As promised and just for honesty, I made another withdrawal and it worked.
4a4db9f76d9ca10460791d4a13f35ff5cc7f5feedf2186f0aadb59339c08e5a3
Don't waste your time, the people that post here most often are just trolling and/or using sock-puppet accounts. or they happen to present reasonable assertions that scrypt.cc couldn't possibly have the mining capability they claim they do, nor the payout rate they offer. Posting evidence of withdrawals happening is asinine, it doesn't serve to prove anything as the whole point of a Ponzi scheme is to make sure you can keep paying out the small fraction of withdrawals that are requested, all the while seeking more 'investors' and, ideally, the current ones to keep on adding more funds back in. It is when these schemes stop paying that it is already too late. |
|
|
|
To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway, it would create lots of very very very angry people. Given that theism has already been debunked, in that it is *no* different to just making something up and declaring it to be true, I think it is pretty apparent that people often prefer to shut out intellectual honesty in order to soothe their anxieties about not being 'special' to an invisible super-being. Carl Sagan said it best: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htmThe Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
|
|
|
|
People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed. I don't think that is a reasonable assertion to make. Religion is borne of ignorance and a need to imagine the answers to the questions of life, the universe and everything. Since the human species has begun to explore its reality by way of the scientific method of observation, measurement and testing, we have rapidly learned to better understand the cause-and-effect action/reaction processes that make up our universe and are growing increasingly aware of the fact that 'god did it' isn't knowledge of any kind. That atheism is spreading rapidly in educated cultures tells you that, in time, it will be become harder and harder for adults to deny their children the right to learn critical thinking skills and question what they are told. In the meantime we are witnessing the writhing and twitching dying of global religions as they lose hold of those able to think for themselves, leaving only the fundamentalist-level militant theists who will continue to disgust the 'moderates' to the degree that they, too, cannot bring themselves to remain part of such a toxic and dysfunctional group-think. The more the fundamentalists commit atrocities across the world, the quicker they are bringing about the end of their own religions. In time functional reasoning will see theism committed to the annals of history and held up as examples of toxic dysfunction which contributed to neurological and psychological disorders driving people to commit criminal and harmful acts against each other. |
|
|
|
@cryptodevil
I think it's important to have people out there that try to explain how mining actually works to people that are brand new to cryptocurrency. That's why I offered evidence to show that scrypt.cc's historical returns are unjustifiable based on the actual profitability of scrypt coins.
But no matter what, evidence-based arguments are answered with complete nonsense. Goldman Sachs was one of several companies that invested a total of $50 million in Circle, a website where you can buy Bitcoin with a credit card. What the hell does that have to do with scrypt.cc? As you pointed out, absolutely nothing.
Scrypt.cc says they paid like $2.50 per ghs for their hash power. That's far less than what it will cost even when next generation hardware comes out. There's no evidence they're actually mining, their returns are not based on reality, their payouts don't vary enough to account for the constant conversion from scrypt to Bitcoin they pretend they're doing, dissident voices are routinely muted in their chat, the list goes on...
These are things that we see and know are clear evidence of a scam, especially considering how easy it would be for scrypt.cc to prove us wrong if they were actually mining. The evidence is out there for anyone to see.
My point with all this is to say, maybe it's time to throw in the towel. The overwhelming tidal wave of stupidity will continue to crash down no matter what.
Huh? scrypt.cc claim to have paid only $2.50 for 1000Mh of scrypt-ASIC hash power? Seriously? When are they saying they paid this because the first scrypt-ASIC units, the 90Mh/s Innosilicon A2 90's were about USD10,000 in May of 2014 and KnC's 300Mh/s Titan units which weren't even shipped fully working until the end of 2014 cost USD10,000. You must have misread it, even at $2.50 per MH, let alone GH, it isn't feasible. Do you have a reference link for where that figure is cited? |
|
|
|
|
Give it up, scammer. You've already been shown to clearly be a fraudulent operation and I guess Ponzi fraud is likely to be a crime in India just as much anywhere else, so your desperate attempts to keep pushing this criminal operation forward is just stacking up more evidence for when you get busted by law enforcement.
BTW, you might think you're well protected by being in India but, as we see in the news every day, the US has a *really* long reach when it comes to criminal enterprises ripping off its citizens, so I'd suggest you have a rethink about just how clever you believe yourself to be in promoting this obvious-ponzi-is-obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I don't know if you could. After all, the network is based on the number of hashes it receives per second, not whether those same hashes are also being sent to other coin networks.
Does anybody else have any suggestions for whether it can be discerned how much of a network is merged mining?
|
|
|
|
Interesting. So you think all of the things they teach you in church about what not to do isn't what God wants but instead its man controlling man? Firstly, they don't 'teach' anything in church, they simply indoctrinate into their dogmatic belief system. You don't need to be told that god disapproves of you molesting your infant sisters to know that you have no right to do such a thing to them. Do you think Josh Dugger was wrong to touch his sisters naughty bits if the sisters didn't stop him? Was the Puritan father wrong to turn his son into the police for doing it? Does God not care about that shit?
Firstly, there were a few instances where Josh Duggar sexually assaulted those girls, sometimes they were asleep, sometimes they were not, every single time, however, they *were* sufficiently brainwashed into believing the patriarchal power he held over them that they simply complained to their dad, who claims they had a 'family meeting' on the first instance of it being reported to him and, on the second a few months later, they took him to 'Church Elders' and eventually a cop who was a good friend of Jim Duggar. A cop, coincidentally, who is currently serving 56 years for possessing extreme child abuse imagery. So, irrespective of what any 'god' might care about, something we have no basis to assert, *we* the decent human-beings who do not need our morality defined by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders, recognise that the psychologically toxic environment within that family and within that 'Quiverfull' religious sect, leads to raising dysfunctional children with neuropsychiatric disorders. That is what we care about, taking steps to stand up against the continued normalisation of a parent or organisation's religious 'right' to damage children to the degree they cannot help but harm others. |
|
|
|
No, that is multi-mining and basically is the same as mining on three completely separate scrypt networks, which all have difference 'answers' to the hash.
With merged-mining the ASIC produces a 'hash' and 'presents' it to each of the coin networks it is merge-mining at. If it works in any of them, ka-ching, block reward!
So 300Mh/s merge-mining is 300MH/s for each coin network being merge-mined, as I said.
Ok, but this can't be right. In this moment LTC is at 1.11 Th/s and DOGE at 1.48 Th/s. Supposed you are right, it had to be the other way around...? Btw. in the one pool I found some big guys, so it's still possible (from this perspective) that it's scrypt.cc. So more to search.... No, remember you still have to account for those miners who only mine Dogecoin and don't merge-mine. Remember, it is one hash 'answer' sent to each of the merge-mined coin networks for every new hash cycle. So a single hashing cycle will show up for each of them, not be divided amongst them. |
|
|
|
|
No, that is multi-mining and basically is the same as mining on three completely separate scrypt networks, which all have difference 'answers' to the hash.
With merged-mining the ASIC produces a 'hash' and 'presents' it to each of the coin networks it is merge-mining at. If it works in any of them, ka-ching, block reward!
So 300Mh/s merge-mining is 300MH/s for each coin network being merge-mined, as I said.
|
|
|
|
What if he starts questioning your actions instead of your faith and shows you videos projected on a cloud of you touching yourself while sniffing a pair of dirty panties? Do you think he would believe that was ok or would he send you to hell?
I believe the reasoning is such that, as long as you weren't hurting anyone and had lived as a 'good' person, his religious laws about not masturbating etc. wouldn't apply because, as had been understood by him, he'd done a pretty shitty job in making it clear what 'He' wanted and who he was. 'He' isn't exactly unambiguous when it comes to 'Holy' texts'n'shit(tm). |
|
|
|
|
Ohhh *that*, I always assumed people kinda knew that anyway.
But thanks for taking the time to type it up for me, appreciated.
BTW, as much as I get the point of your post, some folks would simply argue that god hates us because they just *know* he does. See 'why do atheists hate religion' thread for examples.
|
|
|
|
Thx for the link, but as I understood it, it's exactly in opposite. The hashrate is Litecoin+Dogecoin (see the table, it's added), and it would not make sense to be in one, but the payment is in both coins.
You misunderstand the situation: Before merged mining was implemented, Dogecoin mining and Litecoin mining were two separate lotteries that did not accept tickets from each other. Miners could only participate in a single lottery at any given time. When Dogecoin enabled its AuxPow algorithm, the Dogecoin lottery started accepting tickets from both groups of miners. For Litecoin miners, this meant they could generate additional (Dogecoin) revenue without any additional effort. As a result, the Dogecoin network total hashrate has increased tenfold, as most miners in the much larger Litecoin network started mining the former currency as well. What this means is that if half of, say, 1000GH/s total hashing on the Litecoin network is merge-mined, this will show up as 1000GH/s hashrate for LTC and 500Gh/s hashrate on the Dogecoin network (plus the small amount of dedicated Dogecoin miners) For an individual mining machine this means mining at a given hash-rate and for that hashrate to be reported within each of the coin networks it is merge-mining. e.g. a 300MH/s scrypt miner which is merge-mining LTC,DOGE and SYS will show up as 300MH/s on LTC, 300MH/s on DOGE and 300MH/s on SYS. Do you follow? |
|
|
|
|
Hold on while I just reach into my pocket and pull out my "Totally not a GS Puppet" membership card.
You *do* realise the absurdity of what you are asking, right?
Besides which, even *if* Goldman Sachs gave a flying one about some scrypt-mining operation, how does that change the facts that 850GH/s of scrypt-mining is clearly not down to scrypt.cc, as evidenced by the data I just posted?
|
|
|
|
Where did you get 75%? Last info I got was "23% of the mined coins" as info. And why you focus so strong on LTC? I got alraedy a few times that it's also DOGE and a 3rd one. As I wrote about, only 7 or 8 coins are big enough for this, and in two of them I found hash rate down ramps exactly fitting to the "energy shutdown" in May and also to the 850GH capacity. Combining this with an other coin which had not so a clear ramp, the numbers are perfect fitting.
On the other side your's and other's arguments are also not nonsense. And I know people personally (known them before scrypt.cc...) who have good and high withdrawn.
So for me there is still not a clear answer with facts.
I had many businesses myself of very different kinds in the past.
And if Marcelo realy has this good hardware and I would be in his place, I would also hide like hell.
I developed myself "forbidden" tech in the past, and had to hide years from "nice industry people...", after they did all to crash my business. So you can expect I'm not naive, but I have more than one perspective on things.
It is called 'confirmation bias', meaning you are looking for things which might serve to support the claims that have been made about 'power issues' and altcoins. Hashrate fluctuations happen all the time, are they all supposed to be because scrypt.cc claim to have had one of their DC's get switched off? As for Dogecoin, it is merge-mined, that extra hashrate it gained when they switched to what they call AuxPoW, comes from Litecoin miners on the Litecoin network which elect to merge-mine (not everybody merge-mines), the total scrypt hashrate for LTC merge-mining is not Litecoin+Dogecoin+Syscoin etc. It is simply Litecoin. (caveat: there will still be a few die-hards who will mine their favourite coin directly but the hashrate for them would be negligible compared to the juggernaut of Litecoin mining hash-power) http://digiconomist.net/how-auxpow-affected-dogecoin-mining/With regards to 'forbidden tech', you're just speculating based on what people have claimed. There is no evidence to suggest some secret scrypt-ASIC chips have been developed and sold, and it would be nonsensical to assert some guy in Brazil bought millions of dollars-worth of scrypt-ASIC miners from an unknown manufacturer when the hashrate for the total scrypt network for altcoins is already accounted for with the scrypt-ASIC units built by known manufacturers. In any event, he doesn't need to show hardware to prove he has 850GH/s of scrypt miners at his disposal, he only needs to show evidence of the freshly mined blocks he'd be churning out each day. Apparently he can't do this either. |
|
|
|
Where in that saccharine, 'omg, atheists, what if you die and the Xtian god is there!' I could only get through the first few minutes, if there is anything of substance in that video, please cite at which time point it is said. |
|
|
|
Interesting.... Question: Is it possible that scypt.cc is using pools? So that you can not see the details of the minings? For example based on you link I checked this one: https://ghash.io/ with whois details. They are at same hoster (may mean nothing, I don't know this hoster, maybe has millons of websites hosted...). Any infos about this? I'm new to the topic... Ok, I'll assume you genuinely are new to this and in need of some clarification. See this: ◼ F2Pool ~ 413 GH/s
◼ LTC1BTC ~ 334 GH/s
◼ LitecoinPool.org ~ 101 GH/s
◼ GHash.io ~ 59 GH/s
◼ Multipool ~ 26 GH/s
◼ CleverMining ~ 26 GH/s
◼ Coinotron ~ 24 GH/s
◼ Give Me Coins ~ 20 GH/s
◼ WeMineLTC ~ 18 GH/s
◼ 8 baochi ~ 13 GH/s
◼ LiteGuardian ~ 9 GH/s
◼ ProHashing ~ 9 GH/s
◼ P2Pool ~ 7 GH/s
◼ Mintsy ~ 2 GH/s
◼ SimpleMulti ~ 2 GH/s
◼ Unknown ~ 35 GH/s
Total ~ 1,099 GH/s
This details a breakdown of the mining pools which form the 1,099GH/s of scrypt hashing currently being performed on the Litecoin network. These are pools which consist of a mix of home miners and commercial miners. During the second-half of last year scrypt-ASIC miners began to be released by various manufacturers and sold to customers all over the world. That it has been claimed scrypt.cc are using scrypt-ASIC miners that are from some super-secret 'private' scrypt-ASIC manufacturer is to ignore the fact that all the non-super-secret scrypt-ASIC mining units that have been built and sold by known manufacturers would have to be accounted for in the ongoing network hashrate of scrypt coins. For scrypt.cc to be mining with 850GH of scrypt miners, in that there is literally only about 13GH/s of hashrate for the coins listed as being more profitable to mine than LTC at this time, it would mean that out of the above, they'd constitute 75% of the entire Litecoin network. There would be no point in them running it from a pool when 75% of the hashrate belonged to them because they'd be getting about 75% of all the mined blocks each day anyway. It would cost them money to be just a *really* powerful pool user because pools charge a percentage fee on earnings which could be avoided entirely simply by them running their own private pool if they really had 75% of the LTC hashrate. Which they don't. Oh, one more thing, just because their website might be hosted by the same provider, it would have no bearing on where their miners are pointed. Miners don't mine to the web, they mine to a coin network. |
|
|
|
Even if there is a perverted God that rewards only those who do not believe in him and punishes the rest of the crowd, atheists would still ultimately be pathetic losers, since all their beliefs and dogmas would turn out to be false in the end...
Wtf, now I understand why they are so hateful, spiteful, and overall vicious deep inside
HAHAHAHAaaaaAAAaAAAA!!! :standing-applause: Bravo! That truly is *the* single most telling post you have made so far. Let the hate flow through you . . . |
|
|
|
That was sarcasm, I knew that you would catch at this with a knee-jerk reflex, totally devoid of thought. :rolleyes: Sure, of course it was, totally devoid of thought, you know, what with the fact I pointed out how vapid an assertion it was, which it is but you still thought you'd get away with putting it in there. On a more serious note though, hate is often a flip side of envy, envy which cannot be gotten rid of by reason or faith. The latter atheists apparently lack, so you guess...
No thanks, I'm still full from your earlier word-salad. This is just more artery-clogging baseless cheesiness. Pro-tip: You know how theists totally like it when people make bold assertions which sound all very godly and serious and deep and mystical and spiritual and. . .shit . . .? Well theists might be able to get away with routinely pulling it out of their ass to the sound of much murmured approval from other theists, but we atheists tend to like our reality intellectually honest. |
|
|
|
LOL yeah, that's pretty good. What you should tell people to get them off your back is that you're a gambler. You're just hedging your bets. If you're right you go to heaven, wear a white robe and sing old John Denver songs for all eternity and I go to hell and have a fiery poker shoved up my corn crack for all eternity. If I'm right we both just get buried and turn to dirt. No matter what, you win.
What is it and people scrabbling for Pascal's Wager these days? Some dingus in the 'why do atheists hate religion' tried to cite it and when I pointed out that it had already been debunked by way of it being made very clear in multiple 'Holy' texts that worshiping the wrong god was the single most wicked act a human being could do and, therefore, the only logical response is to not worship any of them, he then tried to claim that because Pascal's Wager employs a god who cares about being worshiped then the only rule was that *any* god had to be worshiped to please him! Fallacy much? |
|
|
|
I see you are still desperately trying to catch at any opportunity to switch focus from the essence of Pascal's Wager to insignificant details. To end this meaningless debate I rephrase my initial post as following:
Yeah, sure thing, you go right ahead and pretend reality is how you declare it to be and that your attempt to claim theism as the 'optimum' choice in life, otherwise known as Pascal's Wager, wasn't shown by objective reasoning to be the flawed fallacy it clearly was. Atheists hate religion since in most religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) God cares whether people believe in him or not, and rewards believers (Hebrews 11:6 - "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him"), at the same time inexorably punishing those who do not believe (Romans 1: 18 - "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people"). Therefore, in the eyes of the followers of these religions (majority), atheists (minority) appear to be total losers, since if their God exists, the believers will be rewarded, if he doesn't, they lose nothing, which instigates hate and envy from the atheists (since the latter psychologically can't ignore the opinion of the majority, whether they like it or not)...
Haters gonna hate
Hahahahaaa! Nice! You're just doing the same dumb thing and asserting something without evidence or reason. You are declaring that atheists hate religion because theists look down on them? ROFL! Not only do you claim such, but you also threw in another arbitrary declaration, namely, that atheists envy theists? Do you even logic? What grounds do you declare atheists to be envious of theists? As for the majority>minority of theists and atheists, you are completely failing to account for the fact that atheist put no value whatsoever in theist fairy tales and certainly not in theist opinion derived from these fairy tales, so why would we care that theists are known to consider themselves as superior to atheists when we know damn well it is a delusional state of mind they are living in? We hate religion because it poisons everything. Everything. No need to dream up convoluted ideas where you try to crowbar some kind of absurdity about how we supposedly envy theists for their faulty thinking simply because there's so fucking many of them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
