Nice use of Radio KAOS citation!

The quality of the grammar in that KNC post Homero made back in the day is clearly far superior to the mangling of the English language evidenced in his later Paycoin days.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Hey, Johnny Foreigner, if you're under the impression that this odd little repeated attempt of yours to translate the English phrase, "Go fuck yourself!" into something colloquial, still retains the same abrupt-but-effective impact in getting the message across, I've got some news for you, it doesn't. It's just making you look weird and a little obsessed with dicks-in-asses which is fine if that's what floats your boat, but in any event isn't engaging with your audience at anything like the level of witty-retort you mistakenly believe it to be.


Just so you know, denial isn't a river in Egypt. There is a difference between a reasonable belief that something is true and simply deluding yourself in the face of facts which prove your belief to be desperate.

Yes, we know, you're the one sending them as part of the criminal fraud.

Tick tock.

This'll be so they are able to eventually force the price lower than they can at the moment, which would be limited 1 satoshi per KH. By now 'converting' the ponzi 'KHS' fictional mining token to 'MHS', they will be able to lower it so far that most people's 'holdings' will be utterly worthless and, therefore, not worth chasing the 'lost' btc they 'invested'. Exit.

Sure, sounds legit.

Pleased to meet you, I'm the CEO of Bitcoin.

Yeah I've got a feeling ThorSWO is a sock-puppet of his, too. If not he's part of the group behind scrypt.cc I reckon.

Doesn't matter where 'He' resides, the website is being accessed through a US datacenter. The three-letter agencies in the US have the longest arms on this planet.

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

ORLY? How do you figure that?


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.

+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.

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!

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!

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2015mc91258/173389

ecurities and Exchange Commission v. Garza

Plaintiff:   Securities and Exchange Commission
Respondent:   Carlos R Garza
Case Number:   1:2015mc91258
Filed:   August 14, 2015
Court:   Massachusetts District Court
Office:   Boston Office
Nature of Suit:   Other

Eobot has some strikingly similar characteristics to this scam according to some of their 'investors'


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.

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.

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.

Can't explain how it solves the zero-confirmation vulnerabilities? Don't promote it as having solved the zero confirmation vulnerabilities.