Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 53. (Read 9898 times)
Is your money safer than encryption at the bank? Ok, I think it’s definitely safer to have a bank. There are still some risks in the encryption world, but there is encryption in which your money can turn into more money, or make you profitable.
I think putting money in the bank is safer than in the crypto, because the price of crypto still depending on BTC price too much, and it's not stable. It looks like an investment than a saving money.
I think it's safer to save money in the BANK than in Crypto, but saving money in the Bank makes little profit because the Bank's interest is relatively small while saving and holding crypto will benefit more because crypto prices can go up to 100% percent in a short time.
As long as you keep your private key, it is safer and more convenient to a certain extent than in a bank. Because you can use and trade at any time.
You know, I'm probably a bit more confident in dollars, euros or pounds than the etherium or neo or lithcoin.
Holding my funds in the bank is safer, Crypto is no different from other investments,it comes with its own risk and requires a level of safety measure. The vulnerability of losing my assets to hackers is pronounced compared to when I hold in fiat at the bank, in the case of a bank the responsibility lies on the bank to ensure the safety of my funds. I can only hold in Crypto if I consider an investment.
Just as much as i like crypto, I cannot save or put all my money into crypto, because there is every tendency for the price of crypto to fall and i might need fiat at anytime. I can still save half in crypto and half in the bank, in order to be on a safer side.
That's a very difficult question. Banks give guarantee of safety of money. Because of the volatility cryptocurrency, you can lose money. But for the same reason, you can also increase your capital. In any case: The choice is yours.
there is a question still in what country you live, may also be a devaluation, and the dollar may fall and the Euro may fall, then your answer I will say keep in gold it when it does not lose value, in my opinion in the crypto-currency store is quite safer on decentralized platforms, just need time to withdraw money in Fiat
No. When my money in the bank I'm at least sure that they will not be stolen. Of course, at the percentages you can not earn now as in the crypto-currency, but there they are safe
I think your money is absolutely safe in the bank, but you don't have full control over it. 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.
No where is safer to keep your money, don't be deceived that if keep your money in crypto it is safer than keeping it in bank. What if you loss your money to a coin that turn out to be scam?
No thanks, I never contacted banks, and I'm not going to get involved, maybe it's only in my country so, but that's how we live
hard question. if the bank is a governmental bank and you live in a strong europian country your money is very safe in that bank. but crypto wallets are also very safe if you use paper wallets or hardware wallets.
Agree. I believe that your money would be a lot safer in cryptocurrencies than in a bank. The reason for this, is because banks are easily manipulated by governments, and they could freeze your assets at will. They're considered a single point of failure and if something undesired happens, then you could easily lose your money. On the other hand, cryptocurrencies are as safe as you want them to be. If you're tech-savvy, you'll know how to properly secure your crypto funds by using hardware wallets and/or paper wallets (cold storage). Staying away from online wallets and making sure that you've generated your keys in an offline fashion will allow you to prevent your crypto funds from being stolen by anyone in the long run.
Therefore, if you keep your money in a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, and follow the necessary precautions to secure it, then you should have no problem at all. When using a hardware wallet, you'll rest assured that your funds will remain in there as long as the blockchain is up and running. Bitcoin is the wisest option since it's immutable and extremely secure, which will ensure that your money will always be available for years to come. Just my thoughts
That's a very difficult question. Banks give guarantee of safety of money. Because of the volatility cryptocurrency, you can lose money. But for the same reason, you can also increase your capital. In any case: The choice is yours.
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 think for now, its safer in banks because the cryptomarket is full of scammers and hackers and it is a cloud based information that can be.easily cracked.banks are more secure that way and when investing it usually takes time to profit thats why they have stock market 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
Hmm, I think each of them have their Pros and it is not clear to me what you mean by 'safer' in this context. Keeping your money in the bank is easily accessible and most convenient to use, than having your money saved up in a coin. Meanwhile with crypto, there's a possibility that your money might depreciate or appreciate as the case may be.
I think money is only safe when you have it in your purse or jean pocket but when you have it in crypto only the market movement will determine your luck. I think bank is safer for cash crypto is safe if you have the risk taken mind to invest
Let's see. Suppose Julian Assange, after getting out of political prison, has two things
1. An account at Wells Fargo or any other bank for that matter. He can still remember the account number, internet user name and password.
2. A bitcoin wallet, he can still remember the seed words.
His bank account? Login disabled after a few months. Become dormant/locked shortly thereafter. Finally be seized/forfeited, or simply deleted after several years of dormancy. AAAAND.......IT'S GONE.
His bitcoin wallet? Just download recent version of whatever wallet, restore with seed, money is still there. Probably worth a fortune. Takes minutes, no paperwork, no worries.
Money in the bank is not safe at all, it is only imaginary, a piece of paper or a screen with numbers that can change quickly, and you never truly own it too.
1. An account at Wells Fargo or any other bank for that matter. He can still remember the account number, internet user name and password.
2. A bitcoin wallet, he can still remember the seed words.
His bank account? Login disabled after a few months. Become dormant/locked shortly thereafter. Finally be seized/forfeited, or simply deleted after several years of dormancy. AAAAND.......IT'S GONE.
His bitcoin wallet? Just download recent version of whatever wallet, restore with seed, money is still there. Probably worth a fortune. Takes minutes, no paperwork, no worries.
Money in the bank is not safe at all, it is only imaginary, a piece of paper or a screen with numbers that can change quickly, and you never truly own it too.
No I can't say it's safer than at the bank if can give you a huge gain and your $30000 can also turn to $3000 or even lower so I don't think it's that safe. I am experiencing a huge lost of fund now but I pray the bullish time come again
My money is safer in crypto than bank not only that
In crypto my money yield interest which cannot be compared to the peanuts banks offer as interest.
putting money in crypto is equivalent to investment, not saving your money alone.
In crypto my money yield interest which cannot be compared to the peanuts banks offer as interest.
putting money in crypto is equivalent to investment, not saving your money alone.
Jump to: