Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 88. (Read 9916 times)
I think that for financial matters it is safer to be kept in bank unless digital currency is used for long term investments
Both are okay,it just depends on the one your mind can handle
I think it's safer to keep the money in the bank but it's more profitable to invested in the crypto currency market !
I agree it's better to save a tons of money in bank than in crypto wallet but that's true its profitable to invest in the crypto market than to other investment because in bank or other invest is you cannot get a more than to 5% of profit but in crypto there's a possible you earn a 100%profit it depends to where you invest. 
I am fully confident that the Bank money is more reliable than bitcoin. you need to understand that bitcoin can earn much more than just by investing your money in the Bank. if you are willing to risk, then you need to invest in bitcoins, if you do not like to risk, then you need to put your money in the Bank.
Money in crypto, when the market is right, is potentially safer in that your potential earnings are high but it is instable and insecure. Inaction is still an action, when you don't invest you are gambling just as much as when you do. But keeping it in fiat is safer in the sense of stability and security. We all know that the dollar isn't going to change in value that much.
keeping money in the Bank is safer - there is less risk that you lose them.
Although I do not trust banks, my country's cryptographic market has been banned, so funds can only be deposited in banks. I expect the cryptocurrency to be legal. But at the moment I still will xuanze...
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
A lot of stuff that is worrying about the banks. That they got a bailout with taxpayer money, most likely triggered the the invention of bitcoin. Today it looks like the game of the USD as world lead and reserve currency might be up at some stage. Also the US has overspent on everything pretty much since the end of WW2. Also there is rumors, that Deutsche Bank is in trouble. If that turns out to be true, it will be 2008 all over again. The question is, if taxpayers will still be willing to foot the bill for mismanagement in the banks and trust is already low towards banks anyway. It might make crypto with the regards to its currency and value storage function a lot more popular much more quickly. I think the safest places for money right now is crypto, real estate and silver coins.
Deutsche Bank is not the only one in trouble but the fact that they are is worrying, it's the biggest investment bank worldwide. Recently it was announced that their profits are lower than some crypto exchanges which seems unreal. If people would understand better how our fractional reserve banking system works there would be many more people in crypto. Just do some research and you will realize how little reserves banks have. It is very concerning but most people never question the status quo of established institutions. The next banking crisis might be more severe than anything we have seen in the last decades. This time there is no bailout possible as all governments are in large dept and one bank after the other will fail and close down.
Omg, of course not! Crypto currency is a huge risk. Just imagine that at one point all people will want to exchange their coins back for money, and you'll miss this moment and lose everything! You can not invest in big money and just forget about them, you need constant control!
Right, people should know that investing in crypto is a very risks. We just invest only of willing to lose because of the unstable price. We might win some or lose some, banks is also good to save our money as this is little risks than crypto. 
Omg, of course not! Crypto currency is a huge risk. Just imagine that at one point all people will want to exchange their coins back for money, and you'll miss this moment and lose everything! You can not invest in big money and just forget about them, you need constant control!
I believe that in the bank my money is just losing its price. Since the inflation rate is much higher than the bank's%. And when my money is depreciated, then this is the biggest risk. And in crypto, I can increase my money several times.
The whole topic is where are the money safe, not where are the money increasing.
When investing here you can increase your investment, but you can lose it too.
For storing money, bank is the best, because they have experience of doing so and they are controlled very well. Your money are guaranteed by the government as well.
A good question, see the investment of the crypto currency is a long-term investment that will justify itself only after a certain time and it is worth waiting for a certain period, as well as it is fashionable
bank is safer compared to crypto and if there is a problem in the bank we can report them to authorities. crypto is secure in terms of holding your money but because it is not stable you may earn or lose profit.
in any case for 100% of the security of your funds in the Internet on the crypto currency, and in the banking system. But each of us uses what is advantageous and better for him. 
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.
Agree. If you're not tech savvy enough to properly secure your cryptocurrencies, then your best bet to keep your money safe would be a bank. Since banks are regulated financial institutions, you can rest assured that your money will be safe no matter what happens. In contrast, since cryptocurrencies are largely unregulated, anyone can steal your money and there's no turning back once the hacker gets access to your money. The irreversibility of transactions, and lack of KYC/AML compliance, makes it hard for anyone to claim back their funds.
However, those who're wise wouldn't store their cryptocurrencies in online wallets, exchanges, and even hot wallets for security. Depending always on hardware wallets such as the Ledger Nano S or Trezor, as well as cold storage like paper wallets, will make the hacker's life troublesome to attempt to steal your funds. As such, depending on how well you secure your cryptocurrency funds, your money would be practically impenetrable from external interference.
Nevertheless, both banks and cryptocurrencies are safe methods on securing your money. It would all depend on the user's needs whenever he/she want to obtain freedom over his/her money, or protection with regulatory compliance by using a bank account to secure the money. Just my opinion
bank is safer compared to crypto and if there is a problem in the bank we can report them to authorities. crypto is secure in terms of holding your money but because it is not stable you may earn or lose profit.
If be honest i don't think so. in my opinion my money in bank will more safety than in crypto.
Keeping money in the Bank is a risk, an even greater risk to keep money in cryptocurrency, because the market is unstable. It is better to invest in real estate, but everything depends on the country and the city.
In my country, cryptocurrency transactions are completely banned. Although our money continues to depreciate, we do not seem to have a safer place than the bank. Therefore, people's consumption and investment tend to be high. I hope my government can change its view on cryptocurrency.
I think nowdays money are safer in crypto, but only because possibilities of stealing by hackers. When people can protect their cryptoassets better, then crypto will be a lot better than banks.
maybe for me personally about the security of your money is definitely his place in the bank, because the consistency is in the bank, but to earn and expect future earnings can invest in crypto it is very profitable and promising.
Jump to: