Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 95. (Read 9916 times)
ıt is definitely more secure than the banker. you do not have to give a bunch of people extra. and I'm telling you the best part about it. approach: YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE YOURSELF ONLY !!!
the money will be safe at the bank. Crypto has too much risk to save money. but of course the money in the bank won't be able to accrue, and crypto is a great place to develop the assets even though the risks are also great.
Bank is much more safer tham the crypto but if you want yoir money to double or triple why not go to the crypto itself but keeping your money at a bank is may depend on what country that you are onto
In fact, in my country, the fact that funds are placed in banks may not necessarily be safe, but people do not have better choices. I believe that the investment in Bitcoin will be even more profitable, but it is still the most secure and remains to be discussed.
in my mind. banks are safer than crypto but more profitable in crypto if you keep your savings there .. and on the other hand, I have to admit that I usually do not think that crypto is safer. because I also still do not know.
I don't think Crypto is safer thank bank. I think banks are more safer than ohers. in crypto the money will be doubled or tripled but here the risk is very high. The value may fluctuate.
Majority of people says that the safest way where we want to put our money are on the banks rather than putting our money on crypto. But if we think which are the better one that forms high value of profits returns, without a doubt, the better one is crypto business. So, it depends on how people decide their life which they want to choose to put their money. But for me, it is better to put my money in crypto, because cryptocurrency business is a life changer, and without a doubt many people became millionaire because of investing on crypto. But investing on crypto is not easy, because we must used a good strategies and knowledge with good timing on which the exact time to invest and the exact time to sell our crypto stocks.
safety in term of what !
If you have bitcoin no one can take that money from as long as you own your private key, but the value of your coin is not save since the price can go up or down (volatility is high ).
If you put money in bank, its value is kinda stable, but for any reason they can take your money.
If you have bitcoin no one can take that money from as long as you own your private key, but the value of your coin is not save since the price can go up or down (volatility is high ).
If you put money in bank, its value is kinda stable, but for any reason they can take your money.
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
In my own opinion, banks is safer than cryptocurrency because they have your credentials while bitcoins stored only in a wallet that can be penetrated by hacker but the advantage is the market, you can always invest a huge amount and earn profit depending on the state volatility of the market.
Honestly OP, your posting way to many paragraphs in this thread, I bet only a few have read it to the end. Others may just be posting a comment to answer the topic subject. Better post a query with minimal words or lines not a long one.
Anyway, as been posted by purplefinder in a post by Gemcrypto below regarding crytoscared people, it is one of the few honest opinion about fiat we are using. Those fiat don't really have the paper money to support or back their issued checks, this is their way to usher in more investors but they don't really have the cap.
Having said that, in that lens it is then safer to invest in crypto rather than in banks. But we should be aware that there are pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, crypos also have theirs.
Only that banks have been institutionalized, and cryptos are not. Hence, the more trust in banks.
Anyway, as been posted by purplefinder in a post by Gemcrypto below regarding crytoscared people, it is one of the few honest opinion about fiat we are using. Those fiat don't really have the paper money to support or back their issued checks, this is their way to usher in more investors but they don't really have the cap.
Having said that, in that lens it is then safer to invest in crypto rather than in banks. But we should be aware that there are pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, crypos also have theirs.
Only that banks have been institutionalized, and cryptos are not. Hence, the more trust in banks.
If the security problem I think in the bank more secure, because to access the money we need a lot of layers of security until finally really withdraw money
But with cryptocurrency one can get all the funds or assets that exist, only with private key only
But with cryptocurrency one can get all the funds or assets that exist, only with private key only
if talking security to save money then I prefer the bank because in our bank avoid the hack that several months is a lot happening in cryptocurrency but if want to make our money more then I will choose cryptocurrency place most appropriate
I think bank is safiest place for my money but i like crypto too because you dont need to bring atm or money if do you have digital wallet then you can buy anything you with out cash and atm cards.
Cryptocurrency is more secure than banks because you need no second person to save your money. You are the banks with your wallet. How much you can save. You can back up your with pharaprase in your mind when you lost all the device. Brain wallet is magic. Back up wallet with your mind. When your asset of hardware burnt, you still can recover with pharaprase.
Crypto is not about safety. If you have your money in a bank, the bank is the custodian of your money and you have legal warranties. If you have your money in crypto you are the only responsible for it. You need to know very well about how to store your crypto securely and even so, you will not be totally safe. However, crypto is about independence and freedom, this is what crypto is about.
No, not really. Keeping your money in a bank is a lot safer but don't expect your money to grow there. Know that keeping your money as cryptpcurrencies have corresponding risks. It may be under a blockchain technology but there are expert hackers out there that can access your wallets. Hacking is more evident in cryptos because most of us just have private keys for our wallets. Not all are into ledgers or trezors. Although hacking can also be possible in banks, it is unlikely that a large group of people get hacked at the same time.
Speaking about security like bank robbery, crypto is more safe when you referring to storing your investment because crypto is not physical and it is harder to transfer cash unlike money in the bank where the physical cash is readily available. Hack proof is a myth, bank and storing crypto online is prone to hackers attack. For insurance like bankruptcy, bank is more secure because it has a depositors' insurance where crypto does not guarantee to have an insurance.
I think it's safer in crypto than at the bank, it's because if we never open phising site or share our private key of wallet, it won't get hack by anyone, but unles bank, they are taking your money from bank interest, and it has the risk to collapse too
For me our money is safer when its on the bank. Because when we put our money in crypto. We don't know what will happen. Cryptos keeps on moving and it is so unpredictable.
Crypto is much safer coz they involves in blockchain while banks has their own system and it's very easy to hack. However the crypto price increase and decrease because of the people's demand.
For me it is safe to store money in banks since crypto online wallet are prone to hackers. But investing money, we can all say that crypto will do more profit than in banks.
Jump to: