[Valid]

It's just a matter of having proper security. I'm sure that hacking into any real bank would be quite lucrative to hackers, but their security is more difficult to penetrate. Yes, if a 'regular' bank was hacked and money was stolen, those stolen from would be reimbursed, whereas with bitcoins there is no chance of reimbursement, but the gain to the hackers would still be there. Bitcoin sites run by individuals are low-hanging fruit, but I wouldn't say they will 'never' gain mainstream use. They simply need to invest more into their own security before I would trust them with my own money.

[flatline]

True, but you can never guarantee 100% security. Banks have the added bonus of accountability -- transactions can generally be traced to real people or organizations, so if a large scale breach occurs, there is at least the possibility of either restitution of stolen funds or the deterrent of criminal prosecution. With bitcoin, you have neither.

[smithzvk]

> Yes, if a 'regular' bank was hacked and money was stolen, those stolen from would be reimbursed, whereas with bitcoins there is no chance of reimbursement

This is not entirely true. When someone is holding a great deal of someone else's money, they can do exactly like banks do and insure their bitcoins, or they can just take the hit and pay for it out of their own pocket, like slush did when his mining pool's bitcoin wallet was comprimised: http://bitcoinmedia.com/compromised-linode-coins-stolen-from... The end user isn't necessarily screwed, and should probably request whoever is holding their money to protect it not only via security but also via some guarantees against the worst case scenarios.