Ok, get why this is downvoted. It's a bit of a throwaway comment, and the problem is not with the users I guess - although I do feel in this case people should know better. but let me elaborate:
Really the only way people now get educated is by using enforced formats on password fields [1].
That is not are not solid in any way, nor is the proposed 4 random words method (although better).
But both are still better than allowing people to use weak passwords when it's involving money.
Every bank these days has 2-factor auth to allow transactions.
Sure someone can phish your credentials from whatever, but the transaction authorization itself is only one-time, while with Bitcoin you can transfer money if you've stolen the wallet.dat and can bruteforce the key...
There is no protection (throtteling, locking) on bruteforcing wallets.
Usually with banks, or most 2-factor auth implementations, there is.
I didn't downvote either comment, but complaining about downvotes is typically the very most effective way of ensuring your comment blends into the background here. :P
Really the only way people now get educated is by using enforced formats on password fields [1]. That is not are not solid in any way, nor is the proposed 4 random words method (although better). But both are still better than allowing people to use weak passwords when it's involving money.
Every bank these days has 2-factor auth to allow transactions. Sure someone can phish your credentials from whatever, but the transaction authorization itself is only one-time, while with Bitcoin you can transfer money if you've stolen the wallet.dat and can bruteforce the key...
There is no protection (throtteling, locking) on bruteforcing wallets. Usually with banks, or most 2-factor auth implementations, there is.
[1] http://xkcd.com/936/