People tends to put money into cryptos currency just for investment and not for saving mind, so a bank is a place for safeguarding of our money while Crypto is an investment avenue.
Investment carries risks along while saving in bank is the safest way of our money.
Topic: Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank? - page 98. (Read 9898 times)
I think my money is safer in crypto. Thanks to the crypto currency, you have the opportunity to personally manage your savings. When it comes to banks, then you essentially give them all their funds relying only on the trust in a particular bank. If the bank goes bankrupt, your savings will be lost. Crypto-currencies are designed to avoid such problems.
There is no unambiguous answer. Banks are also subject to hacker attacks. Money from a bank account can also disappear like coins in a cryptocurrency. The bank may go bankrupt and a crypto project may prove fraudulent. If there is a lot of money, it is better to invest them in different crypto projects and different banks. But I myself keep money in one bank. What I here advise. But the problems related to security are driving me crazy.
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
There is a difference between safe and investment growth. The banks ensures your Money is safe and the rate of volatility is not effective. But crypto gives you the opportunity to invest your money nd generate better returns.
your bankers use your money to invest in crypto
Here you need to decide what you want to do with your money. Save them that best Bank option is low income and very low risk. If you want to make money and look for a profit, then the cryptocurrency itself
The article and point you presented are quite good reference but again all of these are possibilities and in every financial transaction there's a risk. That's why bank are there to secure money. right now in terms of security banks ofcourse offer it the best, but in terms of the growth of investment crypto does it well. It's just that nothing will assure the safety of your money and you need to be very careful in your online transactions.
On the one hand, the most secure version of the cryptocurrency wallet is cold storage. An incredible level of security. But because of the high volatility and the unknown future of cryptocurrencies, your coins can simply devalue, and in fiat money inflation is not so bulky
very obvious security owned by the bank, the risk is also not there. but the saving in banks won't get a big profit. Save on crypto very risky lot. especially noticeable is the fluctuations. so the bank is safer.
What is the definition of safe here, for cryptousers have been constantly expounding the benefits of removing the need for banks altogether through cryptocurrencies, and that somehow makes this debate meaningless. That aside in a growing world full of change why would anyone want to secure cash that can be used as investment, and every investment comes with its own share of risks and profits, one that we are all willing to take.
People that are looking for safety are not ready to make money. They usually play it safe by getting ridiculous return on their investment and by so doing, they remain poor. Safety keeps you in poverty
Taking risk increase your potential for great wealth.
Taking risk increase your potential for great wealth.
I think it still safer to keep your money in a bank compared to crypto. In banks, there are paperworks and signatories, so whatever happens you have physical evidence that you put your money to them. Besides, you can go to your bank anytime you want to check the status of your money. But on the other hand, its more profitable to invest in crypto than in banks.
250,000$ is quite an over expectation in my eyes. Here people are worried that Bitcoin might never reach 20k again and you are talking about 250k. I don't agree with his statement. Banks are any day safer than Cryptos. In a rare circumstance if your bank account gets hacked, bank authorities will pay you for your losses.
On crypto market, if you ever get scammed, you would have to digest that fact and there is practically nothing that you will be able to do without it. This is one major factor which has not attracted as many investors into this market yet.
On crypto market, if you ever get scammed, you would have to digest that fact and there is practically nothing that you will be able to do without it. This is one major factor which has not attracted as many investors into this market yet.
I think it's safer to keep the money in the bank but it's more profitable to invested in the crypto currency market !
when it comes to money, it is safe to put it on the bank, because it is one of the safest and secured place for money, but if you want to invest or if you want to earn/ triple your money, then you should put it into crypto because its more profitable, but it has no assurance and too risky.
Both have risk and you will be shocked to see go bankrupt suddenly if everyone withdraw their money from the same banks at the same time
Most of the time our money is not there anymore since they might be investing or even losing an investment
Most of the time our money is not there anymore since they might be investing or even losing an investment
according to us if you want to get a bigger profit, for us better our money is stored in cryptocurrency, for us also very safe because it will be easier to earn better income, than we save in bank.
For me it is not safer. And when it comes to something that deals with money, nothing is safe. Investment is very risky. But it is fruitful. Fruitful meaning there is a great future or what we say profit in what we taking risk for. We should not look for risk that it brings. We should look forward on the outcome it brings.
In terms of security, crypto would be safer as long as you take the necessary measures to insure the security of funds like keeping it in a hardware wallet that no one will have access to except you and you alone have the copy of the private key and password. Even if someone will get the wallet, they wouldn't be able to access it because you hold the key to it.
If you keep your money in the bank then they have access to your money. I have seen so many news about accounts being deducted without the account holders knowing it and only discovering it when they check the balance. There is an insurance though in banks that is not existing when it comes to crypto. If you would just be careful then your money is safer in crypto than banks.
If you keep your money in the bank then they have access to your money. I have seen so many news about accounts being deducted without the account holders knowing it and only discovering it when they check the balance. There is an insurance though in banks that is not existing when it comes to crypto. If you would just be careful then your money is safer in crypto than banks.
Nothing is absolute. Every thing has its own risk. I appreciate Cryptos anonymity, but it does not guarantee absolute security.
If you're asking about which is safer, of course keeping it in the bank will be. Banks are insured which makes your money protected from fraud. Cryptocurrencies on the other hand isn't and if you get hacked, you'll lose your money.
Yeah it safe enough to have your asset in crypto, but there some risk you need to consider before move your fiat into crptocurrency, the value is not stable today you buy it at 100 usd tomorrow it can be 10. And you better ready if that happend or youll be broke af.
I was confused because you said yes it safe but you say there is a risks too therefore probably your answer is there is really a risk in which is the truth. Our money as investments is not really safe in Crypto because indeed due to price is unpredictable but in the bank it is 100% safe because it was guarded and insured but for safekeeping only not as an investments.
Jump to: