8 ms·

The difference is that with those services, you can always close your account and switch to a new one ( that's why I've specified to avoid using them as your pr

The difference is that with those services, you can always close your account and switch to a new one ( that's why I've specified to avoid using them as your primary wallet ) ... on the other hand, if a Bank goes bankruptcy, it's not that easy to recover your money.

jcater 10y ago
In what country? Certainly not the US for FDIC insured accounts. My bank went under in 2009 and I never lost access to money.
- tinkerrr 10y ago
  Did you have more than $250,000 in your account? If so, then you would have lost access to part of your money, or gotten if after a bankruptcy court hearing. Deposits are not the highest priority item on a bank's liability side of the balance sheet, and as a depositor, you'll likely not get paid in full.
  - giaour 10y ago
    That limit is per account, not per person. If you have more than $250K in an account, open a second one.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Not so. The limit is per depositor, per bank, per ownership category: https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/ https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/ Ownership category is just something like single, joint, retirement, etc. If you have more than $250,000 spread across multiple accounts but with the same account holder and ownership category, the excess is not covered.
      - fasteddie 10y ago
        Right, but easy enough to select a second bank. Let's also make a note that people with $250k+ in cash savings are a tiny group that should have no really bearing on whether cash is trustworthy.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Totally agreed, I just didn't want any clueless HNers with lots of cash lying around trying to open a second account to secure their money on the basis of that comment.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
drdaeman 10y ago
Still, saying that you don't accept the concept of trust is a weird statement, especially given that the next sentence ("I don't trust them") uses it ;) I think you still trust those services with your money in the same manner you trust classic banks - no real difference here, both can be used just for transfers and not keeping anything with them. Except for with banks it's really tiresome and inconvenient to load on demand and with Bitcoin it's nearly a one-tap experience.
CydeWeys 10y ago
I had money in a savings account at an FDIC-insured bank. It went under during the recent recession and there wasn't even a blip in my service -- all of the accounts were transparently migrated over to a new bank that the government had paid to take over the old accounts, while ensuring that all of the money that was supposed to be in those accounts actually was.
JBReefer 10y ago
What country are you in that this is true?

jcater 10y ago

In what country? Certainly not the US for FDIC insured accounts. My bank went under in 2009 and I never lost access to money.

tinkerrr 10y ago
Did you have more than $250,000 in your account? If so, then you would have lost access to part of your money, or gotten if after a bankruptcy court hearing. Deposits are not the highest priority item on a bank's liability side of the balance sheet, and as a depositor, you'll likely not get paid in full.
- giaour 10y ago
  That limit is per account, not per person. If you have more than $250K in an account, open a second one.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Not so. The limit is per depositor, per bank, per ownership category: https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/ https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/ Ownership category is just something like single, joint, retirement, etc. If you have more than $250,000 spread across multiple accounts but with the same account holder and ownership category, the excess is not covered.
    - fasteddie 10y ago
      Right, but easy enough to select a second bank. Let's also make a note that people with $250k+ in cash savings are a tiny group that should have no really bearing on whether cash is trustworthy.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Totally agreed, I just didn't want any clueless HNers with lots of cash lying around trying to open a second account to secure their money on the basis of that comment.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]

drdaeman 10y ago

Still, saying that you don't accept the concept of trust is a weird statement, especially given that the next sentence ("I don't trust them") uses it ;) I think you still trust those services with your money in the same manner you trust classic banks - no real difference here, both can be used just for transfers and not keeping anything with them. Except for with banks it's really tiresome and inconvenient to load on demand and with Bitcoin it's nearly a one-tap experience.

CydeWeys 10y ago

I had money in a savings account at an FDIC-insured bank. It went under during the recent recession and there wasn't even a blip in my service -- all of the accounts were transparently migrated over to a new bank that the government had paid to take over the old accounts, while ensuring that all of the money that was supposed to be in those accounts actually was.

JBReefer 10y ago

What country are you in that this is true?