Can you name 1 example of a situation where you would want to have a trusted third party, instead of 1 on 1 payment?

I think it may be impossible to have "no trusted third party" without having "irreversible transactions."

But additionally, irreversibility is desirable in many online payment flows (eg. anything where the customer is purchasing something that is delivered digitally).

Probably, though, bitcoiners could stand to have a bit more nuance in their thinking about the use-cases where trusted third parties are desirable.

Scoresby

It's the classic example of diffuse costs (higher systemic costs for everyone due to inflation; living in a controlled/permissioned environment) vs acute benefits (you can visibly see and feel the benefit if you are the one who gets stolen from; you feel more acute security that even if you get stolen from it can be made right)

The insurance is NOT free, it is backed by you, via governments in the end.
The fee is just delayed and deluted through inflation and taxes (and haircuts/bail-ins in the near future...)

a plus... _for whom_? 

It's great for consumers, since it's a free insurance policy. Not great for the system overall (bc nothing is certain, hence e.g. chargebacks and transactions taking forever or subject to hold-ups/freezes) _nor_ even consumers since they
a) ultimately have to carry the cost of this insurance
b) live/operate in a system with control/surveillance/permission everywhere. 

But yeah, in the narrow example of "someone stole your money," it's great

denlillaapan

I've been pondering this a lot lately. Is the fact that theft can more easily be reversed in a centralized, fiat system actually a plus?