If something happened to the blockchain, your key would be worthless. Much like a bank that got robbed.
Storing crypto currencies is also very expensive, at least for all popular ones. Proof of Work requires to chrun out hashes to secure the network from external threats and in the car of Bitcoin it costs billions each year. Compared to the relatively low number of users it's very expensive and resource intensive.
The fact is, you cannot touch crypto currency or take it home, you can just tell somebody else to move it to another vault. You cannot do it yourself unless you are lucky enough to mine the block with the transaction in it, which is futile unless you have a mining farm.
It's closer to a document than a physical key to a safe deposit box at a bank.
with bitcoin key you own the bitcoin and you always know (can trivially verify) that your bitcoin is there.
What you are talking about in regards to documents are scams. There have also been a plethora of scams in the crypto currency world. Making the distinction there is quite strange.
yes, thanks, that's exactly what current financial and banking system is - a gigantic scam. all you own is bunch of documents pinky-promising that your assets are there, except they are not.
and yes, if your private key is stolen - your asset is stolen, that's how real ownership of a digital asset works.
strange is you trying to equate ownership of IOUs, that make you entirely dependent on some third party, in terms of accessing your assets, and ownership of a private key, which is the only way anybody can ever access your assets.
I just wanted to have a discussion about the meta model of crypto currencies, you rather want to destroy the current bankingsystem instead.
nice try. my only agenda is to clear up the confusion in your mind about cryptocurrency ownership.
> you rather want to destroy the current bankingsystem
who said anything about destruction? i know full well that i will need to suffer through the scam of fractional reserve banking until i die. bitcoin is just a partial escape hatch.
> I just wanted to have a discussion about the meta model of crypto currencies
if you did, you wouldn't begin with logical fallacies and prejudice.
notice how you don't even respond anymore about ownership aspect, yet this was your central argument - that crypto is no different from gold in that aspect.
i'll just wait for you to actually address that central point - that will indeed signify if you want to have a discussion.
And if you lose your gold bar or coin, you also lose your gold.
Crypto seems more practical to own and trade.
Or do you mean owning a document that is backed by gold? Not the same is it?