JP Morgan, 2FA and the Bitcoin space.

[Incryptex]

We think it would be safe to say that the traditional financial system has begun to take their security almost as serious as the Digital Currency space.  From the perspective of the Digital Currency industry we are all too familiar with sub-par security systems.  2-factor authentication comes to mind as a practice that everyone regards as standard around here.  It is not an inconvenience, it does not slow anyone down.  It provides for a very high level of security.  Multi-signature transactions are also a standard key control when moving any value, anywhere.  Why these two methodologies would be glossed over when managing your most valuable asset is beyond us to try to explain.

When developing a risk model there of course can be no 100% certainty.  However if you have reached a 99% level and the 1% can be quantified and insured against, then you have effectively mitigated 100% of the risk.  We read that JP Morgan spends $5 million per week or $250 million per year to guard against cyber security issues.  Although they have 83,000,000 clients to maintain across multiple businesses, their data was breached due to a server not employing the 2FA standard.  2FA is virtually a free implementation.

http://www.c[Suspicious link removed]m/id/102506520

We are inspired to know that our members take their security seriously.  Education is the key to understanding that a simple password does not cut it now-a-days, externally for users, or internally for systems operations.  We are very proud of the Incryptex's security initiatives and partners that have climbed on board the platform.

We hope the cyber security teams at Home Depot, Target, JP Morgan among countless others, might take a serious look as to what is going on in the Digital Currency space, where protecting sensitive data is paramount to operating any business.

The Incryptex Team

[paradoxal420]

What the fuck are you talking about? lmao TLDR

[Incryptex]

What the fuck are you talking about? lmao TLDR

Evidently nothing.  Suspicious link removed from CNBC, not welcome I guess.  Its a pretty profound statement of how security in the Digital Currency space operates and unfortunately the larger corporations don't quite understand what the rest of us regard as common sense.

[kolloh]

It is pretty amazing how many banks don't employ 2FA or offer the ability to use it though. I've even heard of some banks that make your password case INsensitive so people don't forget it. From a bank, that is crazy. You would expect them to put more thought into creating a secure system.

[Incryptex]

Again it is because the instrument that underwrites their businesses can be manufactured out of thin air with no cost or accountability.  They do not require 2FA because they feel it aggravates a person.  It is much more easier to have a case INsensitive password which is true.  If someone frauds the account and removes cash in some schema, they can simply 'reverse' a transaction.  They transfer the aggravation to the money system which has infinite printing capabilities with no auditor or oversight.  In fact Janet Yellen has "strongly advised against an audit of the Fed."  We all know there is a clear reason for this.

Most transactions are not reversible.  That is just a nice way to put it, kind of like "Federal Reserve" - it is not Federal and has no reserves.  What reversible actually means is, "we can use other methods eventually leading through our insurers and federal reserve banks, to print more."

In the Bitcoin space we do not have that luxury.  We must be accountable.  Actually 105% accountable.  Even Gold can be manufactured much easier than Bitcoin.

The banks are not evil.  The instruments that underwrite their business have masters who are in a race to a value of 0.  It is hard to build a business on that kind of foundation.  The banks enjoy the fruitfulness of that crazy exercise.