Hacker News Reader

Comment by LordKano | Hacker News Reader

I'd assume not in a bank because any bank can fail at any moment and they are only insured by an instutition as flaky at the United States Treasury department. Governments collapse all the time just ask the Soviet Union. Right?

If you bank fails, you will be made whole with money from the FDIC. Money is fungible. Any money will do.

Data is not similarly fungible. There's no IT FDIC to replace your lost data with other data that's identical.

View on HN

Oh you can't trust the FDIC they are government insured. And governments collapse all the time. I gave an example. Like a I said there is only one safe place for your money. Thats in your own private bank that you build and maintain yourself.

When is the last time the FDIC failed versus the last time an online storage vendor folded?

Its true that FDIC has lost fewer deposits than S3 has lost objects, but as usual there is a caveat. There are 2,000,000,000,000 objects in S3. In order to make a comparison the FDIC would have to insure over 300 deposits for every man, woman, and child on the planet and maintain a failure rate of '0.000000001%' or The FDIC would have to operate in its current state continuously for many millennia without interruption. I don't get a sense that the contrarians here appreciate the numbers involved.

You're evading.

When was the last time the FDIC failed versus the last time an online storage vendor folded?

Anybody who remembers nirvanix is going to have the willies just reading this thread, those who were caught by it will see red.

Personally I think the risk that AWS fails is remote, but if I were to store a bunch of data with them I'd most definitely make sure that I would not be dependent on them. It would be a convenience at best, but never a dependency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com