Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 328 posts

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#201

Post by mirntyfirty »

dsco wrote: post #176
NelsonMinar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptocurrency is the solution for a very valuable problem. How do you commit financial crimes and frauds in a way just new enough to confuse people that what you're doing may be valuable?

It could provide as a store and transpiration means of value in times of crisis. For instance some of the Ukrainian banks are now shutdown. If you had crypto you could access your wealth. Same thing applies for Russian citizens who have nothing to do with the war but will soon have their assets frozen. Did you consider all use cases before posting, or just glee at yet another anti crypto post on HN and thought “yay!…

The operative word here is “could”. There are a number of pie in the sky benefits of crypto that may be supported by small handfuls of anecdotes that don’t and never will generalize to the public at large. When comparing the potential pros to the existing cons, crypto is a gigantic net negative that is being pushed in order to make small pockets of investors very wealthy, nothing more. And yes, I understand the data structures, protocols, and most of the ideological rationalizations used to promote the fantasy.

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#202

Post by logicalmonster »

lolinder wrote: post #119
logicalmonster wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) What exactly would I be wrong about? A good test for cognitive dissonance is comparing your predictions to reality, and I do not believe that I ever stated that BitCoin is inevitably going to become the most important currency in the world. I think crypto is great conceptually (which will never be not true) and that it may or may not succeed in the marketplace. Bitcoin itself may not succeed long-term even if cryp…

> If crypto fails because it's effectively legislated out of existence, that would be hard to see that as anything but a vindication of the concept. If the concept is "decentralized payments are resistant to government intervention", then wouldn't the government killing crypto be proof that the concept failed?

> If the concept is "decentralized payments are resistant to government intervention", then wouldn't the government killing crypto be proof that the concept failed?

Anything can be physically destroyed and anybody can be physically jailed or killed, so I suppose there will never be a currency that is 100% immune to punitive government action.

But it seems like a vindication of the concept if some government felt threatened enough by crypto to have to forcibly go after it. Harmless bad ideas are generally not targeted (see furries for example) the only things that are forcibly banned are things that pose some kind of threat to the power structure.

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#203

Post by adam_arthur »

FlyNestor wrote: post #122

The Bitconnect Coin was among the world's most successful cryptocurrency token until its price collapsed. So you have to be quick if you want to ride the wave of a scamcoin

Early adopters tend to make out big if they time the sell right... Just like any ponzi scheme

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#204

Post by adam_arthur »

gjvc wrote: post #44
cinntaile wrote: post #2

Nice job. Now if only some people would see the difference between an actual ponzi scheme like this one and bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. That would be nice.

The common characteristic is that "early adopters" get disproportionately large returns compared to later adopters. Indeed those later adopters are financing the exit of the participants who "got in first". In this way it's like a Ponzi scheme, but the same could be said for stocks. You might call the above a simplification; that is fine -- my point is that this is a (inaccurate) linguistic shorthand -- calling somet…

Stocks pay dividends, or have the potential to pay dividends in the future.

You're right that if you look strictly at the now, it resembles a Ponzi scheme, but there's an underlying intrinsic value that supports a given price. If there's not intrinsic value, price usually collapses in the longer run. E.g dotcom, many of the 200x price sales companies over the last year.

Many growth stocks with valuations far detached from fundamentals are very crypto like. Trading on likeability/goodwill rather than anything real.

The lack of intrinsic value is why Crypto is probably doomed to volatility forever.

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#205

Post by trotro »

ziml77 wrote: post #188
Tenoke wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest part is for onboarding. The second biggest is for lower fees. The third biggest is because it's easier.

Fees are why I haven't moved my ETH after using an exchange to buy some for USD. I don't want to pay the stupidly high costs to move the ETH into a wallet that I fully control. Especially because turning that back to USD so it's actually usable in day-to-day transactions would require paying yet more fees to move the ETH back to an exchange (or to an independent buyer).

Have you had a look at gas prices recently? A transfer costs between 1$ and 2$ depending on the time of the day. It's still much higher than it should be, and let's hope that will change soon with the merge and L2 adoption, but that's not what I would call stupidly high costs to move the ETH.

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#206

Post by everfree »

jmyeet wrote: post #26

Crypto may well be the biggest solution looking for a problem I've ever seen. Apart from the obvious issues (eg energy expenditure) the one myth that needs to die about crypto is that it is extragovernmental and indictments such as this and the Bitfinex laundering case recently should underline that. The simple fact is that the developed world could shut down what little utility cryptocurrencies (and NFTs) have tomor…

I'm not aware of any threats by developed countries to ban citizens from interacting with cryptocurrency networks. It seems like the trend is quite the opposite, actually: Most countries are clarifying and tightening up their regulations to ensure legal cut-outs for exchanges and other crypto related money service businesses.

If anything, countries might want to ban mining due to its environmental impacts, but as you illustrated, there are plenty of countries for mining operations to move over to, resulting in a game of cat-and-mouse that at its very most impactful might help catalyze the move from Proof of Work cryptos to Proof of Stake cryptos. I just don't see any future where all crypto is largely banned.

Where is this threat of legal action I'm not seeing?

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#207

Post by itsoktocry »

bentlegen wrote: post #86
pricees wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to donate to a cause that Justin Trudeau finds "unacceptable." I want to send money to Ukraine. I think this week we saw problems with tradfi in the developed and developing world. And of course in the good ole US of A, I hear stories of civil forfeiture every other month.

Note that folks who claimed their bank accounts were frozen because they were “donors to the convoy” never actually verified that that actually happened [1]. At the same time the government, the RCMP, and the banks have come out and said “that didn’t happen” [2]. Last, the government ceded its emergency powers after about a week total, despite claims on HN and various thinkpieces that they would be extended in perpet…

>and the banks have come out and said “that didn’t happen”

The article didn't say it didn't happen. In fact, it says it did happen:

“individuals and companies suspected of involvement in illegal acts,” such as “influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa””

What exactly does it mean to be an "influencer"? Why are people being punished for "suspected involvement"? You're using circular reasoning claiming the only people affected deserved it.

>Last, the government ceded its emergency powers after about a week total

What does this matter if they can turn around and re-enact it tomorrow?

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#208

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

tomgp wrote: post #193
dsco wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could provide as a store and transpiration means of value in times of crisis. For instance some of the Ukrainian banks are now shutdown. If you had crypto you could access your wealth. Same thing applies for Russian citizens who have nothing to do with the war but will soon have their assets frozen. Did you consider all use cases before posting, or just glee at yet another anti crypto post on HN and thought “yay!…

didn’t bitcoin price take a nose dive when russia invaded? the opposite behaviour than what you’d want from a store of value

Yeah, went from $35,000 each to $39,000... it's about a 8% increase or "nose dive" as you call it.

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#209

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

Hallucinaut wrote: post #53
gjvc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The common characteristic is that "early adopters" get disproportionately large returns compared to later adopters. Indeed those later adopters are financing the exit of the participants who "got in first". In this way it's like a Ponzi scheme, but the same could be said for stocks. You might call the above a simplification; that is fine -- my point is that this is a (inaccurate) linguistic shorthand -- calling somet…

It's grossly untrue to say it's a Ponzi scheme "like stocks" which are part ownership in companies that actually sell things in the real world and are valued by the present value of their future expected cash flows, rather than cryptocurrencies which have no such relationship to the real world, and some would argue are valued entirely on the premise of returns that can only be sustained by finding the next sucker.

Blockchains (like eth and its alternatives) sell blocks (compute with a ledger). Those blocks "have value" to the people who build things on them like NFT's, defi, ponzi schemes, etc... One can argue that those applications don't have value, are scams, are unethical but people are paying a lot of money for those blocks on a daily basis; and holders of those L1 tokens benefit from that value. If you think of eth as a niche cloud provider providing compute with a ledger, then it looks like a stock who's long-term value will depend on useful and legal it's niche becomes after people (do or don't) come up with products and regulation is implemented.

> cryptocurrencies which have no such relationship to the real world

This is a key point unless the concept of the metaverse takes off; you're starting to see this change though. Look at the Coachella NFT as an example. People will pay to have guaranteed weekend 1 tickets for multiple years; there are years where this is basically sold out before public ticket sales but there's a status element to be able to go W1. These people (like young adults) will probably go for a few years, get bored (or have a change in lifestyle/priorities), then probably resell those NFT's to someone who's a few years earlier in their lives and wants guaranteed W1. This sounds like a ponzi scheme by the description many commenters here are using; the only value is getting some sucker down the road to waste their money for a guaranteed W1 ticket. There's a non-zero chance that coachella doesn't even exist 5 years from now. There's a bigger chance that it's not as popular and the value of any NFT is worth less then it is today. Yet it doesn't feel as scammy because of the real world event that's involved.

Re: Bitconnect founder indicted in global $2.4B cryptocurrency scheme

#210

Post by Tenoke »

trotro wrote: post #205
ziml77 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fees are why I haven't moved my ETH after using an exchange to buy some for USD. I don't want to pay the stupidly high costs to move the ETH into a wallet that I fully control. Especially because turning that back to USD so it's actually usable in day-to-day transactions would require paying yet more fees to move the ETH back to an exchange (or to an independent buyer).

Have you had a look at gas prices recently? A transfer costs between 1$ and 2$ depending on the time of the day. It's still much higher than it should be, and let's hope that will change soon with the merge and L2 adoption, but that's not what I would call stupidly high costs to move the ETH .

A single transfer for ETH maybe but that's also in part because ETH price is low. If you want to move erc20s it costs significantly more And if your portfolio includes many projects it is unseemly. Also a lot of exchanges or at least the biggest one - Binance - have higher withdraw fees in part because they must make multiple transactions to send your money out.
Post reply on HN