Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 20. (Read 9898 times)
Depending on the way we look and want to have progress, I usually save money, and if we want to benefit from the money it's better to invest, but certainly a lot of different opinions
I think they are at risk and in danger of losing money when there are large fluctuations. Reduce abnormal rise in the market price of electronic money makes you his devalued or increased; with the bank, the value of money will lose value because of inflation and can take when banks go bankrupt
No, they are not. As if the cryptocurrency in Russia has not developed, it is not legal yet. Still there is a rule, never keep your finances in one basket.
everything is full of risk,,saving money in bank can not help the money to appreciate instead their will be deduction of money in bank monthly,,,so if we can use our money in cryptocurrency,,there is every possibilities that it will turn our in millions fold than keeping money in bank
our money are a lot safer in the bank. When you keep your savings in the bank the money are protected by laws and if something goes wrong the money are still safe. In crypto the situation is exactly the opposite.
Tim Draper: More Secure in Bitcoin Than the Money Sitting in Wells Fargo
Venture capitalist Tim Draper is bullish on Bitcoin and believes it will reach $250,000 in the next four years.
During a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared and the Adam Smith Society, Tim Draper was asked how Bitcoin compared with his previous tech investments in Hotmail, Skype, and Tesla. He replied bullishly, saying, “Bitcoin will be bigger than all three combined.” However, Draper didn’t leave it at that — he thinks it will be bigger than the iron age, the Renaissance, and the internet and says that the nascent technology will affect the entire world in a faster and more prevalent way than ever imagined.
The Debate: “Bitcoin is more than a bubble and here to stay.”
Backed up by Patrick Byrne (CEO of overstock), Draper took on Financial Times journalist, Gillian Tett, and Professor of Law, Eric Posner, both of whom argued that Bitcoin is indeed a bubble and strongly contested Draper’s claims. Posner and Tett called into question the “strengths” of Bitcoin, arguing that they could be regarded as weaknesses. Posner suggested that the pseudonymization of identity enabled by the technology makes Bitcoin transactions the perfect vehicle for sophisticated criminal transactions. Tett focused on the risk involved with trusting computers with finance as they can be hacked, are prone to faults, and that Bitcoin is a “terrible store of value.”
These arguments won’t be anything new to anyone who has studied the space, and the rebuttals of Draper and Byrne won’t come as a surprise either. The pair acknowledged that Bitcoin was imperfect and drew attention to the fact the technology was designed to be open source so that unforeseen problems can be managed by the community. Byrne also pointed out that although Bitcoin has been “hacked at” more than anything in history, but unlike banks, it has yet to be defeated.
Draper was more brazen in his responses and implored the crowd to use fiat if they were looking to facilitate their own criminal activity as many Bitcoin criminals get caught. The venture capitalist responded to Tett’s admission that she invests in several different fiat currencies by saying, “I’m so much more secure in my Bitcoin than I am in the money that’s sitting there in Wells Fargo.”
Who is right?
The short answer is it’s far too early to tell, but it is good to see the subject being discussed in this manner. Before the debate, Gillian Tett remarked that if both sides of an argument aren’t heard in the same room, on the same day, then the conversations can “go past one another.” It’s probably safe to say she’s right here because, although there is no shortage of media on either side of the argument, real debate on the subject can be difficult to find.
If crypto is going to head down the road Draper expects, its advocates need to be able to argue their case outside of the crypto community, and debate should be welcome as it not only gives both sides the ability to speak but also the ability to listen.
Draper’s comments are to be expected
As crypto enthusiasts, it’s easy to agree when figures like Draper sing the praises of Bitcoin, but we shouldn’t let confirmation bias get in the way of the issues. Draper is a successful investor, and he hasn’t arrived there without making mistakes. He could be wholly right, wrong, or somewhere in between — the latter is most likely. Draper allegedly owns 30,000 BTC, so he has a vested interest in Bitcoin’s success. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Well-reasoned arguments are far more convincing than hype and chest beating because they allow people to make up their own minds.
The emergence of DLT might eclipse the impact of other innovations, but for now, the emphasis is not on critics to prove the crypto community wrong. It’s up to those who champion DLT to convince the world they’re right.
Originally published at cryptodisrupt.com
Venture capitalist Tim Draper is bullish on Bitcoin and believes it will reach $250,000 in the next four years.
During a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared and the Adam Smith Society, Tim Draper was asked how Bitcoin compared with his previous tech investments in Hotmail, Skype, and Tesla. He replied bullishly, saying, “Bitcoin will be bigger than all three combined.” However, Draper didn’t leave it at that — he thinks it will be bigger than the iron age, the Renaissance, and the internet and says that the nascent technology will affect the entire world in a faster and more prevalent way than ever imagined.
The Debate: “Bitcoin is more than a bubble and here to stay.”
Backed up by Patrick Byrne (CEO of overstock), Draper took on Financial Times journalist, Gillian Tett, and Professor of Law, Eric Posner, both of whom argued that Bitcoin is indeed a bubble and strongly contested Draper’s claims. Posner and Tett called into question the “strengths” of Bitcoin, arguing that they could be regarded as weaknesses. Posner suggested that the pseudonymization of identity enabled by the technology makes Bitcoin transactions the perfect vehicle for sophisticated criminal transactions. Tett focused on the risk involved with trusting computers with finance as they can be hacked, are prone to faults, and that Bitcoin is a “terrible store of value.”
These arguments won’t be anything new to anyone who has studied the space, and the rebuttals of Draper and Byrne won’t come as a surprise either. The pair acknowledged that Bitcoin was imperfect and drew attention to the fact the technology was designed to be open source so that unforeseen problems can be managed by the community. Byrne also pointed out that although Bitcoin has been “hacked at” more than anything in history, but unlike banks, it has yet to be defeated.
Draper was more brazen in his responses and implored the crowd to use fiat if they were looking to facilitate their own criminal activity as many Bitcoin criminals get caught. The venture capitalist responded to Tett’s admission that she invests in several different fiat currencies by saying, “I’m so much more secure in my Bitcoin than I am in the money that’s sitting there in Wells Fargo.”
Who is right?
The short answer is it’s far too early to tell, but it is good to see the subject being discussed in this manner. Before the debate, Gillian Tett remarked that if both sides of an argument aren’t heard in the same room, on the same day, then the conversations can “go past one another.” It’s probably safe to say she’s right here because, although there is no shortage of media on either side of the argument, real debate on the subject can be difficult to find.
If crypto is going to head down the road Draper expects, its advocates need to be able to argue their case outside of the crypto community, and debate should be welcome as it not only gives both sides the ability to speak but also the ability to listen.
Draper’s comments are to be expected
As crypto enthusiasts, it’s easy to agree when figures like Draper sing the praises of Bitcoin, but we shouldn’t let confirmation bias get in the way of the issues. Draper is a successful investor, and he hasn’t arrived there without making mistakes. He could be wholly right, wrong, or somewhere in between — the latter is most likely. Draper allegedly owns 30,000 BTC, so he has a vested interest in Bitcoin’s success. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Well-reasoned arguments are far more convincing than hype and chest beating because they allow people to make up their own minds.
The emergence of DLT might eclipse the impact of other innovations, but for now, the emphasis is not on critics to prove the crypto community wrong. It’s up to those who champion DLT to convince the world they’re right.
Originally published at cryptodisrupt.com
in my opinion, it's safer that our money be stored in a bank rather than storing it in a dopet address in the form of a digital currency. I think the security is more guaranteed in the bank, but the profit will be more if it is used as capital in crypto. I think that's the advantage.
It feels to me like both are equally safe.
Banks or crypto have their own advantages and disadvantages.
So i cant say one side is safer.
Banks or crypto have their own advantages and disadvantages.
So i cant say one side is safer.
For me saving money in crypto is certainly better and more profitable, I'm not interested in saving money in the bank because it can't increase, and of course saving in crypto has the opportunity to get big profits.
Crypto can gain profit in any case yet it is somewhat hazardous, there are individuals who tries to hack your wallets and take your property. Be that as it may, there are plenty of ways you can bolster your security by keeping your passwords and private key secretly. When your cash is in the bank you can get some profit but is minimal.
it's safer in a bank in my opinion:
banks got insurance in case that they get robbed so even if your money gets stolen you will get a refund in some way
in crypto if your money gets stolen it's lost and yo could say that you need to keep your private keys safe and that's true but you never know that you send your funds somewhere (could be an exchange) and that that party gets hacked.
banks got insurance in case that they get robbed so even if your money gets stolen you will get a refund in some way
in crypto if your money gets stolen it's lost and yo could say that you need to keep your private keys safe and that's true but you never know that you send your funds somewhere (could be an exchange) and that that party gets hacked.
Your money is safer in the bank than in crypto, we all know that in cryptocurrency the price of any token are moving so fast.
its volatility will make is dangerous, you might woke-up someday that the token has no value, unlike in banks you will have the value as it is with a minimal interest.
though in crypto you can make more money than in banks you need to be attentive in this.
Mnah, it is not only about the value. And if you are talking about the value look what is happening in the world: Russia, Turkey, Venezuela and many more.its volatility will make is dangerous, you might woke-up someday that the token has no value, unlike in banks you will have the value as it is with a minimal interest.
though in crypto you can make more money than in banks you need to be attentive in this.
People trust in their banking system and what they now have? Nothing.
Your money is safer in the bank than in crypto, we all know that in cryptocurrency the price of any token are moving so fast.
its volatility will make is dangerous, you might woke-up someday that the token has no value, unlike in banks you will have the value as it is with a minimal interest.
though in crypto you can make more money than in banks you need to be attentive in this.
its volatility will make is dangerous, you might woke-up someday that the token has no value, unlike in banks you will have the value as it is with a minimal interest.
though in crypto you can make more money than in banks you need to be attentive in this.
This is really a very important issue, because now many banks are experiencing great problems, since now the world is starting to have big problems with the financial system. What can be said about crypto-currencies, there are manipulators.
I think, it is safer in bank but i still invest in crypto because i want to make more money, the best is to share your money. invest some in crypto and put some in the bank. Crypto is profitable.
In every investment how you can say your money is safe. Both are different you cannot compare bank with crypto investment. You invest in crypto for making money or want to earn more money from that capital. In every Market you cannot say your money is safe it is totally depends on your investment where you invest and how much you earn from that. Oherside in bank you are not investing there so you will get only minimum interest nothing more. So I don't think comparison of both are not fare both are different.
This question is asked by everyone who begins to engage in cryptocurrency and there is no single answer, but everyone is free to act and think in his own way, in my opinion, in the crypto currency, if not more reliable, so it is more profitable according to the growth of the price of the crypto currency. But banks today offer low interest and do not guarantee a refund, so where is more logical to invest?
I don't want to be a hypocrite, even though I joined the crypto world today, I strongly believe that your money will be safer stored in a bank than investing in crypto currencies.
For me money is more safer in banks than those damn scam ico,in bank our money is securely handled but with a tiny interest than you cant almost notify ,but in cryptoworld in joining ico yes theres a huge risk that may be entertaid but the posibility of gaining big is indeed.
Bitcoin has grown steadily. Many people say it will remove the fiat, remove the banks - and from a technological point of view, I think it is possible. But it depends on the plans of the Banks and the Government - will it be possible for full adoption?
For Bitcoin to get full adoption, people have to switch from fiat to cryptocurrencies.
The more people switch to cryptos, the more merchants will accept it.
For Bitcoin to get full adoption, people have to switch from fiat to cryptocurrencies.
The more people switch to cryptos, the more merchants will accept it.
I wouldn't go so far with crypto and banks and deposits. It's true that crypto has this choice for the user when he can deposit cash into crypto and crypto into wallet but nothing it's 100% safe not even bitcoin or blockchain and we saw so many scams lately that made me think that in this moment , banks are still much more safer than cryptos when we talk about deposits only.
Jump to: