Is your money safer in Crypto than at the bank?
This is a question that is simple as ABC because its more safer and profitable to safe in Crypto though it depends on the project
Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 91. (Read 9916 times)
I really love this discussion. In my own point of view, my bank is save for my money but in other side cryptocurrency is very dependable and very reliable to invest on but is not that save in terms of security.
It would be safer to keep your money in the microwave.
This is an interesting topic but choosing between a bank and having to keep the funds on your own could be based on some of these factors like....
is it security you want, is it better interest rates you look for, are you tired of the bad service your bank gives you... all these are questions that need an answer when considering where to keep your funds but with financial regulations making your choice obvious you could keep some of your money with a bank and then the rest could be considered as an investment and stored in cryptos to avoid missing the investment opportunity of being an early adopter.
is it security you want, is it better interest rates you look for, are you tired of the bad service your bank gives you... all these are questions that need an answer when considering where to keep your funds but with financial regulations making your choice obvious you could keep some of your money with a bank and then the rest could be considered as an investment and stored in cryptos to avoid missing the investment opportunity of being an early adopter.
I'll decide that in the next four years bitcoin will not reach the price of $ 250,000. This can not be even under ideal conditions. Moreover, this is excluded due to the fact that bitcoin is very sensitive to all negative news about the crypto currency. In fact, it's not bitcoin that reacts that way, and alarmists, at the slightest threat to the price of bitcoins in order to save their investment, immediately begin selling their bitcoins. In addition, a significant part of bitcoin holders will sell their bitcoins only because they will consider that a particular price of bitcoin is the limit for them, or because they will simply need large amounts of money. An example of this can serve as a story with Mt. Gox from Tokyo, which is said to have sharply lowered the rate of bitcoin in December last year, selling three batches of more than 20,000 bitcoins. The same situation will be repeated very often in the future.
Proceeding from this, I prefer to periodically take profit from the crypto currency and place it on deposit storage in banks.
Proceeding from this, I prefer to periodically take profit from the crypto currency and place it on deposit storage in banks.
While if considered from a legal point of view, the bank is more secure for money. But changes in the law, which recognizes cryptocurrency as an asset will solve this problem
I would not say that. I would phrase it like this: Money in crypto-currencies can give you the opportunity to earn a month more than in a bank in a few years. The truth and the risks are higher. But who does not risk that does not go to the Ferrari.
This is dependent on individuals. We may view it from different perspectives, but i feel it is safer based on how you handle it. If you intend saving your money in crypto, you will have to put some measures in place and be careful in handling it, because in this case you are in control of your own, instead of your someone else managing it for you and collecting bank charges from you. I just feel it makes you free and be in charge.
Practically for me,its more safer in banks,because in there our funds is physically investednd secured but the thing is with only a small amount of interest that we can get,while in crypto our funds is virtual and has a big chance of gaining because of volatility..but the risk is largely compared to banks
My money is safer in bank than crypto. Crypto is full of uncertainty and the market can be bearish for a long time without even breaken even to the initial price you purchase your coins. Banks, are safe to keep funds for liquidity purpose, yet the interest is not great as in crypto.
Crypto assumes many effective protection measures. But still it is inferior to classical banks in terms of security, although it can be much more profitable financially.
i think so. unless you use a safe and uninfected device and unless you dont share your private key with anyone it is safer than banks. and also crypto is based on a much more user friendly and transparent technology.
Well sad to say but I don't think that money in crypto currencies is safer than bank. Banks are my number 1 least trusted things in real life but anyways crypto is very dangerous to swim in, you can easly get hacked and police support is weak!
Yep. I also agree that bank is safer than crypto but only state bank 
). There are so many private banks and a lot of people lost their money in these banks because of so many reasons. In crypto, last month, there was a big amount of cryptocurrency hacked and all of them transferred to 1 ETH wallet )) 
Well sad to say but I don't think that money in crypto currencies is safer than bank. Banks are my number 1 least trusted things in real life but anyways crypto is very dangerous to swim in, you can easly get hacked and police support is weak!
I think that it is safer to keep money in the bank. With competent and reasonable investment, the crypto currency gives you the opportunity to earn a very high income. You can split equally between the bank and the crypto currency.
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
I think both entities are safe place for storing our hard earned money. For discussion purpose I think money is safer in banks. Money deposited in banks is secure by insurance on the other hand BTC doesn’t have that features.
For me it is much safe in bank because internet is too risky and threatening. Tho there is also a disadvantage in bank but there are more way to loss money using internet
Bank=More Safe, if you lose your money bank can make compensate.
Crypto=More profitable, you money can became double or maybe more.
Crypto=More profitable, you money can became double or maybe more.
The same amount of money you use for high interest rate account at the bank, if you seriously invest it at the right time in crypto, you will gain far over the one at the bank. The only risk involved is that if you suffer any loss, you don't have anyone to hold responsible for your loss but at the bank anything can be traced. Just that the way banks operate recently is unreliable. You send money, the recipient does not receive and your account is debited yet for ages no retrieval of fund. So no where is really safe. You take the risk as it depends on you.
Money is safer in banks, and it will always be. Nothing beats a bank when it comes to security, but if talk about the rate of interest, well money grows real fast in crypto investment. And also, high rate of interest = high risk. So be careful to think first before investing.
Jump to: