Anyone remember this?

It's deja-vu all over again!

I don't know, why don't we ask you seeing as this is exactly what you want people to think, which is exactly what you were claiming months ago was going to happen then, too.


Trying to get rid of your old bag or a new one?

I do love seeing how you repeatedly resort to tone complaint instead of actually considering and, if disagreeing, rebutting, the facts being presented. It basically means you have nothing in your locker other than to whine about how mean we are being to you when the truth is, now listen real fucking carefully now, your 'fractional mining' whining is utterly and totally irrelevant to the fraudulent misrepresentation issue.

A major fraud involving millions of dollars has taken place and all you want to do is ponder, "Well you can't prove they don't have *some* mining going on . . ." as though that lends anything of any fucking value to this thread.

Oh, yeah, look at me and my potty mouth, still doesn't change the fact that everything I am saying is true and supported by objective reasoning and valid evidence, unlike your endless fucking tone complaints.


Seriously, what is with you? A quick scan through your post history shows you consistently and rabidly calling anyone who raised concerns about anything you were invested in a, 'fudder' and using your fallacious reasoning to talk a big game about how wrong they are, only for you to frequently wind up on the ass-end of a number of scams, begrudgingly admitting that, yeah, maybe the, 'fudders' were right after all.

Are you incapable of learning from your many, many, mistakes?

Here, dyask, let me make this *real* fucking simple for you:


PSA: Scrypt.cc is guilty of Fraudulent Misrepresentation, a crime in every financial jurisdiction in the world. Anyone who has lost money buying or selling their fictitious 'KHS'/'MHS' token is legally entitled to recover their funds back in full.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraudulent_misrepresentation

Extremist? HAH! Here's the thing, he wasn't expressing a viewpoint, he was claiming something which is utterly incorrect. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

Correcting someone's false assertions is not 'extremist', although your attempt to again employ 'tone complaint' smacks of more distraction from the fact you can't rebut my assertions because they are true.


Scrypt.cc sold millions of dollars of mining power they have mathematically been proven not to own, this is criminal fraud. There is no fucking 'room' in that fact for any, "Ah, yes, but . . ." it is a fact supported by evidence.


*sigh*

Seriously? Are you a child? Are you autistic or are you part of the scam and desperately trying to bail you and your buddy ThorSWO out of the deep shit the perpetrators of this criminal fraud are in?

It matters not whether the funds can be recovered in full, every single fucking investor who made a net loss on an 'investment' which turned out to be fraudulent is legally entitled to a full recovery of their funds. Whether they get it is another matter entirely, but they remain fully entitled to it because they invested into a scheme which promoted itself as something it was not, which is fraud in EVERY financial jurisdiction.

You're an idiot.

That some users may have made money does not change the fact that every person who lost is entitled to a full recovery of their funds.

The site promoted itself as a cloud mining operation, it matters not whether you think that people should have known it was a ponzi. It is a criminal operation which took money under false pretences, irrespective of whichever mechanism they ran the financials with in the back office. No  jurisdiction permits that.

Dyask,

You are the one who keeps insisting on citing 'Fractional Mining' as some sort of 'best case' scenario, when it absolutely is not a positive thing in any way whatsoever.

You are the one who keeps insisting that scrypt.cc is 'only' a matter of a couple of hundred bitcoin, when they have stolen thousands and thousands of coins, making them a multi-million-dollar criminal enterprise.

You are the one who appears to actually want to downplay and minimise the very serious nature of this criminal operation.


EVERY SINGLE USER WHO HAS LOST MONEY TO SCRYPT.CC IS ENTITLED TO A FULL REFUND
THIS INCLUDES ANYONE WHO BOUGHT 'KHS'/'MHS' AND SOLD AT A NET LOSS.

Now, consider the thousands of bitcoin in 'profit' scrypt.cc have stolen, each and every coin belongs to their 'investors'. Millions of dollars of bitcoin which is owed back to their 'investors'. Once their 'investors' realise they are legally entitled to get their money back, even if they traded 'badly' on the 'KHS'/'MHS' 'market' because the whole thing was a criminal scam, they may mobilise to do so.

So, dyask, do you want to keep derailing the conversation and insist that there is some way you can call their 'Fractional Mining' a 'best case', even though it is utterly meaningless to the conversation as the entire operation is an illegal fraud, or can we get back to the business of informing people sufficiently about the actual and useful facts so that the community of people who have lost a significant sum of money might find a way to track these fuckers down and see them brought to justice, possibly recovering their stolen 'investment' along the way?

Let me explain something to you, dyask, because you appear to be conflating the notion of 'fractional mining' with 'fractional banking'.

'Fractional Banking' is when the collective total of a Bank's customer deposits exceed the total cash balance the bank possesses. It essentially means that should there be a 'run' on the Bank, a lot of customers would not be able to withdraw all their funds. While this is serious it is nothing like the concept of 'fractional mining' other than the word 'Fractional' because the customers are not 'investing' their funds (generally speaking) if they are simply holding their money at the bank for security/convenience.

'Fractional Mining' is when an organisation has sold more mining hashrate than it actually is in possession of and utilises manipulative and deceptive practices in order to perpetuate the fraud and keep it running so that more people can be persuaded to 'invest', believing it to be an actual investment product, high-risk or otherwise.

This does not make it simply, 'pretty bad', it makes it an absolute criminal enterprise and the operators of this enterprise are guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, meaning that every single satoshi of 'profit' they make, all those thousands of bitcoin they have sent to their own wallets over the months, are effectively stolen funds.

Every single 'investor' who bought these fictitious, 'KHS'/'MHS' is entitled to receive their money back in full. That is tens of thousands of bitcoin.

So, no, this is not some 'paltry' couple of hundred bitcoin issue, it is a major fraud.

Wow, dyask, you are really starting to confirm my suspicions that you are either a shill apologist for scrypt.cc or you are autistic. Which part of the following contradiction which was highlighted in bold a number of times do you think is not a contradiction?

Is it that you can't see the contradiction? Is your autism such that you don't recognise how badly you are presenting yourself in this thread?

Or are you more involved in this scam than simply being a defrauded 'investor' and this whole schtick you are playing of posting rambling deflection exactly that, deflection?

See, the thing is, even before the 'hack' the same math which I used (see the link in my signature) to prove scrypt.cc was lying about their mining was still applicable evidence proving they were lying about their mining. So there was no 'questionable' about it, they were fraudulently misrepresenting their operation and what they claimed to be selling/trading.

That you, persistently, appear to want to keep downplaying the scale of the criminal fraud, while ignoring the facts of the thousands of btc which were fraudulently stolen from 'investors' over the last several months, really is becoming noticeable behind your rambling misuse of logic and reasoning.

I stand by my observation, you are either autistic and mentally unable to see how your posts actually read, or you are intentionally behaving in this manner in order to distract from the central issue, namely, that scrypt.cc has stolen millions of dollars worth of bitcoin from people by fraudulent misrepresentation.

Hahahaha, this is why I figured if he isn't a shill then he's got to be socially autistic in order to explain how he repeatedly states something and then contradicts it a few sentences later, all the while repeating things that are irrelevant to the discussion and ignoring aspects that are important.

BTW, dyask, a 'tone complaint' is just another form of blatantly fallacious argument which is used to distract from the fact that you fail to rebut the points being raised and choose, instead, to complain about how they are said.

You're being challenged, not because you don't 'suck up to the scam police' but because your posts are largely nonsensical ramblings containing contradictions and irrelevant statements along with assertions which appear to be an attempt to downplay the size of the scam that is scrypt.cc

Actually, dyask, I believe the 6TH observation came at the point scrypt.cc had switched from 'khs' to 'mhs' but seemingly hadn't adjusted the figures being displayed on the market listings yet.

So, yeah, your whole obsession about trying to minimise, downplay and generally distract from the ongoing fraud with wildly speculative assertions about how 'most' btc had been withdrawn already, as though you have any fucking idea where those btc were sent, is getting really tiresome and painting you more and more as being either socially autistic or a shill trying to downplay the the size of the criminal scam which is still in operation.

:rolleyes:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0

Hah. Nice to see work is being done to crack down on this particular word crime.

The thing is, unlike a lot of grammatical mistakes which could perhaps be excused because the offender doesn't know which particular rule applies, "I could care less" contains everything anybody needs to know in order to see how stupid an expression of the speaker's supposed lack of caring it is. It isn't grammar, it is fucking simple logic.

As for when the arguing in this thread will stop, that's easy, when it is moved to the, 'Investor-based games" sub-forum. That'll be when scrypt.cc finally does the decent thing and admits what it is.

Hey, ThorSWO/Admin/Marcello, the opportunity is there for you to grab. You could try claiming that all your mining equipment was stolen/seized/destroyed and that the 'hack' was just your desperate attempt to try and keep things going, you know, 'for the sake of your investors' but that this thread does need to be moved to properly represent the truth of your current service.

I bet you're tempted after considering what I've just suggested. It gives you a chance to attempt to plead innocence while allowing you to step out of the absolute criminal fraud realm and into the, "Hey, we're just providing a game and we don't hide that fact", 'grey area' of justification.

Hey, dumb-fuck, it is meant to be, "I couldn't care less", otherwise your version is essentially stating that you do care, in order for you to be able to care less.

Still worrying about those early post deletions you attempted? You should be.

ORLY? Anyone else remember all those bold claims early last year where they absolutely, positively, were going to ship before ANY competitor?

Still, this at least shows there's potential to recover the money they owe me, which they have so far failed to obey the court order on. Given that he is still trying to salvage this company from total collapse, I see a winding-up order on the horizon coming in useful.

Hey Mohammed, you've already had costs added to what you owe me, settle now or find more being tacked on for the enforcement of the judgement.

For anyone who doesn't have deep enough pockets to pursue the recovery of the funds they were awarded in court, you might want to look into selling the debt on to a licensed consumer credit debt recovery firm. This involved them buying it from you for a nominal sum (£1) and then they take a cut of whatever they manage to recover.

It isn't ideal but I see some people are saying how fucked off they are with getting a judgement that they can't then afford to have enforced effectively. Selling the debt is at least a route you might want to consider, rather than giving up.

Nobody is saying there's anything wrong with being objective, trouble is you're not being objective because you are posting assertions about what you believe is a hashrate drop as a result of scrypt.cc moving a bunch of ASICs when the only basis for this is you discarding the declared total mining power scrypt.cc claim to have and, instead, deciding that maybe some of their lie might be true.

Methinks you neither understand objective reasoning nor the meaning of the word 'assertion'.

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.

So how did that work out for you, ilic?

Maybe you didn't bless him hard enough.