4 ms·
As a potential client, I want a simple scheme to protect my wealth. I don't want to rely on keys, or crytography. I see no such thing akin to the FDIC. Why w
by smrtinsert 14y ago
As a potential client, I want a simple scheme to protect my wealth. I don't want to rely on keys, or crytography. I see no such thing akin to the FDIC. Why would I trust bitcoin? Also, why couldn't another digital currency simply obviate its existence?
I'm not arguing for it or against it, I agree with you that it is fascinating. However, my casual observation is that the pro and con of being in the wild wild west is that you are in the wild wild west.
- baddox 14y agoMy mind is boggled by the implication that the FDIC is in any way simpler than bitcoin.
- Jtsummers 14y agoThe implication is not that the FDIC is simpler than bitcoin. The implication is that there's little in the way of security with bitcoin. Which is as per the design. You lose your wallet/key, you lose your money. There's no way to insure against that loss (at least not 100%), otherwise half of all circulating BTC would be in an insurer's accounts.
- baddox 14y ago> There's no way to insure against that loss Sure there is. Someone can sell insurance, and you can choose to pay for it. > (at least not 100%) Perhaps not, but I wouldn't call the FDIC's insurance "100%" either. I doubt it would take very many simultaneous bank runs for problems to arise, even with the FDIC. > otherwise half of all circulating BTC would be in an insurer's accounts I'm not sure why half of all BTC would need to be in insurers' accounts, and I'm not sure why that would be an inherent problem even if it were the case.
- msellout 14y ago> Sure there is. Someone can sell insurance, and you can choose to pay for it. Some assumptions: 1. Bitcoin insurance is a viable business; 2. People will trust the insurer.