mooted as an advantage of blockchain technology, trustlessness doesn't actually exist and/or centralisation actually reduces problems with trust
Trustless doesn't mean reputationless. A blockchain based Uber-like service would function similarly with reviews by former passengers for individual drivers.
Sure, but my point is that the disadvantage of broadcasting to the entire world that I'm on a street corner in Quito in the early hours of a Sunday morning with a smartphone full of cryptocurrency (and for other reasons, having a public record of the details of every ride I've ever taken) is likely more of a concern than reducing the cost/trust of the dispatch/vetting service.
Reputation requirements result in higher prices for buyers, as it's hard for new entrants to come along and gain meaningful business, while the older entities suddenly have the incentive to "milk" the reputation they earned.
Meanwhile, with a credit card I can buy a product from Amazon or some joe-schmoe site nobody ever heard of, and have a guarantee that Visa will back me up if the latter is a scam.
You're paying those prices for Visa's reputation. Visa takes what, 2-3% of every transaction? Also, Visa has a record of every transaction you've ever spent. And as the Equifax case has shown, even big players aren't immune to hacking. You know what's pretty resilient to hacking? The blockchain itself.
At any rate, the advantage of Bitcoin/Ether is that sending Joe Schmoe your money doesn't mean you've exposed your credit card number and billing address (likely also your physical address) to Joe Schmoe. So there's pros and cons to either system. Refunds have existed since well before credit cards were a thing. Does it require a bit more of "buyer beware" ideology? Sure, but I don't think that's any different than a cash-based society.
I'm paying roughly 3% out of which I get back 2% through cashback on my credit card. For a net fee of 1% I get buyer protection and dispute resolution in case I and seller disagree. The higher the sum, the more likely I am to be interested in such protection.
The move to chipped credit cards (or Apple/Android Pay) also shields my real card number and makes information unusable in case of hacking. I already hide my address by having the card statements go to a PO Box and using that as my billing address, but I know that's not a widespread practice and some institutions forbid that.
I've been in countries where there are major trust issues with taxis, and the very worst case I could imagine would be a service which signals to anyone watching that I'm on the street in the middle of the night, holding a smartphone which also has the ability to make irreversible transactions of a large portion of my cash holdings to an anonymous endpoint, and I'll probably get into the next vehicle to stop for me.
For a significant proportion of mooted cases where trustlessness is mooted as an advantage of blockchain technology, trustlessness doesn't actually exist and/or centralisation actually reduces problems with trust