Earlier quoted context omitted.
>simply a policy in some implementations Reversals would mean that there is some authority that can declare arbitrary transaction to be valid or not, and cryptocurrency is exercise in creation of payment system without such trusted party. So no, would not call it simply a policy.
It's definitely a policy, in that it's a design-decision that could be changed to make it operate differently. For example, if a good majority of a crypto-currency's miners elected to fork to a new policy, then it'd just happen. And cryptocurrency isn't really about lacking a trusted-party so much as decentralizing the trusted-party. Which might sound pedantic, but it's an important distinction: there can be an autho…
It's also about minimizing amount of trust to that party. Only thing bitcoin miners are trusted, is determination of correct chronological order of transactions.
>smart-contract approach
Yes, and smart contract will just determine whenever transaction was made under threat of violence!
>end up including a system of checks-and-balances, appeals, manners of collecting evidence
So regular banking, under other name.
Also 'collecting evidence' is pretty much incompatible with anonymity, which is cryptocurrency distinguishing feature.
>trust is decentralized
How is that even supposed to work? Do you expect that every chargeback will be investigated by every mining pool? Or they will have some authority to do it (again, no difference with regular banking)
>most folks
Most folks are ok with current banking system. Cryptocurrency is a niche product, having completely different trade-offs.