Yup.



A couple very different things going on. User-end wallet security, or custodial wallet security/insurance are in their infancy. Part of the problem here is that bitcoin got too much mainstream attention too early. Too many idiots stumbled into the ecosystem before adequate idiot-proofing had been developed. We'll get there; a lot of work has been done fast - from multisig, to standard 2FA, to hardware wallets.



You meant "insures" not "ensures".

But make no mistake that FDIC insurance is somehow free. It's very costly; banks pay the premiums, which get passed on to customers in the form of fees, and furthermore, if/when the reserve isn't enough to meet losses (2008/09 anyone?) the losses are socialized (taxes and/or inflation).

Obviously you're arguing that that's better than the *current* custodial situation in bitcoin, which it may be, but again this stuff is getting rapidly better, to the point where socializing bank losses shouldn't be the optimal solution anymore.



What's new.... Bernie Madoff, MF Global, Enron, Worldcom, etc, etc.

If it's worse in bitcoin, a big part of that, again, is infancy of the ecosystem. Meta orgs (DATA, etc) are forming. Takes years.



Indeed, you shouldn't've mentioned it, cuz it doesn't matter to the points you're making, or to the ultimate viability of the system. As I (and Satoshi, incidentally) have argued, yes nodes and farms will consolidate, but meaningful decentralization should be retained over time.



Actually, it's greatest strength is algorithmically limiting the human element.