Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 39. (Read 9898 times)
I see, my money in the bank or in Crypto can be risky. When I put my money in the bank, if I run into risk, I still get insurance. My money in Crypto will have a better chance of making a profit. Therefore, choosing where to place money depends on the specific time.
Invest in crypto currency is more reliable. After all, when I invest in crypto currency, I know for sure that only I have access to my capital. I can not say this about the money in the bank.
Banks often robbed. Their servers are often hacked by hackers. But also the crypto-exchange exchanges also hacked and steal money. Why are you so sure that your money is safe? Do you use a hardware purse?In crypto, the security of your money depends only on you. This teaches responsibility and mindfulness. When your money in the bank risks losing them depend not on you.
Time will be the most important attribute of every opinion. Of course it would be different if we refer to Bitcoin holders from 2014 and who just started earlier this year. Whereas the future will always remain a mystery.
For me, every day to keep money in the cryptocurrency, it becomes a more secure way of storing money than storing money in a classic bank. At now banks introduce a lot of fencing and just go bankrupt, forcing people to go to the cryptocurrency.
I'm not sure that crypto money will be the best way to store it, rather than in a bank, and there are big risks that the rate is not stable, both systems can be hacked or stolen, I generally hold the opinion that it is better to have your money and your capital in cash, so I think you, I wish you success!
I think it is safer to put money in encryption.
maybe if the money is used for such a long period it may be safe to be in cryptocurrency and also to be more assured that it should save half in the bank and the rest with cryptocurreny.
I believe that the level of security of savings that are invested in cryptocurrency that are in the Bank, is about the same, because neither there is no clear guarantee.
Invest in crypto currency is more reliable. After all, when I invest in crypto currency, I know for sure that only I have access to my capital. I can not say this about the money in the bank.
Banks often robbed. Their servers are often hacked by hackers. But also the crypto-exchange exchanges also hacked and steal money. Why are you so sure that your money is safe? Do you use a hardware purse?
If you store money in concurrency, their security is completely shifted to you. You have to watch out for the same cold wallet and prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.
Of course, it all depends on which bank and which crypto you are talking about. A good bank can guarantee you your money safety within a period of time and case of thievery, it can be tracked. Crypto is an investment and every investment is a risk but comes with its reward.
I am sure that future and even current investments of people will be increasingly inclined towards Crypto. The old foundations change and society will invariably change with them.
I don't agree , my money will be much safer in the Bank than in crypto . crypto is too unstable
The money that you invest in cryptocurrencies will not be more secure than in the Bank, but they can bring you more profit than in the Bank.
I don't think the current cryptocurrency will be safer than the bank. Unless you are doing illegal trading. And I am a normal citizen so my money is currently safer on the bank than on the cryptocurrency.
Well, whether your wallet is safer or not is depends on your wallet security.
For example if you use hardwallet like ledger nano as your ETH wallet, then your ETH or tokens will more secure than you using other online wallet.
The most important thing is how you can protect your own wallet.
For example if you use hardwallet like ledger nano as your ETH wallet, then your ETH or tokens will more secure than you using other online wallet.
The most important thing is how you can protect your own wallet.
Its more safe to keep your money in the bank where I am from than have your money in cryptocurrency because there is a policy in place by the Central Bank that makes the banks to have certain fixed amount with Central Bank of Nigeria as a backup to pay their customers if they are out of business which is not happening in cryptocurrency, crypto in it's entirety is full of risk hence it's advisable to invest only what you can afford to lose
That depends on how to define security. The price of virtual currency is constantly changing, and there is a 50% up and down fluctuation in one day. Is this safe?
It is safe as long as you hide your personal wallets at you, but i prefer you a bank, it is safer.
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
Will,i could not say thats my money is safe into become a crypto than a banks ,because i thinks they are both have there own a positive and negaitve impact to the market as a purpose,while in the terms to become a crypto,theres a big possibility that those you converted ,and put in exchange would be los,especially those exchanges sites would been hacked disame also in the banks,theres a tendency its would file a bankcrutpcy.
Jump to: