Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    BitConnect Closes Exchange as States Warn of Unregulated Sales

    (www.bloomberg.com)
    389 points JumpCrisscross | 14 comments | 17 Jan 18 01:04 UTC | HN request time: 2.472s | source | bottom
    Show context
    ve55 ◴[17 Jan 18 01:56 UTC] No.16164829[source]▶
    For those unaware, Bitconnect was a Bitcoin-based ponzi-scheme that had operated 'successfully' for quite some time. I don't say 'ponzi' as an insult in the way some do for cryptocurrencies, it was quite literally just a bare-bones ponzi scheme, where you deposit your money (Bitcoin) on their website, buy their token, 'lock' your funds for some amount of time, and you are promised very high interest rates while encouraged to re-invest your returns.

    What has happened today is Bitconnect has closed the exchange on their website, and so users flocked to some of the only other exchanges (of dubious reputation, since no reputable exchange wanted to list the BitConnect coin) in order to sell their now-worthless tokens, resulting in losses of around 90% today: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitconnect/

    Many famous Youtubers and other individuals with influence convinced hundreds of people to put their money into BitConnect in order to profit off of referrals, leading to a lot of unfortunate losses and a lot of delusion and misinformation among devoted investors. The general sentiment towards those that lost money due to BitConnect has been a mocking attitude in the cryptocurrency investment communities, as BitConnect has been referred to by many as a blatant ponzi scheme for months.

    replies(12): >>16164865 #>>16164910 #>>16164929 #>>16165009 #>>16165080 #>>16165085 #>>16165220 #>>16166320 #>>16166678 #>>16168745 #>>16170456 #>>16174953 #
    JumpCrisscross ◴[17 Jan 18 02:03 UTC] No.16164865[source]▶
    > Famous Youtubers and other individuals with influence convinced hundreds of people to put their money into BitConnect in order to profit off of referrals

    If you lost money in this scheme and are in the United States or Canada, contact your state securities regulator [1]. Mention any such referral sources. Those individuals may be liable for securities fraud under state and federal law.

    If you're in the United States, send a copy to the SEC [2]. If you lost more than a token amount, I would also recommend contacting an attorney.

    [1] http://www.nasaa.org/about-us/contact-us/contact-your-regula...

    [2] https://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

    replies(6): >>16165014 #>>16165398 #>>16165450 #>>16166523 #>>16167106 #>>16172406 #
    1. drexlspivey ◴[17 Jan 18 09:05 UTC] No.16166523[source]▶
    Most of them took down their videos by now
    replies(6): >>16166578 #>>16166616 #>>16166920 #>>16167523 #>>16167743 #>>16168001 #
    2. Fnoord ◴[17 Jan 18 09:16 UTC] No.16166578[source]▶
    Google surely must have a copy, as well as Archive.org. These people benefitted from the scam; they should be held accountable as well.
    replies(1): >>16168248 #
    3. TeMPOraL ◴[17 Jan 18 09:26 UTC] No.16166616[source]▶
    This is the Internet, there must be a copy somewhere.

    Maybe a different youtuber criticized one of those famous recommenders, and included relevant clips of the recommendation in their video?

    4. lhl ◴[17 Jan 18 10:46 UTC] No.16166920[source]▶
    @Bitfinexed [1], who tracks all kinds of scams (the Tether one is going to be the real doozy when that unravels) has been diligently saving Bitconnect videos, tweets, etc. He is pseudononymous, so the question now is how to effectively get these (apparently) hundreds of gigs of videos archived/shared. [2] I can't imagine he's the only one to have thought to do this, though. Bitconnect was simply too blatant of a skeezy ponzi for no one to have bothered tracking down who all these people were...

    [1] https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed

    [2] https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed/status/953510174244986880

    replies(1): >>16168263 #
    5. _b8r0 ◴[17 Jan 18 13:02 UTC] No.16167523[source]▶
    I've been archiving the channels of several players in this space and will be making the content available over IPFS[1] in the future.

    [1] - https://ipfs.io/

    6. PeterisP ◴[17 Jan 18 13:37 UTC] No.16167743[source]▶
    The fact that the videos are "taken down" from public view doesn't mean that they won't be available in google's archives when the authorities file a subpoena for them.
    7. ncallaway ◴[17 Jan 18 14:13 UTC] No.16168001[source]▶
    An enterprising prosecutor will probably not find it that challenging to get a copy from YouTube.
    8. ebikelaw ◴[17 Jan 18 14:48 UTC] No.16168248[source]▶
    I love these comments because they highlight the ambivalence of the HN commentariat. If google actually had copies of deleted user data, the privacy-minded would lose their heads. And they’d be right because there are all kinds of laws around this. Deleted user data has to be really gone, even from backups, within a finite time.
    replies(4): >>16168264 #>>16168628 #>>16169852 #>>16171028 #
    9. toomuchtodo ◴[17 Jan 18 14:49 UTC] No.16168263[source]▶
    They should get in touch with Jason Scott or Archive Team in general to get them in the Internet Archive, or upload them to the Internet Archive themselves.

    EDIT: I don't have Twitter, if someone wouldn't mind, could they connect @Bitfinexed to @textfiles?

    10. toomuchtodo ◴[17 Jan 18 14:49 UTC] No.16168264{3}[source]▶
    There is no law (that I'm aware of in the US) that requires Google to purge any user data except GDPR (which applies only to EU residents after May 25, 2018), or perhaps the EU's "right to be forgotten" (which isn't going to supersede preserving evidence for an investigation).

    Those Youtube videos exist, if not with a "is_deleted" flag, in Youtube backups. Some are already in the Internet Archive.

    11. zeven7 ◴[17 Jan 18 15:24 UTC] No.16168628{3}[source]▶
    You put something up voluntarily on the open internet, you lose your right to keeping that thing private.
    replies(1): >>16168701 #
    12. ◴[17 Jan 18 15:34 UTC] No.16168701{4}[source]▶
    13. simias ◴[17 Jan 18 17:32 UTC] No.16169852{3}[source]▶
    I'd rather websites did not keep my private data when I delete my account but I have no problem with the archival of public content. Of course with social networks pushing their users to overshare all the time the line can be pretty fuzzy with comment history and things like that but I don't see how anybody could consider archiving a video published on Youtube as a breach of user privacy.
    14. Fnoord ◴[17 Jan 18 19:37 UTC] No.16171028{3}[source]▶
    > they highlight the ambivalence of the HN commentariat

    They don't.

    This was:

    a) Deliberately published (ie. not leaked)

    b) By the uploader who is also the content creator (not e.g. doxing or copyright infringement)

    c) Without breaching their own privacy (not e.g. posting a nude of themselves)

    d) In this case possibly if not likely unlawful (hence warranting a police investigation)

    e) For-profit (non-profit crimes have less priority)

    Furthermore:

    > Deleted user data has to be really gone, even from backups, within a finite time.

    Sure, but we're talking -at this point- one or two days max here and we're talking about a scam.