This is preposterous. Bitcoin is more traceable, more transparent and more censorship prone than every form of currency conveyance we know of including cash, diamonds, physical gold, etc… The fact that’s 2024 and some people still believe Bitcoin enables privacy just goes to show how crypto enthusiasts are candy brained fanatics.
To add to this, I also anecdotally know many more people who lost Bitcoin due to bad key management or keeping their Bitcoin in a platform that failed instead of cold storage. I don't personally know a single person whose money disappeared from their bank account for no reason.
I too know far more people who lost Bitcoin due to mistakes, or negligence or such.
But I also know quite a lot of people who lost a lot of money in the 2018 banking crisis. So I highly doubt your really don't personally know a single person who lost money this way.
> But I also know quite a lot of people who lost a lot of money in the 2018 banking crisis. So I highly doubt your really don't personally know a single person who lost money this way.
That’s like saying I know people who lost money due to Bitcoin volatility due to massive crashes. Losing money in the 2018 banking crisis was a result of your property value falling and thus your mortgage was underwater, not because money in the bank itself disappeared in some way.
You basically brought up something totally unrelated to the common failure modes of Bitcoin being discussed about a totally unrelated industry (2018 banking crisis was not about personal banking issues but about a massive credit crunch in bank investment arms due to speculative losses that rippled out into other markets)
I can’t find any story that customers lost their deposits. Europe like the US has insurance similar to FDIC so that shouldn’t happen. Any news stories to corroborate your claim?
How did people lose money in the 2018 banking crisis? My understanding is that bank deposits were fully insured in that crisis--whether or not they exceeded FDIC insurance limits.
Not everyone lives in the US. The US is not the world, but the 2018 crisis was worldwide.
Here's two (edit: three) of several use-cases in which friends and people I know, in a western European country, lost money.
A couple who signed the contracts of a house suddenly couldn't access their savings on (DSB, some local bank), a bank that went bankrupt. Eventhough they eventually got their money, after nearly a year, they lost the contract, had to pay big fines (some of which they got back after long legal battles).
A friend with a lot of money, way over €100k, in a savings many from the sale of a company meant for his early pension, lost everything above that guaranteed €100k when his bank (IceSave) failed. He still has a royal pension (I'd call him rich). But he no longer had access to his dream of a yacht and villa in the meditereanean. While you may think "I don't care of some rich guy lost money", and while I can understand that thought, he did lose money. He lost more than I'll probably end up with in my pension.
A couple in my parent's street had to sell their house because of their bad mortgage. It probably was bad to begin with, but suddenly that mattered. They had to sell that house for far less than they would've gotten without the enforcement - I know the guy who scooped it up in the auction and know how much higher he sold it a year later without any significant improvements made. What's more, the couple then had to move (costly) and rent (under pressure, so not much room to say "no" to too expensive or bad places) for way too much.
My dad lost nearly his entire "investment mortgage", which was for his pension too. He is doing fine and it was a mortgage on only a small part of the house, but the portfolio went almost worthless within months.
And so on. There are quite some stories of people who lost a lot.
Sure, that's different from "I lost my bank-card, now my whole account is gone", or "I forgot my PIN and cannot ever access my pension ever again".
But to say that no-one ever lost any money in the "traditional banking system" due to neglect or poor management is simply not true. It's simply on a different scale - but the outcome is on a very personal scale nontheless.
Why is this "preposterous"? I never mentioned privacy, and certainly never claimed bitcoin provides it.
Also, bitcoin never claimed to enable privacy (contrary to monero and zcash). All it ever claimed was to be pseudonymous. It has been crystal clear to anyone in the field that "if people can link your addresses to your person, they know all your transactions". In fact, this has often been presented as a feature (though I personally don't really think it is a good one) in which e.g. all payments to and by a politician or NGO can be transparantly tracked by the public.
Almost a third of that chapter is explaining the shortcomings and caveats of the system.
> Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input
transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk
is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to
the same owner.
The Canada trucker protests are proof that the government can easily stop transfers even if they can't size the actual asset (which I would like to point out, they technically cannot legally do that with bank account either).
The whole thing is just postulating about a hypothetical then getting mad when it's completely wrong.
The "You cant stop our unstoppable money" to "it's disgusting that you have the power to stop our unstoppable money" pipeline
