Hacker News Reader

Comment by djyaz1200 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

You'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.

Did 2008 teach us nothing?

By cryptocurrency standards, 2008 was any given Tuesday.

Trusting banks, not comparing crashes.

2008 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.

The 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com