Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 84. (Read 9898 times)
When we talk about safety, the bank will probably be the best choice. But of what use will it be when you leave your money in the bank instead of investing it into something that is more profitable? In cryptos too, your safety is equally guaranteed if you are cautious yourself.
Banks are safer for average people, for the most of the time at least. Average people would rather "buy" BTC from banks, trust their public keys to their hands, because holding your own keys means you are responsible from them, you can't blame your stupidity to someone else.
Hard to say, I'd say safer in banks for now. Technology is still too new in my opinion
In my opinion, no one can provide a complete security guarantee. Therefore, one must follow the saying that eggs must be stored in different baskets. Crypto currency is more convenient for me because I can use its capabilities at any time and more or less anonymously. Yes, and if you want to do trading. And the bank has, as it were, stability and guarantees of the state, but this is not a 100% guarantee.
When we talk about safety in the crypto community, then it is down to the individual himself. Your safety is in your own hands.If you let someone play smart on you, then you will be in real trouble and will have no one to blame but your own self. As for keeping it in the bank, you can always hold someone responsible.
I keep my basic savings in the bank, and in the crypt I invest those funds that I'm not afraid to lose. I think this is the right decision.
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
You simply copy paste an article from this site: cryptodisrupt.com, but I do not undersand what do you want to say with that post?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
No, at the moment it is safer to keep money in the bank than in the cryptocurrency, but the income from your investments in the bank will be very different from those that you make in the cryptocurrencies. I think everyone for himself determines the degree of risk to invest.
if looking at crypto in terms of security level of course save money in the form of crypto is very unsafe, but if looking in terms of profit, of course crypto, because bank interest will be far less than crypto, but of course with a high risk too
In the Bank to keep your money safer! And crypto is a business. There are always risks, but the profit is worth it!
I think it's safer to keep it in the Bank. Crypto is more of a gamble and earnings. And even better and the and another 
No place is better than bank to safe our money that why we have bank for time. Where crypto is risky which i'l think! But if you want to make your money double you can put/invest it in crypto but no assurance. Assurance is the difference between bank and crypto. In simple words Bank means low profit, high safety where crypto means high profit but low safety.
Nobody can freeze your money on accounts in crypto-currency wallets. Neither the state, nor even the developers themselves purses. All information is decentralized. Most crypto-currency wallets are anonymous.
Traditional banks have their advantages as well as disadvantages. But for me cryptos are safer because you have control over your assets at anytime and you can't say that for banks
Yes off course if you can keep your wallet keys safe. And above all you enjoy good interest in cryptocurrency than in banks
definitely not haha.
In my opinion your money is definitely safer at the bank because there's a lot of hacking and phising in crypto, but the value of your money will continue to decrease because of inflation. On the other hand the value will continue to grow in crypto as it is one of the best investment available but you have to be patient and careful.
Both aspects (cryptocurrency and fiat) have its own pros and cons. When money is kept at the bank it is safe so far as you keep your credentials safe including ATM etc. However, the bankers know how much you have as well as your credentials. For cryptocurrency some coins like Monero, Zcash, offer some certain privacy. That is where cryptocurrency has an edge - for those that wish to have some anonymity. If it comes to investment, a good choice of cryptocurrency can be a source of investment platform. Generally, it is advisable not to put your egg in one basket.
I think that depositing money into the bank is the safest, but if you want to make you rich, I think you still need to invest in cryptocurrencies, because cryptocurrencies can make your money more or even double.
No it not. if anything you are more likely to lose all of your money if you have it in cryptos than in the bank. The crypto community have to stop seeing the bank as the enemies here because they are not. they are very useful and your money is safe with them in the bank. Just keep your savings that you might be needing anytime soon in the bank and invest the rest in cryptos.
Indeed. Crypto is too volatile right now especially compared to the banks, though this might change in the future, banks are still useful for now.
Try?Some banks in Western Europe have the negative interest rate on deposit. While you hold own money in this banks they melt. Excellent holding, isn't? Yes, I use banks for everyday payments. But for holding - no!
Jump to: