Topic: Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining - page 124. (Read 750579 times)

Somehow i still don't recall saying ever that i defended them, much more than they needed a defense lawyer, and i'm no lawyer, lol

I have always said that there is more than one option to a probable solution, and the best one is found by using occams razor which you personally invoked, btw, perhaps you should look it up yourself.

if scrypt.cc is a ponzi/scam/fraud site, then bring up numbers a jury can rule on. I have not changed my stance. I have always asked that you do more than suggest absurd things. the 850 gh is not gh but something else. the data center did not move in 48 hours it moved after aperiod through the then next 48 hours. and hackers are everywhere. why identity has been stolen before...

If you wont defend your own claims that his our rediculous with anything more than his own words being rediculous, then what have you proved. If i say "i am a fool," and you say i am a fool, then i am a fool. but if i say you are a fool and you say "I am a fool," then you are a fool...

Edit: btw even if my account is "new" ThePhwner, yours is not much older...I have to start somewhere right, if not the i'll get no where. And if i am to just follow your suit then i am a lemming, id rather stand for a proper investigation than to simply nod and agree...

Oh.. you poor stupid idiots. You really believe that crap?

...

Nobody can help you. I'm sorry, you are far too retarded.
Darwinism will eat you.

no but it shows that there can be a bug. When withdraw finishes, the if branch ends. it does not loop through all transacions. if someone has a missing transaction it is caught by the script because they were spamming the script, but it gets stuck in limbo until the thread ends, looking to the system like it had finished. you give no explination as to how a withdrawal can be a "lottery," as code that sometimes works but sometimes doesn't is not "random" but bugged.

You have never coded before or you would know that when a logic branch that needs to be called multiple times is only looped inside of itself, the code block ends. if more submissions occurred on the server than the script had recieved then they were suck.

others have mentioned that their missing deposits are coming through. mabey you should stop bashing my attempt to help you find a brain and learn from what someone has to say. I am not sying scrypt.cc is a good place for business, rather i am saying that there are alternative measures that can explai the same thing if from the wildest to the most concrete, bitmain to a unlooped logic branch. try to use at least a single brain cell and not your penis first...

i'm only pointing out the obvious, since it is too much for people to accept that there can be a reason why someone has never told you about and "real" mining. If he has 850 MH that explains the GH. It also explains where so much money is coming from. you give no answer as to where the largest portion of withdrawals is replaced from. I say that we need to observe inclusively not exclusively. Leave stones unturned and you have nothing...

Either the shills have completely interchangeable personalities or they're just all the same guy.

yes.. i realize this account could also appear to be this same person.

New account, recently changed password, total reversal of defending the site to trying to "take it down"...

Kenny's activity here definitely doesn't pass the sniff test.

And your pseudo code is "evidence"? For the "jury"? Fabulous. I'm sorry, I was wrong about you. You probably are really that dim. Keep going.

Then have fun with your lost btc, ima try and bust him, since it makes no difference to you. If you didn't lose btc then someone sounds like they got on the wrong bus...

Mabey you should learn to read my post instead of rambling. I said for someone to provide a snippet not a source file. And if you are not willing to prove one way or another then why are you speaking there is a dedicated thread for you elsewhere...

I can write a snippet of code that handles deposits, but does not loop through imeadiately to the calling code, see:

...
void withdraw(int ammount)
{
   if ammount>required then
{
   do exchange()
   while exchange
}
}

someone show me an alternative in code that makes something like this random then tell me, i'd like to do some debunking. I see no evidence from anybody woth even their own time. So why keep relying on weak whimsical data. you want hard evidence then start making a database of these kinds of things.

no jury wants to haer how you have his maximum share count but can't prove he has none. all he would need to do is hav a hand full of actual hardware to debunk your theories. If defeating him at his own game is too hard for you all then quit while you are ahead.

I think im just gonna try to cashout..
probably i wont get it, but praying.

Trolling Bitcointalk isnt doing shit.  You act like some kind of fucking moral crusader but all you are really doing is trolling a forum.

Given the high degree of FANTASY you are self-indulging in you are really just illustrating that you are a textbook "mark"... someone who is willing to take great mental leaps to avoid the truth of the matter.

I'll leave you to your legal research .. asking people on a forum "how lawsuits work" in their country..

I'm just pointing out that you have no clue what you're talking about. I have reported scrypt.cc to the appropriate authorities and will continue to do so as relevant information emerges but your verbal diarrhea is not helping anyone. Do you even read what you post? Maybe you should take your time to do more of that and less of posting.

How can someone give you the source code for the ponzi site? Well, may ThorSWO can - ask him.

Why does it even matter what the specific piece of code is and how it does this? It's clear the site has defrauded many users through misrepresentation and outright theft (no explanation yet for the missing 37000 KHS). No amount of shilling is going to change that, even if you try to disguise it as a "concern".

um, what...
just asking cuz u lkn lik u frm space...
if this is how you grew up then it is why i have asked for someone to clarify how lawsuits are handled where they live. You, sir, do not prosecute committers of crimes where you live, you tell someone who does to eff off and and troll a forum thread about how bad something is that you have no evidence to because you have never tried.

Remember, don't knock it till you tried it. Then you can knock it all you want...

either help me put this guy behind bars or don't but if not why are you here???

Lo' and behold, my deposit went through LOL.

 

I was thinking, I have a large reinvestment value in my history, 'twas the fund that went through yesterday.

i do know genesis is an actual company, the only problem is the larger up front costs. I own my own hardware. I am also looking at hashnest and buying the units rather than the contract. I wasn't looking for fairness when i started with scryp.cc. And total i have only placed $10 in their trust. I'm not sure what that buys me, prolly a canister of coffee and a pack of filters? The point is, if we are to take down scrypt.cc there has to be a deeper looking at all options.

To point you back to occam's razor, Scrypt.cc has a cited 850 GH worth of scrypt mining. Many uses feel disatisfied about is claim and believe that it is indeed false. The mathematically computational volume would have to be substantialy lower. either A. Scrypt.cc is a ponzi because it has not stated many facts, and many users have experienced crippling errors, or B. scrypt.cc is a bussiness in a rundown hut in the middle of the brazzilian summer, that has many issues. To that end i do not believe we have enough evidence yet to tear him appart.

Yes he has lied, but does that mean everything he has said was also a lie? Has everone who has made a withdrawal since the "Bug" was encountered, recieved refunds if their transaction did not process? And if it was indeed a "withdrawal lottery," i would indeed like to see a snippet of code produce this effect so that i may try it out and therefore aid you in proving him false one and for all.

As it stand we must look to occam's razor and it proves neither is really the end all. We do need to see more than a blurb about missing withdrawals, because to me all of the missing ones occurred in a lapse in a poorly designed code block that cannot handle multiple requests too soon. If you can provide me with a snippet of code that has the possibility of producing random withdrawals then i can see about tesing it in running code for you.

As i see it this code block was a conditional that was not immediately looped back to. Search google for logic branching and looping...

+100000  

Oh here we go. NO ONE should give any kind of personal information to this poster. You've been warned.

Well, it will be very hard to prove there is not a bug, as the only person that has access to the code is the admin himself. If you (we) are making a case with evidences, the autoenablement of autoinvestment testimonies of a lot of people would prove better, I think. Futhermore, I am sure that many investors do not even know that there is an autoinvest feature (I did not know until a month had passed since registering) and would just wonder why the system does not generate coins.

Also he has lied about the withdrawals being done in 48 hours (proof with screenshots and the blockchain payments), about the rewards being re-instated (proof with admin messages and actual rewards), lied about ROI (proof with site calculator screenshot and the fact that the rewards do not produce that much ROI, even after the hack that was months ago) etc.

Then you have also support tickets. Page reads:


Which is false. There are lots of testimonials that the support tickets are unanswered.

All this lies will mislead a person who is considering the investment. That person would get less ROI than what the page tells, would get less support (none) than what the page tells, and will get less frequent rewards than what the page tells (as page says it pays every 10 min, but this is false if reinvestment enables itself without you even knowing there is a reinvest feature). People will invest based on lies and not get what is promised, and that alone is a crime.

Hope it helps.

which is why we need to prove that his statement is false. if it is a bug then we have nothing. but if we prove through trial that it is indeed not broken, then we have one more peice for our case. i don't see how this is me defending scrypt.cc

someone please inform me what country you all live in, because in the usa we need good evidence and a way to make a jury interested, even if we don't take the guy to court...