Why trusting code is better than trusting banks

[Ishicryptic]

The main reason why I trust Bitcoin over bank's is that it is decentralized while banks are centralized, it means that Bitcoin Blockchain is very transparent, you can track any Bitcoin transactions but you can only track your own bank transactions. Banks makes money from your deposits with them but nobody can touch your Bitcoin in the Blockchain so Bitcoin is more secured than fiat where a bank that holds fiat custody can go bankrupt. Bitcoin is the best thing that happened in finance so far, it's limited supply stands it out from fiat that can be reprinted and prone to inflation. You have more than one reason to trust holding Bitcoin, it's a hedge against inflation and a store of value.

[DanWalker]

I don't think it's that easy to get your money back with the bank, if you get scammed or get a virus and you lose some money from your account because of that, you can't get your money back by reporting it to the bank and asking them to refund it, because the bank will only process the refund if the error is from the system or negligence of the bank, not because of the user's error, even in some cases when it is the bank's error but they shift the error to the user. so don't think too much that you can rely on the bank in matters like this, instead they can frustrate you because of the long claim process, complicated bureaucracy, and the results that are actually useless for reporting.

Getting your money back from the bank may not be easy and depends on what the cause is. But at least you still have a chance to get your money back by complaining, requesting or even if the fault lies entirely with the bank. You can sue and the law will be able to protect and seek justice for you. Whereas with bitcoin, the chances of getting your money back are almost zero, regardless of the reason behind it.

Both banks and bitcoin have their own pros and cons. Banks are not perfect but neither is bitcoin, it is not as perfect as you think.

[nemesis_incarnate]

The main reason why I trust Bitcoin over bank's is that it is decentralized while banks are centralized, it means that Bitcoin Blockchain is very transparent, you can track any Bitcoin transactions but you can only track your own bank transactions. Banks makes money from your deposits with them but nobody can touch your Bitcoin in the Blockchain so Bitcoin is more secured than fiat where a bank that holds fiat custody can go bankrupt. Bitcoin is the best thing that happened in finance so far, it's limited supply stands it out from fiat that can be reprinted and prone to inflation. You have more than one reason to trust holding Bitcoin, it's a hedge against inflation and a store of value.

The main thing there is to be vigillant for your own actions.

You either accept that part of your custody is someone else's business or you guard it yourself harshly enough, or suffer the consequences.

[shield132]

We’ve trusted banks with money but they sometimes fail us.Bitcoin doesn’t rely on people It relies on code and math. Its supply is fixed and transactions are public. The rules are clear and can’t be easily changed unlike banks. This make them transparent over banking institutions

Would you trust code more than banks?

I don't trust banks to store my money because in my country, there was an accident when even the government-owned bank stole money from people three decades ago. When it comes to payments of a small amount of money, I prefer banks because they are very easy, fast and convenient. When it comes to a large amount of money, banks are always risky, as they might ask you lots of questions and creating such transactions can become unpleasant. When it comes to spending a large amount of money and keeping it in a wallet, Bitcoin is hands down the best option in both cases.

[Satofan44]

Can't blame you to think that way since actually many people actually losing their trust on banks. Since it seems that they prioritize profit over their costumer protection that's why I'm afraid to put all my savings in that in institution.

Many? No. Whining on the internet or complaining to your friends and family does not actually constitute a loss of trust. Only when you take real proactive action can we say that you have actually lost trust in something. Imagine saying that you lost trust in a caregiver of your children, you suspect he could be dangerous, and then tomorrow you proceed to leave your kid with him again. What kind of stupid "loss of trust" is this? Vanity posturing for social media perhaps.

Furthermore, numbers matter. When going from, e.g., 1M to 10M people that is a lot more people losing trust in something. However, in the overall picture it is meaningless as the number 10M is completely insignificant in a world with more than 7B people.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also I don't trust their digital platforms since security is growing concern and they are so slow paying attention on the issues of their client. The downtime we experience is so long and that's frustrating that's why its good that Bitcoin is available since we can use it anytime we want without getting bothered by any legal entities.

Most hacks through the digital methods are the result of a wrongdoing by the customer and not by the bank. Usually they install a malicious app, download some malware and so forth. Then they blame the bank for getting hacked.

So, these two systems are very different, so code and bank are two different problems.

Yes, but you have missed the point of this thread. Trust assumptions of entirely different systems with different features, needs and requirements can be compared.

Bitcoin blockchain and bank system are different systems with biggest difference are: decentralization vs centralization; and irreversible transactions vs reversible transactions.

With Bitcoin blockchain, your transaction is safe and secure if it was confirmed (at least 1 confirmation) while with bank, your bank transfer can be reversed by banks any time.

Another difference is risk of fund freeze that is only possible with money in bank accounts while with bitcoin in Bitcoin non-custodial wallets, noone can freeze your bitcoins.

None of this is related to the thread, and you are wrong in the details. All Bitcoin transactions can be reverted, they are never irreversible no matter the number of confirmations. Furthermore, bank transfers can not be reversed "any time" either.

[colinistheman]

Honestly, I wouldn’t fully trust either code or banks — at least not blindly. Both have strengths, but both come with their own sets of risks.

Banks can fail because they’re run by people, and people make mistakes, get greedy, or face political pressure. We’ve seen banks collapse, freeze withdrawals, mismanage funds, or get bailed out at the expense of regular customers. That definitely hurts trust.

But trusting code blindly isn’t the answer either. Code is written by humans, audited by humans, and can have bugs, exploits, or unintended behavior.

You're right, everything has risks. Both banking and code have their own advantages and disadvantages, neither is absolutely secure. Banks may go bankrupt or fail, but at least they have existed for centuries. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has been considered untouchable for the past 16 years, but there's no guarantee it will remain so forever. Is there any guarantee that Bitcoin will not be attacked or replaced by a new technology in the future? Therefore, the right thing to do is not to completely trust and rely solely on banks or code, but instead to diversify.

[Muba20]

We’ve trusted banks with money but they sometimes fail us.Bitcoin doesn’t rely on people It relies on code and math. Its supply is fixed and transactions are public. The rules are clear and can’t be easily changed unlike banks. This make them transparent over banking institutions

Any bank or financial institution run by one or more regulators, based on whose principles the bank's operations are conducted. Those one or more individuals can be controlled by the government or politicians. These institutions can never do everything they want. But in the case of Bitcoin, the matter is completely different. No one is its controller in any way. Even if the most powerful individual in the world wants to do, he cannot bring Bitcoin under their control in any way. Where there is no regulator, there is no question of transparency.

If you keep money in a bank, you may lose that money after holding for long time if those banks are not managed properly, but in the case of Bitcoin, there is no such concern where long-term investors are more likely to benefit.

[hero_the_bossman]

Honestly, I wouldn’t fully trust either code or banks — at least not blindly. Both have strengths, but both come with their own sets of risks.

Banks can fail because they’re run by people, and people make mistakes, get greedy, or face political pressure. We’ve seen banks collapse, freeze withdrawals, mismanage funds, or get bailed out at the expense of regular customers. That definitely hurts trust.

But trusting code blindly isn’t the answer either. Code is written by humans, audited by humans, and can have bugs, exploits, or unintended behavior.

You're right, everything has risks. Both banking and code have their own advantages and disadvantages, neither is absolutely secure. Banks may go bankrupt or fail, but at least they have existed for centuries. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has been considered untouchable for the past 16 years, but there's no guarantee it will remain so forever. Is there any guarantee that Bitcoin will not be attacked or replaced by a new technology in the future? Therefore, the right thing to do is not to completely trust and rely solely on banks or code, but instead to diversify.

We need to choose the best options in our own situation from both worlds if needed, imo.

But I do think that BTC will not become irrelavant for at least the decades to come.

[Satofan44]

You're right, everything has risks. Both banking and code have their own advantages and disadvantages, neither is absolutely secure. Banks may go bankrupt or fail, but at least they have existed for centuries.

Your post is completely wrong on several levels and in many different ways. None of what you wrote is true, and the comparison is outright dumb -- not malicious because you don't have the brain capacity to create something like that. Banks have existed for centuries? Wrong. Banking as a concept has been around for centuries, this has nothing to do with individual banks. It is akin to saying money has been around for centuries, so the US dollar won't fail. Furthermore, very few banks have existed for a long period in time (centuries) -- and if they did -- they are either small, had substantial changes since then or they are irrelevant for the majority of people. The majority of people are banked with very young banks.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin has been considered untouchable for the past 16 years, but there's no guarantee it will remain so forever.

This is not an argument. Everything has existed for some period of time, there is no guarantee that it will remain to exist. Water is wet, brilliant display of posting quality.

Is there any guarantee that Bitcoin will not be attacked or replaced by a new technology in the future?

Is there any guarantee that you won't die tomorrow? Yes hypothetical scenarios of may and may not where possibilities always exist, can't be quantified and are generic are completely useless. This is not a valid argument in favor of banks, or whatever else that Bitcoin is superior to.

Therefore, the right thing to do is not to completely trust and rely solely on banks or code, but instead to diversify.

You can't diversify a way from Bitcoin with a "bank", therefore this is wrong too. Your response completely misses the point of the entire thread, but at least you get some money for shitposting. Right?

[JaredIbrahim]

We’ve trusted banks with money but they sometimes fail us.Bitcoin doesn’t rely on people It relies on code and math. Its supply is fixed and transactions are public. The rules are clear and can’t be easily changed unlike banks. This make them transparent over banking institutions

Would you trust code more than banks?

I get your point, and for a lot of things, yeah, I do trust the code more. The Bitcoin protocol is predictable. No bank can suddenly decide to dilute my savings by printing more of it. The transparency is a huge plus, too. But I'd add a caveat: you still have to trust yourself a lot more. Lose your seed phrase, send to a wrong address, or get scammed, and the code won't save you. It's a different kind of responsibility compared to trusting a bank's customer service.