[cocktailpeanuts]

> However, decentralized immutability means that nothing can be done should an unintended action occur with your account.

All that's needed is an elegant identity system that privately ties identity with transactions so that only the stakeholders can share their transactions while the ledger itself is public.

That way "Decentralized Immutability" can co-exist with mutability through law in case something terrible happens. You don't need to change the history, you simply need to make a court order to create an additional transaction that reverts the disaster. Just like how when a hacker gets caught stealing money, they are forced to send the money back (additional transaction) instead of deleting the original stealing transaction from the bank account and rewriting as if nothing happened.

The thing is, pseudo-Turing complete blockchains like Ethereum (and all EVM-like blockchains) are not really fit for this purpose because the entire logic is on chain. UTXO based blockchains like Bitcoin is optimized for this since each transaction can act as evidence trail.

[fancifalmanima]

How does a 3rd party (a court) make that transaction happen without either physically compelling the criminal (not necessarily possible in other countries), or having some kind of master key (which breaks decentralization).

With a bank, they have a financial incentive to stay a part of the international banking system at least.

[alkonaut]

Public and irreversible doesn't have to mean decentralized. The court orders the bank to reverse it on their ledger just like they reverse it today in the accounts - only the ledger requires a public and immutable reversal.

[trulyme]

>... like Ethereum (and all EVM-like blockchains) are not really fit for this purpose because the entire logic is on chain.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a perfect use case for (off chain) oracles? IIUC this is well supported, should someone want to use it.