Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 34. (Read 9898 times)
According to me, banks are the safest to keep your money. However, if you want to make the amount of money you have doubled or tripled, then, you can think of investing that in crypto but there is no guarantee about the same.
I think on my opinion the banks are safer right now compare to crypto currency securities. The crypto industry right now need to solve security breach issue since in the previous months there have been major hacking events on major exchanges. that is why it effect investors decision to fully invest in bitcoin.
Government currency is more likely to lose its value. We saw what happened in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Corrupt governments and hyperinflation ravaged their economy. Bitcoin inflation rates are set by code and mathematics. Fiat currency can be created out of thin nair with a few keystrokes. I feel much safe having my money in crypto instead of government money.
That is why the population trusts the crypto currency more. It seems to me that in these countries crypto-currencies will be widely publicized and popularly recognized. I hope the Crypto-currency will help the population to stabilize its finances.
I don't think it would be more secure than a bank because there have been a lot of thefts happening recently, but I believe that my wallet is safe because my private keys are refrigerated and hackers will not steal them
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
I do still believe that it would be more secure to store your wealth in banks than in crypto given that stability is present when it comes on fiat especially in banks. On the other hand, the market value of cryptos has a tendency to increase, as well as to fall, therefore risk do exist despite of having a chance to earn profit. 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
With ledger nano, yes, but on the exchange/on your wallet/coinbase or another platform not. I still trust more banks, there are very many crypto platforms and I really had the situation that one day one platform just ended and the crypto coins from people just vanished. Or the Bitpaction exchange situation, I had there some Bitcoin too and did not take away to my wallet. My error.
Money is not safer inside of a Bank because they are not keeping the money safe 24/7. Anything could happen.
Truth need to be told without been bias, keeping money in the bank is far better safer than crypto. This is bcos if bank got hack the banker will be held responsible but it is bitcoin not body to query
If your in a country which is prone to war, then yes, it is safer to store your money in crypto. But if not, storing your money in the bank is a lot safer than storing your money at crypto.
With ledger nano, yes, but on the exchange/on your wallet/coinbase or another platform not. I still trust more banks, there are very many crypto platforms and I really had the situation that one day one platform just ended and the crypto coins from people just vanished. Or the Bitpaction exchange situation, I had there some Bitcoin too and did not take away to my wallet. My error.
Government currency is more likely to lose its value. We saw what happened in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Corrupt governments and hyperinflation ravaged their economy. Bitcoin inflation rates are set by code and mathematics. Fiat currency can be created out of thin nair with a few keystrokes. I feel much safe having my money in crypto instead of government money.
My money is safe when they are in my pocket. To keep money in crypto currency is more risky occupation. But the opportunity to get a good profit is also greater. Banks pay scanty interest.
I prefer banks as a place to save safe money and the value will not change, I have used crypto and its value has decreased even to 50% lower
I disagree with that probably banks are the most secured way to store your money and you don't have to worry about losing your private key.
In my country Indonesia, a country that still prohibits transactions using bitcoin, saving money in banks is safer than crypto currencies. Saving money in crypto currencies is very risky hacked by hackers and we can also forget our password, when we have forgotten our password, the money that we have will not be able to return. Different from banks where there are many parties that offer insurance when we save money in a bank and something bad happens. Of course this is what is more sought after by the community, namely a sense of security in saving money. We also don't worry about the fluctuating value of a currency when saving money in a bank because the bank adheres to a centralized system.
Saving money in crypto has two sides - yes, you are not influenced by financial institutions or governments, but at the same time there is a high volatility in crypto, you can loose everything.
The only reason why the money are safe in a bank is that banks give you insurance if someone breaks in...but it is not safe enough if that bank fails and you will loose everything.
For now I feel that my money is safer in crypto currencies than in banks. When I save my money in the form of crypto currency, no one can know where I am saving the money and the exact amount of money that I have. Besides that, I myself hold control of my wealth and I can control my money anywhere and anytime. Other people will not be able to know about my finances. Unfortunately, crypto currencies have not offered insurance against our crypto currencies when things go wrong.
my money becomes 75% lower when deciding to save it in a bank, maybe we better still use conventional banks and crypto as an alternative
Still, it is safer to put your money in the bank because of the high security of it. Remember that the crypto is in the internet and the internet is prone to many hackers.
Your money is as safe as your security. I think that a lot of people are getting hacked and they are losing their crypto. This is why the bank is a safer place if you don't know what you are doing
I can not say that our money will more safe in crypto over than the banks because we all know that putting our money on the banks will definitely be very safe but if we will put our money in crypto for sure we can able to have a lot of money. Jump to: