(1) is true: everybody gets hacked. But the risk distribution between traditional banking and bitcoin are totally different.
In traditional banking, when accounts are compromised, hackers win, banks lose, standard consumers don't win or lose anything: they remain as before and don't have to worry about it.
In the bitcoin economy, when accounts are compromised, hackers win, standard consumers users lose, and banks are unchanged.
To me, that is the story. The average Citi customer doesn't have to fight off the global collective IQ of the hacker community. Citi bears that risk for them. But they do have that job if they use bitcoins.
The gratuitous insults from the Aspy-types here are just icing on the cake. Thankfully, not eveyone here is so callous.
(Full disclosure: I have yet to lose any BTC, but I do empathize with the posters here who've lost absurd sums of money to hackers.)
Ah, so it is okay and dandy that we print money to cover the loss, versus being anti-inflationary. Tell me why you use bitcoin again? Oh, and the average Citi customer doesn't fight off hackers, true -- they rely on Citi's IT department to do it for them. And when they fail....
It isn't an insult, its reality. I don't go into the bar after being mugged expecting people to buy me a drink and go "Awwwwww" when I've lost money. Maybe because I'm self-reliant and accept the responsibilities of my mistakes and actions. (Taking that dark alleyway shortcut when I should've known better.)
People who can't own up to the fact that they royally 'effed up, then come here for sympathy really don't deserve any.
