All I am getting at here, is that people are wasting their time reporting the site to the Web Host.
The fact is there is a ToS, you did accept it by clicking Register, it is right under the Register Link, and to add to that if you read it, it basically states that, We are not liable to anyone for anything, you accepted ToS by clicking register.
Plus any host does their due diligence typically, and if they do, they will see the ToS and read it. Which basically makes any of the complaints that are being tossed their way garbage.
Panicking much about being reported to the three letter agencies? Firstly, those ToS would be classed as unreasonable and deceptive. Secondly and more importantly, scrypt.cc claimed they were mining publicly and very clearly. Whatever sneaky little deception they think they are getting away with by describing it as something else in the ToS, their own promotion and public statements describe them as a cloud mining service which mines to pay users. So, no, go check out how well things are going for the Garza brothers, because GAW tried that very same shit with their Hashlets, hiding the 'truth' in the ToS while absolutely marketing them as something else. Funny how people suddenly pop in to this thread to claim there is no criminality to the scam. Save yourself the bother of posting false legal excuses and just cut to the chase, will you? A simple, "Oh shit! Please don't call the feds on us!" will get the same message across as your convoluted attempt to claim no illegal act has been committed by scrypt.cc |
|
|
|
The vast majority of these reasons are not scam related. ORLY? How do you figure that? I believe that a very low minority of sold accounts are used to attempt to scam, and of those, a very small percentage of accounts are ever successful at scamming. Ohhhh, you *believe* there's only a small minority and, even then, you're going to claim that *only* a small percentage of that tiny minority successfully manage to scam anyone. SMH. Where to even begin with that fallacious reasoning? You spent so many words explaining why people would sell an account that it might confuse people into mistakenly thinking that your reasonable assertions explaining the seller's side of the process, also holds as reasonable for the buyer's side. It doesn't. 1. The very act of buying an account with good standing and a high member ranking is to defraud the natural process of social selection all users have to go through in establishing their posting history and community standing. 2. Anybody who promotes anything through a high-standing account they have purchased is being dishonest and deceptive, unless they are willing to clearly state in their signature or avatar text that it is a bought account, which would make the purpose of purchasing an account pointless, right? 3. You state that a buyer would have a greater incentive to try to scam if they know they will receive negative trust for it being a bought account, that is laughable. You are essentially saying, "Don't piss these dodgy bastards off, otherwise they'll *really* work harder to defraud people. 4. You then state that owners of accounts who are desperate for money would try and scam if they couldn't offload their account to someone else, which is basically the same thing as saying, "Desperate people should be allowed to sell their ID so that scammers will defraud forum users instead of them having to". 5. As for claiming it would do more harm than good to nuke sold accounts, I disagree, the trade in this dodgy practice would soon become pointless, thereby drastically curbing the number of fake high-ranking account users if was clear that sold accounts were being torched once discovered to not be the original owner. Give me three valid reasons why somebody would want to buy a high-ranking account which wouldn't count as deception? I'll save you the effort, don't bother, you can't. |
|
|
|
The amount does not matter, it is still considered false accounting/fraud.
You said you can only refund it if they complain, please send a newsletter to ALL of your customers asking them to check their account and ask for a refund if there are discrepencies.
+1 I don't have a dog in this fight, but it sure as hell stinks like scrypt.cc's 'autobuy' shenanigans recently and they are a proven and confirmed ponzi. For your firm to not immediately send out notices to customers advising them to check the status of their account due to this error is unprofessional, to say the least. It would almost seem like you were counting on the fact that a whole bunch of customers wouldn't notice. |
|
|
|
|
Nicely done, sir.
If this site can be taken offline then there is less chance for the scammers to keep this long drawn-out mark-cooling phase going and, therefore, more chance there'll still be enough 'investors' sufficiently motivated to take appropriate action against them.
|
|
|
|
If you ask the leaders of the civil lawsuit against Garza, they will tell you that they have been easily tracking the "HashKing" since day one.
They have followed him to Dubai & back & they know where he is now.
ABC agencies have been collecting data & evidence against him all summer, including the last agency you'd ever want to deal with, not just the SEC...
Be patient, yo!
It's gonna be beautiful...
Wow. Somebody on the internet delivered on their promise! Popcorn mode . . .ON! Bravo, RoomBot, have the internet for the rest of the week, do whatever you want with it, you deserve it for not letting us down on the promise of incoming Garza-related entertainment! |
|
|
|
ATTENTION: CURRENT SCRYPT.CC INVESTORS!!!.........fnurgle
Google translate: Stop saying bad things about these criminals behind cloud mining scams when my advice to you is the only solution you have . . . Beg, Bitches!!!1!1!!1!!elebenty!!1!!1! |
|
|
|
If you are talking about https://blockchain.info/address/19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ . take a look at the deposits. They are admin's, and they are all small amounts - Do you see the patterns there? Always around 1.28 BTC goes out to a change address. Follow the change addresses, you will be surprised. Many go to larger wallets, others end up at Eobot (Where he is probably cloud mining using all your bitcoins on the side LOL). Seriously, can any of you scryptards even read a blockchain at all? Admin is fucking you all over, GTFO or lose even more coins!  Eobot has some strikingly similar characteristics to this scam according to some of their 'investors' I've invested 0.01 btc in Eobot since last June 2014 and up until now, I don't receive ROI. :v Though I must say that their support is responding really fast to my queries, still it's not worth the time and money to invest it in there.
yes indeed , I got the same feeling with you regarding these cloud mining investments which promises ROI but doesn't deliver on time , best bet would be in using mining equipments , at least that way , we have full control of our maximum possible earnings Anyways it was my first time, everyday when i see my earning there it makes me laugh , i asked the people chatting over there , how much profit you have made in total? , they never replied and moreover it seems like Bot Conversation. It has been mentioned a number of times how the many hundreds of 'people' in scrypt.cc's trollbox often seemed to be having really weird conversations that didn't make sense. Where's GermanGiant and SpanishSoldier these days? They've been tagged as being part of this series of scams for quite some time. That 'cmmonitor' website, which is supposed to be used to gauge the status of the 'cloud mining' operations is likely part of the group of scams being run by the same criminal gang. This is why they have survived for as long as they have, because they can simply shuffle funds around each of the ops as needed. |
|
|
|
|
They must have them on a different rotation somehow, the rapist is still listed in that group of 'satisfied investors' when I load it up.
|
|
|
|
nice alibi  now he is on a business trip and he did not even ask someone to take charge of his business and just allow a "script" to take charge. and gone, i was withdraw all 2 days ago and got nothing  as posted above, admin apologized and said will process in the next 48 hours lets see if he is still true to his words and pay everyone he owes True to his words? Like when he said he had 500Gh/s of scrypt mining power to sell you? Funny how he spent time making sure to handle the deposits when he was supposedly sat in the airport while on 'business' but didn't feel compelled to make the same effort for withdrawals. It's almost like he is a lying criminal scumbag. Quick, ThorSWO, jump in to defend scrypt.cc with all that inside knowledge you appear to have. |
|
|
|
Our fixed fee for this would be £380 which would include the court application fee, preparation of the application and witness statement and attendance at the application hearing by an advocate.
Basically.. "winning" would be 380 GBP, and in my case that fee was recoverable. They also advocated for 8% interest per year because Alpha was being "unreasonable" which was also granted. I'd ask for a little more clarification on that 'fixed' price, I've paid more than three times that amount to get to the point of the court date and solicitor's attendance fee with them. The price they mention there is just to get the court application filed and then Alpha get to file whatever defense they think they can muster against it and then it can go to small claims court, whereupon there will be additional fees to pay for the hearing fee and the solicitor's fee to attend it. |
|
|
|
don't like the coin don't buy it.
Can't explain how it solves the zero-confirmation vulnerabilities? Don't promote it as having solved the zero confirmation vulnerabilities. |
|
|
|
John Conner already gave a rebuttal to his last erroneous conclusions. Why should he keep having to deal with this troll?
Perhaps because JC's 'white paper' is severely lacking in any content which would suitably rebut the points being raised? Your post history concerning this developer and his coin is becoming shillier by the day and your tactic of repeatedly calling people 'Troll' or their assertions 'FUD', are tiresome. We get it, you want people to idolise JC the way you do, but it isn't going to happen unless and until he can actually satisfy the technical issues related to his claims towards having solved 'zero confirmation' transaction vulnerabilities. |
|
|
|
|
"A good site gone bad"?
Of course it is, because it was so legitimate before and all during the clearly-obvious-scam-is-clearly-obvious 500GH/s+ of sold Scrypt mining, when Vik continued to whore herself around promoting it and recruiting more victims to it through both her shitty website and the XPY Paycoin community forums where anyone who raised questions about her continued promotion-in-the-face-of-facts was labelled a 'FUDDER' and a 'Troll'.
You know, the usual degree of dishonesty and immorality befitting people who like to make money off the naivete of others.
|
|
|
|
|
Quick question, now you know without doubt that scrypt.cc is a fraudulent operation, are you going to remove the referral link from your signature?
|
|
|
|
Key is to jump out just at the right time No, the 'key' is to not participate at all and starve the scammers of their profit. Your 'profit' comes from other people losing their 'investment'. No, it is not the same as trading on the markets where one side gains and the other loses, because you are not in a market with equal rules and known elements, you are simply sending money to criminals and hoping that your funding of their scam will be rewarded by their decision to send you a fraction of their loot so you can further promote their scam to other victims. Nice morality you got there. |
|
|
|
Okay I've digested the white paper. I appreciate john-conner providing more details. That was the honorable and helpful action. Unfortunately afaics, there are elementary attack vectors that he has not addressed in this white paper: - No cost to being a peer, thus a Sybil attack on nodes in general. The adversary could insert a unlimited nodes if he wants to in order to dominate voting.
- How to squelch DoS attacks on the vote? A node which always votes against consensus can't be distinguished from one voting honestly since lock conflicts result in an indeterminate vote.
- He employs a Bellagio Algorithm to avoid gaming the selection of which nodes to poll for votes, so this removes the reputation weights of Skycoin's consensus, but it doesn't address the spamming of total node count nor the spamming of the lock conflict.
- Nodes are not paid for voting. If they receive bribes from the double-spender, the algorithm has no defense other than it hopes that 50% of the nodes in the network are not on-the-dole.
- Lock request spamming or DoS attacks. Are transaction fees hardcoded for the entire network?? Preset constants are anti-decentralization.
Also this algorithm requires the entire network to see all the transactions which of course won't scale without centralization, so if he is trying to enable real-time microtransactions (1 second confirmations) which could explode transaction volumes up to the 100,000s or more per second then he has a problem. Refer to the GavinCoin fork debate. He's solving Bitcoin problems thought impossible to solve while you are a troll on a forum.....hmmm who to trust. Are you claiming the points raised are invalid? |
|
|
|
|
So you can prove that those deposits are all actual 'investors', right? Not just the standard continual looping recycling of coins through mixing services in order to give the false impression of interest in their scam?
|
|
|
|
To those calling BitClub Network a scam, what do you have to say about the BitClub pool PROVABLY mining 3 blocks in one day?  I think this should silence the critics and prove once and for all that BitClub does in fact own 1% of all bitcoin mining power. Or owns a handful of miners they can video and then rents a load of hash-power to produce enough blocks to support their claims while actually running the usual referral-scheme-based fractional-mining/ponzi. Yeah, given all the red flags and warning signs your scheme is spitting out by the shed-load, I'm going with my theory over your claim. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
