I think the answer is Yes, my money is safer in crypto currency instead of banks. in crypto currency no government are in enter interference and i can do trade easily its my future investment and i safe it fro my children i can easily and fast transfer to an other city but in bank my money is not safe i paid taxes on every year i didn't withdraw my money on holidays from banks in crypto in feel safe. thats the beauty of Crypto
Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 50. (Read 9898 times)
I think no, there's no safe place for money, because in just one mistake, your money might be lose in an instant. even at banks. even if many people are saying that cryptocurrency is safer than banks, there are still some hackers/scammers who still find a way to get your money at your own hands.
Apart from asking if your money is safe or not, you should also understand that there are fluctuations in price, so when ur assets decrease in value you don't see it has lost.
First of all what I'd like to advise you about putting your money in cryptocurrency is that immediately your money leaves your bank you have to accept that it's no More 100% safe because hackers are everywhere, even hacking exchanges nowadays, God save us.
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
really, it's all about opinions. one man said that, the other said this, and no 100% guarantee it's worth taking into consideration. 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
It depends on in what country this bank is located. Some banks are not safe at all. If it is a reliable bank then I would give a preference to it. Crypto is a bit risky but the profit can be a lucrative comparing with banks.
Well keeping money in bank is good because you are sure your money is safe and stable, keeping your money in cryptos is a two side coin, you can gain or you can lose, when you gain, you will be better than the person who keeps in bank and when you lose, God have mercy
It is safer to keep money in the Bank (although probably not in my country 
), but it is much more profitable to invest them wisely in cryptocurrencies. Real estate and other types of investments are eliminated, because people who invest in cryptocurrencies, in the majority of no such money.
), but it is much more profitable to invest them wisely in cryptocurrencies. Real estate and other types of investments are eliminated, because people who invest in cryptocurrencies, in the majority of no such money.
I do not know about you, but personally I trust more technology blockhain than any bank and government. I try to transfer all available funds to crypto-currencies ...
now the banks are safer. because there are strong sub-structures and financial resources that have been coming for years. but in the future the crypto will become more secure.
The Crypto market is very volatile now and hence the possibility of missing is very high. Bitcoin still has a long way to go and can only bet, but no one can predict the future with maximum certainty. Invest only as much as you can afford to lose, that's the first rule of investing in crypto.for that, your money will be safer when invested in the bank.
If you want your money to be safe, it's better to buy Trezor, I do not trust the banks
Do you speak about money or monopoly money, cryptocurrency? 
If your save all your money in crypto it souns clearly strange. Trezor can safe your coins, but not fiat, which using daily.
If you want your money to be safe, it's better to buy Trezor, I do not trust the banks
Do you speak about money or monopoly money, cryptocurrency? If your save all your money in crypto it souns clearly strange. Trezor can safe your coins, but not fiat, which using daily.
I do not know how in other countries, but in Russia in banks very small %. If you store money in a bank, it is not an investment, but the preservation of money at best. But judging by the level of inflation, it turns out that in banks, even to save money is not profitable, since inflation is higher than the annual % in the bank
If you want your money to be safe, it's better to buy Trezor, I do not trust the banks
Keeping money in the bank is safer than in the crypto because of its security and stability in value. I think cryptocurrency is best for investment, not storing. If you lose money in the bank, you can report to the police or bank. But if you lose your virtual currency, you can't do anything else.
No. The bank is more safe than crypto. Even "bitcoinlionners" save their parts of private keys in the bank. I think crypto never will be so safe, because it is online money, and it always more easier to stole it.
Meh, I rather have all in crypto, I hate banks and their agenda, like: - Supporting wars, So don't get me started with that they print it however much they like
For me it is more safer if we will put our money at the banks because we all know that banks is trusted by many people but if we want to have more money we should put it on the best crypto and tnat is bitcoin and maybe on some altcoins.
Obviously money is more safe in the banks only. But it will remain fix there with little to no interest earning. Crypto market is very volatile right now and hence the chances of it being lost are very high. Bitcoin still has a long way to go and one can only bet on it, but no one can predict the future with utmost certainty. Invest only that much which you can afford to lose, that's the very first rule of investing in crypto
When it comes to the safety of the money of course bank is one of the safest. Very low rewards and very low risk. But if you want your money to double or tripple or even more you can put/invest it in crypto but no assurance.
Jump to: