I certainly trust crypto currency. As their means and their future. But I do not think everyone has come to the conclusion that the virtual world is now ordinary. Many people are afraid to keep money, not in the bank, but in crypto currency.
different from your opinion, I believe even more if my money will be safer on banks than investing in crypto currencies, nothing guarantees that crypto currencies will continue to live. no country is responsible for the life of crypto currencies. different from the FIAT currency in the bank. the currency is owned by a country that will not let their currency exchange die 
Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 3. (Read 9925 times)
I think it's safer to keep the money in the bank but it's more profitable to invested in the crypto currency market !
yes I agree with you.but profit and safe investment is not same.I think its depend on your purpose.
Well if you do have hardware wallet that would be much more good than the internet wallet or on site but still having your money on the bank is much more safer and the price of your money is stable you can sure of it that it is safe
I think Banks are more secure than crypto, but compared to crypto gains, Banks are almost zero. So it's up to you whether you keep your money in a bank or invest in cryptocurrencies.
There is even a dispute to open there is no sense, because if all the money in Bitcoin, then there is no human factor, and this is a big plus to security)))
I wouldn't say it is safer in crypto than comparing into the bank because in crypto there are so many disadvantages by using it could be compromised by some malware which is using by a hacker and as of now this is the main issue in crypto accounts so the thing is you have to be careful on your accounts secured it as much as you could so that it won't be compromised and the advantages of using crypto is the convenience it offers to the user while. In the bank, you can say that it is safer than crypto because it is secured at a high level but then again there is also some circumstances like bankruptcy or robbery that is the thing that is disadvantages in using money and putting into the bank thus I don't know if some of the banks have insurances on their money.
Banks work only a storage and it is safe to be in a bank. but the weaknesses in the bank cannot produce like in crypto which can double your money if you are lucky and can make you rich. but any investment remains a risk that must be studied further
I don't think putting money in Bitcoin is safer than at the Bank, because in reality many people lose their money here, start purses in the hack until the value of bitcoin goes down a lot. Actually, Bitcoin does not guarantee the security of our assets, but Bitcoin provides an opportunity for us to get big profits when we invest our money in Bitcoin.
My money are virtually safer in crypto, if I keep them on Binance or bloodless pockets. In other cases all of my cash will be stollen, but in case of bank account, it is able to be frozen.
Actually I don't think so because crypto is shaking extremely hard now, you'd store 10000$ and be with 3000$ after several months, so where is safeness?
That doesn't have to do with safety, IMO. A cryptocurrency could be safe and secure despite its price movement on the market. The recent downfall in price is just natural, as cryptocurrencies are volatile after all. However, in terms of safety, it all depends on how much hashrate a specific cryptocurrency has, and how well it's developed. In addition, users themselves need to take the proper precautions to secure their money in crypto, no matter how safe or secure it is. A little mistake could cause you hundreds or even thousands of dollars in losses when putting your money into cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum.
As such, you need to follow the guidelines to make the hacker's life impossible. When cryptocurrencies are compared against a Bank, they're much safer because there's no middleman, no single point of failure, and no government pressure. On the hand, Banks are easily manipulated by governments, and the access to your funds are limited by their sole discretion (which means they could freeze your account, etc). Therefore, if you're looking to secure your money, then look no further as cryptocurrencies are the safest method to secure your capital (especially in Bitcoin). Just my opinion
I think we should keep our money in different places. That's why part of my capital is invested in the crypto currency, and some are in the bank account.
You puy your money in crypto and it might fall. You put money in bank in it may collapse. Same thing with any type of investments, so the best way to keep money safe is keep it in your pocket. But if you won't your money to work for you you should risk.
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
I cannot say that your money is safe in crypto but there is a chance to double up, triple up your money. In the bank your money is safe but you will just earn a very small profit. So if i am you i will go invest my money in crypto, high invest, high risk, chances of getting a millions.
Keeping money in a bank where your money is protected by laws, it is a lot better then keep in cryptocurrencies. Cause bank has some advantages, especially that you have full control. But if something goes wrong in cryptocurrencies, no one will help you.
There are no security in crypto. The question seems to be not on the point. Like is your money safe in a crypto exchange? Is your money safe in crypto wallet? I'm not sure which broad sense you're referring to. Crypto is a decentralized industry. It is you who protect your funds. Let say you're coins are inside your wallet app it is safe as long as you keep it beyond hackers. You should also protect your PK and important key to unlocked it. No one will blame but you if its get stolen. Unlike in bank that if you're money access by someone there's a chance you can recover it as you prove its being access via online. The Bank always have liability if the problem comes from them but in crypto if its your fault it is only yourself to blame. You get what I mean?
crypto currency are for long-term asset building whereas banks are for transactions so we can't completely compare of storing value vs doing payments
I certainly trust crypto currency. As their means and their future. But I do not think everyone has come to the conclusion that the virtual world is now ordinary. Many people are afraid to keep money, not in the bank, but in crypto currency.
There are many factors at play here. First of all it's the variance of Bitcoin. Since it has a crazy volatility it's usually never a good idea to keep all your savings in it because you can lose a large percentage of your wealth after a bad week or month as we have seen in the past.
Now assume that BTC price would find its true value and be less volatile like Gold. Then for some it might be better for them to keep their wealth in the bank because that money is federally insured and Bitcoin is home to many hacks and scams and thefts.
However if you practice your cold storage correctly and use a hardware wallet then BTC is much safer than a bank.
Now assume that BTC price would find its true value and be less volatile like Gold. Then for some it might be better for them to keep their wealth in the bank because that money is federally insured and Bitcoin is home to many hacks and scams and thefts.
However if you practice your cold storage correctly and use a hardware wallet then BTC is much safer than a bank.
Safer in the bank. Crypto is too volatile to be used as a banking system. There are good days and bad days and one of those bad days may just be when you need funds desperately. You'll have to sell at a loss.
safer in the bank because I can not worry about their loss, which can not be said about the Crypto currency
Yes, and if we lose our money in the bank, we can sue the bank to demand refund. But if we lose our crypto, we cannot do anything.Jump to: