3 ms·

The bank you use is in actual control of your money. They let you access your money on their terms. They reserve the right to revoke access to your money in man

by staunch 12y ago

The bank you use is in actual control of your money. They let you access your money on their terms. They reserve the right to revoke access to your money in many circumstances. You don't get to opt out of having a bank account in modern society. You get to choose from multiple banks that act almost identically. All of them record every thing you pay for. All of them store your data and make it available to thousands of employees and any two-bit hacker that ever breaches their security. A massive increase in personal freedom and personal privacy is all it took to convince me. I doubt it's an American thing, but maybe it's an easier sell here.

aspidistra 12y ago
You might get a massive increase in personal freedom and privacy from using bitcoin. But there is a difference between Pure Bitcoin, so-to-speak -- everyone is their own bank -- and a bitcoin-based service. On Circle's website, it states: "Keeping your money safe is our top priority." That suggests Circle, too, is in actual control of your money -- like the retail bank service they aim to improve. So how do you know the things you write -- recording transactions, storing your data, restricting access, hacker susceptibility -- won't apply here? My point is that faced between two choices where a consumer gives someone else control of their money, the traditional system in many places is so far ahead in terms of reach, convenience and regulation compliance that a startup has a lot of work to do.
pjc50 12y ago
All of them record every thing you pay for Unlike bitcoin, which records all of your transactions in a globally readable log? Bitcoin pseudonymity is weak unless you're very careful, and if people work out your wallet address(es) then you actually lose a lot of privacy. any two-bit hacker that ever breaches their security The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. For almost everyone, the bank computer is going to be more secure than their home PC.
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. This is very important. It is nice that a purely distributed system can essentially achieve non-reversible transaction, but that's not something that most people need. Most people need reversible transactions, where the reversibility is controlled by adaptable laws and regulations that are ultimately interpreted by other people.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Exactly. Distance selling is very hard, as money and purchase change hands asynchronously at a distance and the purchaser can't inspect beforehand. The potential for error and fraud (on both sides!) is high, and realistically this requires the intervention of third parties to investigate and arbitrate disputes.
- staunch 12y ago
  > Bitcoin pseudonymity is weak unless you're very careful... Compared with banks logging it all? > The personal data is somewhat vulnerable... That's the valuable thing! Money is a commodity that can be replaced. You can't undo a breach of privacy.
ZenPro 12y ago
I am not aware of many "two-bit hackers" compromising bank security. Bank security systems are designed and administered by people of the same calibre who design and administer many startups, including crypto-currency products. Do you think that an elite hacker cadre exists and those working in corporate environments suddenly are less effective? Nonsense.
- jnbiche 12y ago
  >Bank security systems are designed and administered by people of the same calibre who design and administer many startups, including crypto-currency products. Then why is it that I have frequently run across banks requiring a maximum 6- or 8-character password, and have never run across a startup -- Bitcoin or not -- with such poor security requirements?
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    Which banks specifically secure online data only using a 6 character password? Most banks, if not all, have BSI ISO27001 security certification and are accredited and administered by the pinnacle companies of the security industry. For comparison; HN has a multitude of threads listing the outrageous security practices of many crypto-currency related companies, some beyond start-up. You seem to think banking security is simply a bunch of guys in suits simply having a crack with a copy of ZoneAlarm and Kaspersky. Classic them v us ideas with a touch of Dunning-Kruger thrown in.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Yes and no; while the banks have avoided widespread compromise they often have weird password requirements or ham-fisted attempts to secure user's PCs with crapware like Trusteer Rapport: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/359617/is-hsbcs-security-software-more-trouble-than-its-worth http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/359617/is-hsbcs-security-so... For a while Santander's login system redirected my wife's account to a page with an expired HTTPS certificate. Then there's fun things like playing tetris or MITM attacks on the Chip and Pin terminals: http://www.saardrimer.com/sd410/pres/showandtell08.pdf http://www.saardrimer.com/sd410/pres/showandtell08.pdf (Obviously mtgox is worse, but my point is that banks tend to a proceduralist cargo-culty approach to security).

by staunch 12y ago

aspidistra 12y ago

You might get a massive increase in personal freedom and privacy from using bitcoin. But there is a difference between Pure Bitcoin, so-to-speak -- everyone is their own bank -- and a bitcoin-based service. On Circle's website, it states: "Keeping your money safe is our top priority." That suggests Circle, too, is in actual control of your money -- like the retail bank service they aim to improve. So how do you know the things you write -- recording transactions, storing your data, restricting access, hacker susceptibility -- won't apply here? My point is that faced between two choices where a consumer gives someone else control of their money, the traditional system in many places is so far ahead in terms of reach, convenience and regulation compliance that a startup has a lot of work to do.

pjc50 12y ago

All of them record every thing you pay for Unlike bitcoin, which records all of your transactions in a globally readable log? Bitcoin pseudonymity is weak unless you're very careful, and if people work out your wallet address(es) then you actually lose a lot of privacy. any two-bit hacker that ever breaches their security The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. For almost everyone, the bank computer is going to be more secure than their home PC.

nhaehnle 12y ago
The personal data is somewhat vulnerable, but the actual money is more secure. This is very important. It is nice that a purely distributed system can essentially achieve non-reversible transaction, but that's not something that most people need. Most people need reversible transactions, where the reversibility is controlled by adaptable laws and regulations that are ultimately interpreted by other people.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Exactly. Distance selling is very hard, as money and purchase change hands asynchronously at a distance and the purchaser can't inspect beforehand. The potential for error and fraud (on both sides!) is high, and realistically this requires the intervention of third parties to investigate and arbitrate disputes.
staunch 12y ago
> Bitcoin pseudonymity is weak unless you're very careful... Compared with banks logging it all? > The personal data is somewhat vulnerable... That's the valuable thing! Money is a commodity that can be replaced. You can't undo a breach of privacy.

ZenPro 12y ago

I am not aware of many "two-bit hackers" compromising bank security. Bank security systems are designed and administered by people of the same calibre who design and administer many startups, including crypto-currency products. Do you think that an elite hacker cadre exists and those working in corporate environments suddenly are less effective? Nonsense.

jnbiche 12y ago
>Bank security systems are designed and administered by people of the same calibre who design and administer many startups, including crypto-currency products. Then why is it that I have frequently run across banks requiring a maximum 6- or 8-character password, and have never run across a startup -- Bitcoin or not -- with such poor security requirements?
- ZenPro 12y ago
  Which banks specifically secure online data only using a 6 character password? Most banks, if not all, have BSI ISO27001 security certification and are accredited and administered by the pinnacle companies of the security industry. For comparison; HN has a multitude of threads listing the outrageous security practices of many crypto-currency related companies, some beyond start-up. You seem to think banking security is simply a bunch of guys in suits simply having a crack with a copy of ZoneAlarm and Kaspersky. Classic them v us ideas with a touch of Dunning-Kruger thrown in.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Yes and no; while the banks have avoided widespread compromise they often have weird password requirements or ham-fisted attempts to secure user's PCs with crapware like Trusteer Rapport: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/359617/is-hsbcs-security-software-more-trouble-than-its-worth http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/359617/is-hsbcs-security-so... For a while Santander's login system redirected my wife's account to a page with an expired HTTPS certificate. Then there's fun things like playing tetris or MITM attacks on the Chip and Pin terminals: http://www.saardrimer.com/sd410/pres/showandtell08.pdf http://www.saardrimer.com/sd410/pres/showandtell08.pdf (Obviously mtgox is worse, but my point is that banks tend to a proceduralist cargo-culty approach to security).