News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by qaq on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:07PM (#11654736)
"I do not accept their fees, they’re way too much high for the quality of service they give to you." So to fight this the author is paying Cashila.com/BitWage.com transaction fees and CryptoPay fees and takes on the exchange rate risk.

"I do not accept the concept of “trust”" Right Cashila.com/BitWage.com are operated by magic trustworthy unicorns.

Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by evilsocket on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:10PM (#11654746)
The difference is that with those services, you can always close your account and switch to a new one ( that's why I've specified to avoid using them as your primary wallet ) ... on the other hand, if a Bank goes bankruptcy, it's not that easy to recover your money.
Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by jcater on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:15PM (#11654763)
In what country? Certainly not the US for FDIC insured accounts. My bank went under in 2009 and I never lost access to money.
Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by tinkerrr on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:39PM (#11654871)
Did you have more than $250,000 in your account? If so, then you would have lost access to part of your money, or gotten if after a bankruptcy court hearing. Deposits are not the highest priority item on a bank's liability side of the balance sheet, and as a depositor, you'll likely not get paid in full.
Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by giaour on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:50PM (#11654913)
That limit is per account, not per person. If you have more than $250K in an account, open a second one.
Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by mikeash on Sunday May 08, 2016 @02:54PM (#11655209)
Not so. The limit is per depositor, per bank, per ownership category:

https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/

Ownership category is just something like single, joint, retirement, etc. If you have more than $250,000 spread across multiple accounts but with the same account holder and ownership category, the excess is not covered.

Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by fasteddie on Sunday May 08, 2016 @04:53PM (#11655769)
Right, but easy enough to select a second bank.

Let's also make a note that people with $250k+ in cash savings are a tiny group that should have no really bearing on whether cash is trustworthy.

Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by mikeash on Sunday May 08, 2016 @04:59PM (#11655800)
Totally agreed, I just didn't want any clueless HNers with lots of cash lying around trying to open a second account to secure their money on the basis of that comment.
Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by CydeWeys on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:26PM (#11654810)
I had money in a savings account at an FDIC-insured bank. It went under during the recent recession and there wasn't even a blip in my service -- all of the accounts were transparently migrated over to a new bank that the government had paid to take over the old accounts, while ensuring that all of the money that was supposed to be in those accounts actually was.
Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by drdaeman on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:26PM (#11654808)
Still, saying that you don't accept the concept of trust is a weird statement, especially given that the next sentence ("I don't trust them") uses it ;)

I think you still trust those services with your money in the same manner you trust classic banks - no real difference here, both can be used just for transfers and not keeping anything with them. Except for with banks it's really tiresome and inconvenient to load on demand and with Bitcoin it's nearly a one-tap experience.

Re:Living Only on Bitcoins by JBReefer on Sunday May 08, 2016 @01:31PM (#11654831)
What country are you in that this is true?