Topic: Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining - page 87. (Read 750579 times)

BTCjam is a lending site and it hasn't collapsed but it is riddled with scams.   Hashie.co was only 0.005 BTC, that wasn't an investment, it was a test.  

I have a vested interest?   Well that is true with LTCgear, but nothing else.    With scrypt.cc I'll try just like everyone else to pull out some BTC.   Why wouldn't I?    What in the world is wrong with that?   I'm not trying to keep it going and there is nothing I could do in short order to promote it or stop it.   (Long term is different)

However you have missed the bulk of my crypto investments:
CEX.io - At least until the maintenance fee forced everyone to shut down.   I used bots there a lot for a while.  (I wrote the bots)
PTS/AngleShares - I even wrote my own miner for that one.  This has branched in many directions.    It was very fast on the i7 processor I used.
Many different investments through Havelock including b.buy & b.sell which are 100% virtual.
Many, many BTC worth of mining rentals not to mention local mining.  (After all I wrote my own PTS miner)
Bulk of BTC mining is now at Hashnest because it is cheaper than what I could do.
Tons of BTCjam loans, been scammed a lot there, more than any other place
AMHash which I sold days before it when scam.  
GAW where I just gained a little.   I could have gained a lot if I has sold out more.
Mining and selling xpy for one week was great!  People renting rigs made profits and so di the rig owners .. win/win.

In fact I have turned up my nose at Genesis mining, Mining Sweden and Get Hashing only because the price was so high that I don't they will ever hit breakeven, at least for people that didn't join early.  

Anyway if you diversify you are going to be bitten sometimes.

EDIT: I was really against Hashnest when it came out because it was very expensive and there wasn't a market.   They added a market for the shares and that made all the difference.   Get Hashing is also evolving so what I said about it may no longer apply.   

Let's cut dyask some slack. They're not advocating anyone deposits into scrypt.cc and I think that should be noted.

However, I do agree that they are making assertions that aren't 100% helpful and put forward the impression that scrypt.cc is a good site gone bad.

The complete lack of proof of any mining is the main reason this site is most definitely a scam. There's no proof of even fractional mining. Entertaining the idea that there is gives the site a modicum of credit that it doesn't deserve. This site was a scam from start to finish. I didn't know about mining etc. before I put some money in. I've lost a minor amount of money compared to some people but it's still pissing me off.

The problem is that you have a vested interest in keeping the scam going long enough for you to get out. I have no problem calling a spade a spade as I won't let other people hold onto my own funds.

But you complain that people are posting links to collective evidence pointing to why it is a scam because it hinders you from your exit.

Let me ask you this, what cloudmining site have you invested in that hasn't been a Ponzi scheme?

so far I see

BTCarbs - Collapsed
Hashie.co - Collapsed
BTCjam - Collapsed
LTCgear- Collapsed
Scrypt.cc - Collapsing

I told you I went from my spread sheet, the date I marked there was related to the start of trading, but I hadn't noted that.  I also live at GMT+9 while Brazil is GMT-3, so 1/2 the time I'm a day ahead.

You are just nit picking.   I'm not even claiming there isn't a scam going on?   Go get a clue.

See this is the problem.  Scam bangers, trolls what ever are not rational and don't put any thought into what they say.    You claim I'm perpetuation a scam, that is nonsense.   You demand I give irrefutable proof and you don't give any proof.   I gave you the proof, it the deposit hot wallets.   

I'm pointing out the deposits to scrypt.cc to the best that we know.   That is 44657+ BTC.    Why would scrypt.cc inflate deposits to their site?   How would that have anything to do with being a Ponzi.   What would the point be?    Where is your proof. 

I could see a Ponzi hiding deposits, but scrypt.cc never did that.   That isn't defending scrypt.cc it is just pointing out what happened.

Tracing from deposits to withdraw ... well that used to be hard.   Now it is pretty easy.    That indicates a major change and coupled with everything else the current scrypt.cc is very different than the one a few months ago. 

What is wrong with trying to be objective?  I'm not making assertions either but I guess you don't really understand what an assertion is.  

As far as applying my knowledge, how would you know what I'm doing?   I'm one of the few that managed to get out of BTCarbs whole, maybe I was lucky but I didn't do buy just screaming scam, scam, scam!   For the record the BTCArbs admin that paid some people back, claimed is was intended to be real and not a scam at all.    With LTCgear, I'm in vastly deeper than here and that is mainly because some of the people here screaming scam about scrypt.cc were singing LTCgears praise.   That one burns but I'm going after my losses there multiple ways.  LTCgear stopped paying last December.  

With scrypt.cc things look really bad, I'll grant you that.   We don't know what is really going on there but lately it has just been getting worse.   I've had many chats with Marcello the Admin there in the past and I don't believe he is out to hurt people, however, I don't know if he is in control.   It fact it would appear that whoever is currently running scrypt.cc has no problems with outright theft.   I'll take steps, but my current focus is just to minimize losses.   This could play out for many months.  

At no point have I ever not claimed these types of investments aren't risky.   The closest claim to supporting scypt.cc I've ever made, is saying a much shorter time to breakeven gives people more options for how to manage an investment.   However, that doesn't apply to scrypt.cc anymore because it isn't possible to get your investment out easily.  Until the "hack" it was always easy to get your money out of scrypt.cc, that was important and something that set it apart in a lot of ways.  That when on for well over a year.  That has changed and it changes everything.   I don't mean the up to 24 hour delay, that could be lived with.   I mean getting withdraws is extremely difficult an appears to mostly require a lot of luck.      

For the record every BTC related investment I've been involved in has been called a Ponzi, except for the loaning sites which have so many other scam borrowers.   That includes all the sites that have been cleared as legit too by providing proof of mining.   As an example there people jumping up here and there claiming hashnest is a scam, at least on the hashnest chat.  

Seeing a scam is easy.  Avoiding them or getting out of them isn't so easy unless you don't diversify.  

EDIT: I've been burned before at scrypt.cc and recovered there too.   I don't know if this is the end or not, but the hit this time is very minor.   Don't invest what you can't afford to use is the best rule to follow on every type of investment. 

There you go making assumptions again....

Whether you realize it or not, you are perpetuating the scam by defending Scrypt.cc in any way. Either have irrefutable proof of the data you are analyzing or don't bother posting because it shows you really know nothing at all.

Dyask I told you some pages before that the power outage was on MAY 11, so you date is incorrect and don't coincide with the incident, so you are't proving anyting !!!

For reference PAGE 80 OF THIS THREAD

It seems unlikely scrypt.cc would move deposit money around to just inflate the appearance of deposits.   While I'm sure they could do it, why would they?

Deposits used to move into 1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7 now they move into 19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ.  Those are the so called hotwallets.   This has been confirmed many times by different people.   If you make a deposit right now it will be moved from your deposit address to 19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ.    It is very likely that these two addresses show all the money that has been deposited into scrypt.cc.

The hard part is sizing the withdraws.  Prior to the hack many different addresses funded withdraws.   Now there only appears to be  1Bidh2XFr9JzfXppeZd2cPKpbnJGvqCY4h.   However no idea how long that will last.   So we really don't know how much of the 44657+ BTC has been withdrawn.

This data is much better than holding up a thumb and saying I heard KHS used to cost 1 euro so that means "he" has pulled in millions.   

For the last 2 months you have only posted on Scrypt.cc and BTCjam threads.

In your "proof" you commonly use the phrase "possibly" and "likely" which is creating false assumptions backed by 0 actual proof. The only proof can come from admin of the site, not from you.

1. 850 GHZ is enough to fork LTC.

2. Mining if it were in Brazil, would cost TWICE as much as a developed country such as US.

3. No proof of any mining ever.

4. Loss off KHS/MHS.

5. Physically impossible to move a data center in the timeframe given.

6. Delayed and lost BTC withdrawls, hacks, and auto reinvest.

7. No communication with holders despite the site actually functioning as a security, no face of the company and no contact details

Stop making assumptions about things you do not know and do not research properly, there is no "derp derp, what if" so please spare us your analyzations.

That is not good data to use because you don't know how much of that 6k or 38k are the same coins being moved around in circles to trick people into thinking that something is happening.

It's not. Run by a hardware company that can't make hardware so they moved on to the "cloud", sound familiar? Obviously there is no proof of them actually mining anything. Don't fall into the trap.

Anybody know anything about hashflare.io and is it legit or not?

The problem is, dyask, that you cite objective reasoning as your main motivator behind your assertions about scrypt.cc, yet you clearly fail to apply it correctly, which usually implies intentional bias. This is the reason why you are being challenged so vociferously, because your attempt to come across as analytical ends up reading like a veiled apologist.

Example:

You assert that the 'data centre' move 'event', with a notable drop in the LTC hashrate at that time followed by an increase to previous levels a few days later, suggests that scrypt.cc is not just a straight ponzi but is fractionally mining. You then suppose this to suggest 100+GH/s of Scrypt mining is a reasonable guesstimate.

Firstly, whether they are a straight ponzi or a fractional mining/ponzi is actually irrelevant. Scrypt.cc has fraudulently misrepresented themselves and sold 'KHS'/'MHS' as being a genuine share of Scrypt mining far beyond this figure. So to continue arguing over what they might, or might not, actually be doing is not only pointless, it makes you look like somebody who is intentionally trying to call people out for their use of the word 'ponzi' in order to muddy the waters of the situation and plant a seed of doubt as to the facts of this already-proven criminal scam.

Secondly, if you were being genuinely intellectually honest about this attempt to hypothesise Scrypt.cc's mining capability, you could not cite what is a regular occurrence on the LTC hashrate, namely, a drop followed a few days later by an increase, as being evidence of scrypt.cc's claim towards a data centre move, when the fact is that the LTC hashrate often sees marked reductions as mining farms switch on and off, miners move en-masse temporarily to a newly pumped coin, rig/hash rental rates improve, etc.  Meaning that, applying Occam's razor, you are wanting to introduce the concept of Scrypt.cc actually having several dozen GH/s of Scrypt mining power as explanation for a network hashrate event which is already accounted for by known and regular events. You essentially want to arbitrarily claim another explanation for an already-known regular occurrence, not because you have sufficient data or evidence to justify such but, instead, because you are taking the word of scrypt.cc in their claim to be mining with Scrypt ASICs and while you have to discard their announced total hash-power because mathematics proves that to be a lie, you still want to believe some of it to be true and crowbar that in as explanation for the noted hashrate drop at that time.

In your claim to be applying objective reasoning and critical analysis to the situation you are treating Scrypt.cc's own assertions as though they were valid data. You cannot do that and still assert that you are maintaining intellectual integrity.

This is why you read like a shill/apologist.


There is no data you can cite which would justify your claim towards scrypt.cc doing ANY mining. Even if they were doing some it is both irrelevant and utterly invalid to include even as supposition, because it is not just arbitrary it is wildly speculative.

I'm not shilling.   I'm pointing out the data for that event can mean a lot of different things.   

When have I ever encouraged anyone to deposit any BTC at any site, let alone scrypt.cc?   I haven't and I won't.    Right now if you put BTC into scrpyt.cc the odds are way against you ever pulling it out.   Currently people at scrypt.cc are also suffering from numerous thefts.   How is that shilling?

You are free to use your "No proof = Scam" standard.   I'm free to analyze data for myself and to draw my own conclusions.   

Actually you are the one whining and complaining about what I said.   I wasn't complaining about you.   You are also the one repeating yourself over and over and over.

Suchnormal
Anyone doubt that Alias"24 hours crying" has lost a lot of money? You are a fool and you know .. you have no fucking idea invest also know .. and it's something you have to pay at your people... And I will not put in red

I pity you.

You posted some numbers without explanation or source. Is that supposed to show "a drop"? Because it doesn't.

What you need to do is post the dates when the move was happening and show us the block time averages for that period and how that compares to the timings before and after the move. Bonus points if you can show that the shortfall came from one pool or from the "Unknown" part of the network.

Can you do that?

And you completely ignored the technical feasibility of such move, as usual.


Me exercising my freedom of speech does not prevent you from exercising yours. However you're the one here whining that you somehow don't get a fair shake while at the same time posting made up "arguments" as to how scrypt.cc is anything but a ponzi. From where I'm standing your rights are fine, it's your facts that are lacking.

Why do you continue to shill for a scam site?

You are attempting to create proof by making assumptions, if it were to be legit in any kind of way then the owner would provide proof of mining and solvency.

No proof = Scam

Attempting to perpetuate the scam by making false assumptions for the sole purpose of trying lure in new marks in order to retrieve your own Coins back is a form of scamming.

Case in point!   Repeating things over and over like a 3 year old.   What happen to free speech and the right to express your views?     What happened to the right to have a discussion about what is going on?   

It isn't that you don't have a right to call scrypt.cc a scam, you do.   However the way you do it is trolling and effectivity stomps on the rights of others, even people that agree with you.