3 ms·
Good point. Having a strong 3rd party intermediary moderating/backing transactions is a feature not a bug. This is why people bank with JP Morgan and similar
by djyaz1200 9y ago
Good point. Having a strong 3rd party intermediary moderating/backing transactions is a feature not a bug. This is why people bank with JP Morgan and similar huge banks. Although they charge fees you do get something for the money. They are governed by laws, have physical locations, people to talk to, fraud prevention and raw financial, legal, and regulatory power. I have no love for them but I believe they will guard my money effectively.
- chrisco255 9y agoDid 2008 teach us nothing?
- michaelchisari 9y agoBy cryptocurrency standards, 2008 was any given Tuesday.
- mjmj 9y agoTrusting banks, not comparing crashes.
- abakker 9y ago2008 was not really a question of trusting banks in a way that our savings were harmed. It was more that our investments were harmed. Separating bank liability for either of those things is hard, but it is not a simple case to assign all the blame on them.
- vkou 9y agoThe problem in 2008 was the investment, not the deposit arm of banks. Bitcoin has had problems with both the investment, and the deposit arms. Most ICOs are pure fraud, and i've lost count of the number of robbed exchanges.
- ftlio 9y agoYou're probably referring to a strong 3rd party intermediary as the aggregate of our financial system when you refer to its regulatory power here, but that it reads like the bank itself has regulatory power is the critique of money provided by Bitcoin in a nutshell. Regulatory capture IS the problem of scalability with our monetary system. Bitcoin exists to prove this.