Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 26. (Read 9898 times)
Indeed, bank is one of the most secure place to keep cash, however it likewise relies upon coutry. For instance in my nation banks are more secure, more beneficial in digital money! Security suggests the nonattendance of dangers. What's more, the hazard is constantly present in issues identifying with acquiring cash, particularly substantial income. Along these lines, keeping in mind the end goal to accomplish something, you need to hazard, to escape the safe place.
When investing money in a Bank, usually the state gives insurance for a certain amount of guaranteed refund. In the case of cryptocurrency, this is not the case. But the percentage of Deposit in the Bank and the Deposit in cryptocurrency is very different. The Bank interest is much less. So sometimes the risk is justified.
Remember, when you open a bank deposit, the money does not belong to you, but to the bank. During the global financial crisis, many banks who could not return money to their depositors, went bankrupt. In economically weak countries, banks are ruined even out of times of crisis.
So, bitcoin is definitely more reliable.
P.S. I hope Tim's forecast will come true
P.S. I hope Tim's forecast will come true
Money is safe, but it doesn't grow much, it just loses its value to inflation. And in encryption, it can grow a lot as an investment, but it's not very secure if you don't have a hardware wallet.!!!!
putting your money on the bank is still the safest place than investing on crypto. but you can do both. Just do a well research before investing your money on a particular project there will be risk i know but there is also a chance to profit alot on your crypto investment.
as long as I keep my money in the bank I never lose a bit. but when crypto there will be loss and also income. because crypto is an investment, not like a bank.
Your money is safer in the Bank than in the crypto market. Crypto is a very uncertain market. Maybe you'll become a millionaire with little investment, or you can become weaker if the market goes against you with a few days, even a few hours.
The real fans of the cryptocurrencies will tell you that the cryptos are better (if we speak about savings). Sometimes yes but the risk to lose much here is very high. Traditional banks are more reliable.
Of course Crypto is decentralized .But still I trust more banks, even they are controlled by the state .
I doubt that crypto will be the best way to store your money than in a bank, there are big risks that the rate is unstable, both systems can be hacked or stolen, I usually hold the opinion that it is better to have your money and your cash in cash. A good bank can guarantee you your monetary security for a period of time and a case of theft, it can be tracked and returned, in crypto this will make it more difficult.
Not only that your money is safer in crypto than at the bank but it is also a means of investing in a project
In investing in a project you will make your profit in short period of time than saving your money in the bank where you will receive peanuts as profits.
In investing in a project you will make your profit in short period of time than saving your money in the bank where you will receive peanuts as profits.
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
When it terms of security, banks are still have a high security than cryptocurrency wallet but It is now better if we will invest our money in cryptocurrencies than banks because of the profitability. 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
I think it is safer to put money in the bank than to put it in the world of cryptocurrency. This problem does not need to be considered at all. Although the cryptocurrency market can bring huge amounts of money to people, we cannot deny the encryption. There are too many risks in the money market
Hi, everybody. To be honest, it is a very unusual question and still depends on the person. And if in my opinion, it is more secure in the Bank than in the Cryptocurrency. But if a person likes risk and wants to increase their funds, it is more convenient to store savings in cryptocurrency.
I think it is more safer to put money in bank than in cryptocurrency as crypto is highly volatile. Investing in crypto is both risky and opportunity. You can suffer loss or get profit. Investors who have knowledge about crypto trading can reap benefit even when the market is down.
In any place where there is an opportunity to make good money - there are very high chances to lose your money completely or partially. Everyone should decide whether to risk it with their money or not.
it seems to me that there is no stability neither in Bank nor in the crypto(and there may be collapse and loss of all funds..the money is better not to keep-the money is better spent))
It is better to put our money in banks if we are not risk taker because our money will be very safe with banks but if we are a risk taker i am sure that we should put all of our savings in cryptocurrency, so our money can rise very high soon.
I think my money is safer in my bank than cryptocurrency because if I put my savings in cryptocurrency, then it's like gambling and I risk losing a lot of money if bitcoin loses its value and don't have enough money for paying my expense.
I think at this point, the Cryptography is too volatile to be considered safe. I think it's safer to keep money in a Bank . Since Crypto can hack you, it's not safe .
it seems to me that there is no stability neither in Bank nor in the crypto(and there may be collapse and loss of all funds..the money is better not to keep-the money is better spent))
It is depend on the country where you live currently. However I think that the safer way to keep the money is in the bank. But if you are looking for more profit the best thing to invest in the cryptocurrency with high security options.
Jump to: