Hacker Cinema
Bitconned
2024 · Film · documentary · 95 min
Directed by Bryan Storkel
In this true-crime documentary, three guys exploit the freewheeling cryptocurrency market to scam millions from investors and bankroll lavish lifestyles.
1 positive2 neutralfrom 3 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
3 comments on Hacker News
> Because hero worship is an evolved instinct that we're trying to confabulate a post-hoc justification for, rather than a coherent predictive framework.
But that's not why I'm posing the question. Maybe my phrasing wasn't great.
We are all about becoming more than just monkeys, so perpetuating a silly tendency especially on such a serious topic with enormous consequences should be avoided at all costs. I argue we should not worship lucky rich folks.
> I bet they invested their money in something like this after being paid
Yeah, probably. But once again, I posed a question of why should they be rewarded in such a way. There's no answer to that here. I'm not arguing people shouldn't be rewarded, but as it stands the proportions are simply insane.
Part of the issue is that when you have capital you can literally change the rules of the game. So they don't just get rewarded with capital, they now can generate capital more easily too. It's a double advantage that breaks the system, in my view.
> Their monopolies don't remain indefinitely.
I honestly hope you are right, but I have serious doubts here. Rules that applied back in IBM days were different and companies and individuals simply got way better at retaining power. Monopolies are basically impossible to be broken in a globalized world, and companies know that. They also no longer leave room for the small guy. You won't ever have the Yahoo/Google situation again. If any company starts to show any threat to any monopoly, they get acquired immediately.
In theory regulators could try to enforce some of these rules but I don't see it happening. Even the latest Apple app store debacle shows how little they actually care. They can get away with pretending to do something about it because they have too much power and money.
> Then don't use him as the example.
Fair, I guess. My point is that for every one guy that gets arrested, you have all the hundreds/thousands of people around them that also profited from these scams. Those are almost never arrested and end up profiting without consequences.
For a high-profile example, you have famous influencers like Jake Paul scamming millions out of people and thriving. I watched a recent Netflix documentary Bitconned [1] which also shows another perfect example of someone scamming, getting caught, getting "punished" and still living their best lives.
For every SBF with hundreds of years in prison, you have dozens/hundreds of others that get a slap on the wrist. Fines, for example, could just be written off as cost of business.
I won't go searching for more because the topic doesn't interest me as much, but I am absolutely sure there are many, many more stories like these. But to your point, I can't prove the existence of those hundreds of millionaires that didn't get caught without going deep into it, so I won't try to. Guess you're a glass half-full kind of guy. I can't see how they don't exist.
> It assumes that any worker who is not treated fairly will switch jobs because someone else will want to out-bid their current employer. Etc.
Which would be true, in the utopia Capitalists believe in, where everyone has a choice. The reality, monopolies and lobbying exist, so workers always get fucked. Work or starve.
> I currently believe that it would be good for governments to directly control
I 100% agree that many parts of the national production should be owned by the people. Companies can simply exploit natural resources today basically for free, without consequences.
> If
Looking at what we have today, there's barely an "if" there. Take any company above a certain size and a lot of its profit comes from exploitation: underpaying workers because they target vulnerable communities, bad working conditions because they lobbied for no worker rights, cheap materials/manufacturing from poorer countries that in turn exploit their workers even more, exploiting/overworking young talent because of their naivety, overcharging due to monopolies, and the list goes on.
I take it back, there is definitely an "if", but it is only a matter of capital. Once the company gets enough capital, it turns up its dials of exploitation. If they don't do that, they don't survive.
Maybe there are examples of companies that grow and don't become an exploitation center, but I have never seen one. The system rewards exploitation, because that's the best way to extract profit out of human resources. And since companies are not people, they can and will do anything regardless of morality, leading to the current state of affairs.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitconned
There's probably more comments promoting and defending Bitcoin on HN than ones questioning it.
The question I have is why do commenters feel the need to respond to any comment about Bitcoin that is not a (sometimes subtle) promotion or defense of it.
A reasonable person might think it's because Bitcoin is only valuable if increasingly more and more people buy it. If it's not increasingly popular or if, God forbid, everyone holding Bitcoin were to try to sell, all at once, it's Game Over. (Some folks will lose money and all Hell will break loose.)
If the first statement is false, and Bitcoin is valuable if it's unpopular, then there should be no logical reason why anyone would try to "defend" Bitcoin on HN. Why would anyone care. It's valuable even if no one is buying, right. If it lacks popularity, then this is of no consequence. Ignore it.
Alas, there is no way to test if second statement is true, i.e., it is Game Over if everyone cashes out their Bitcoin, other than this actually happening. Even still, there is no logical reason anyone would need to "defend" Bitcoin on HN if someone else believes this to be true. Why would it matter if other people hold or sell their Bitcoin.
And yet, there are consistently HN voters and commenters who seek to "defend" Bitcoin from anyone who has doubts or asks questions. That, in and of itself, may raise suspicions even more.
"Bitcoin doesn't have to do something useful for everyone to survive. It doesn;t have to "replace fiat". It doesn't have to be a payment system. It doesn't have to "go to the moon". It doesn't even need an ETF."
But somehow it needs to be constantly defended in every electronic discussion. It needs constant promotion. It needs hype.
No one can simply state "I am not interested in Bitcoin" in a discussion without triggering some "response". Regardless of the merits of Bitcoin, or absence of them, that is fscked up. Red flag.
In case anyone gets confused, I am not suggesting that any commenter literally states "I am not interested in Bitcoin" and nothing else. I am using a hypothetical example of a seemingly benign statement to illustrate the idea that _all_ comments about crypto which are not positive are quickly "countered" by Bitcoin true believers. Here is perhaps a better example. Someone states, in so many words, that Bitcoin requires large amounts of electricity. Is this untrue. It is explicitly negative. It seems quite benign yet this sort of comment will almost invariably trigger a "defense". To some, that is a red flag that there is something suspicous about these "arguments" that people feel compelled to make about Bitcoin.
Check out the film "Bitconned" if you can. Slow start but hilarious in the end. What happens when some petty criminals accidentally come in contact with hordes of "true believers". online. If I am not mistaken this was the SEC's first successful prosecution re: crypto.
very similar to the new netflix documentary bitconned