Except, of course, that is exactly what we are doing, discussing the matter rationally while you resort to fallaciously complaining that we are unhinged and ranting etc. etc.

You're not exactly coming across well in this debate if the only thing you have in your locker is ad-hominem.

Huh? How does that work? We post valid concerns relating to the likelihood of scrypt.cc being a scam, ponzi or fractional mining scheme and that earns us money somehow?

"Yes Admin of scrypt.cc, unless you pay us [insert amount here] we will post our valid concerns regarding your suspicious 'cloud mining' operation whereby we will point out that you vehemently refuse to offer any transparency or evidence to show yourself to be a legitimate operation"

We iz evil genius.

LOL, this isn't squabbling, this was simply you trying to be a smart-arse and playing down the likelihood of scrypt.cc being a scam and then failing miserably.

In an industry where cloud mining operations who cannot operate transparently are always shown to be scams, your weak attempt to deny the glaringly obvious is second only to the, "well I don't care if it is a scam, only invest what you can afford to lose", shill crowd.

Ohhh I see, so your reply to my post, where you clearly state I am failing to comprehend the content of your earlier assertion, is actually just bollocks and I did, indeed, understand your post to be excusing the scrypt.cc scam on the basis that you are claiming it has been running for long enough now that it surely must be legit.

Glad we cleared that up. Funny that, Josh Garza's scam also was shown to be running an active campaign to try and counter the allegations by saying it was all meaningless FUD unless someone could show proof of wrongdoing. Is that where you're going with this? Stating that scrypt.cc has to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

You are going to be falling for a lot of scams in your life if that is how you are going to base any evaluation of whether to buy in to them or not.

After-the-fact discovery of proof is not likely to save people from losing their money. So by establishing the fact that scrypt.cc flags up for all the warning signs of being a ponzi and is actually unwilling to prove otherwise, we can safely say that it is highly likely to be a scam.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to highlight which part of your post is suggesting something other than 'lack of proof of scam equals not scam'.

Do you hear the fallacy in your words?

You are trying to suggest that because it has been running for so long it can't be a scam. That is absurd. Josh Garza managed to keep his going for nearly that long and he is an illiterate delusional narcissist. The guy(s) behind scrypt.cc are clearly more than capable of operating within parameters that ensure neither identity nor proof-of-scam can be found about their platform.

But absolutely all the warning signs are there and they still will not present any proof to counter the accusations they do not possess that sort of mining power.

This makes no sense and yet could be so easily settled if they were legit.

This.

The purpose of the electricity story is to reconfigure the ponzi payout structure as the further away from the top of the pyramid you get, the larger percentage of the btc paid in needs to be paid out to demonstrate that it is absolutely not a scam, no sir, not at all.

Extending the 'ROI' time means people who buy in order to 'mine' will wait much longer before withdrawing any of their 'profit' and people who can't be arsed to wait for their 'profit' will simply trade these 'KHS' on the site instead, which offers him the opportunity to manipulate the market to his own gain.

Again, no proof of miners=no miners.

Man you really suck as an investigative journalist.

1. It is incredibly common practice in business to either sign or at least initial each page of a contract to demonstrate that the signature page you sign is in regards to the total document as evidenced by your signing/initialising the other pages so they cannot be substituted after the fact.

2. It doesn't say, "LEO" it says, "CEO", albeit that should really be written the line below, where it says "its", denoting the position held at the company by the person signing.

Hey, Mr Condescending Douchecanoe, you been under a rock all this time?

You come to this discussion and post the typical shill refrain of complaining about the fact a thread has exposed the scam repeatedly and then start demanding we all jump to attention and run around to do your http://www.cryptoarticles.com/ dirty work?

What makes you think you're entitled to special treatment?

Sure because refusing to post proof of your truly massive mining op is a sure fire sign they are legit, right?


Again with the false logic. Why would he close up shop when there is still much more money to be made from the scheme?

Wow, you call yourself a journalist, a 'content creator'?

Yet all this post is doing is complaining about the truth being exposed?

Why? Why would you bother making a post which clearly shows you to be either ridiculously uninformed or attempting to protect the ongoing schemes and scams?

'Serenity Keepers' ? WTF, sounds like the kind of heavies employed by Jim Jones to force people to drink the cool-aid.

So bitcoinist posts shilling article for coincard which had to be pulled for the shilly scam article it was, but now they want to pretend they are on the up and up by getting into bed with Homero on the basis he isn't going to get that domain seized by the three letter agencies?

Good plan.

Now you're just pulling this out of your ass. Sure, let's play a game of making-shit-up and using that in defence of how the scam absolutely couldn't be a scam etc. etc.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.

None of scrypt.cc's operation suggests it is anything other than a highly profitable ponzi.

As for the retarded logic that the owner would surely have done a runner by now, that is just ignoring the fact that the only reason for him to run through this market-rattling exercise is to socially engineer himself more profit.

The total amount of BTC withdrawn from that site is unlikely to even account for 10% of the amounts that are frequently deposited. Why would he run now when he can still make a ton of money off people who don't want to ask difficult questions of him because they want to keep pretending to themselves this scheme is not a scheme but an actual cloud mining operation.

So BTC.com has just launched, whoring their subdomains out apparently.

Colour me skeptical that it is nothing to do with Homero

Seems legit.

True. The funny thing is how this thread topic is a question aimed at atheists, who answer it with their personal opinion on the matter, but it ends up getting hijacked by theists and theist-apologists who end up trying to either answer it on our behalf or who try to claim our reasoned position to be erroneous while their intellectually dishonest delusion is correct.

So when we counter their fallacious argument with critical analysis, they get all butt-hurt and try to claim our position to be equal to theirs in that it is an unsubstantiated belief, too. Which it isn't because it is not a belief, it is a rejection of their belief for being fallacious.

^^^ LOL, so the hash rate actually increased after he claimed their miners had been switched off? That is hilarious.



No but that isn't stopping some desperate folks from scrabbling around the place trying to claim that there's hundreds of altcoins where it could be 'hidden'.

Which simply isn't true. Firstly, they need to understand that not all altcoins are Proof-of-Work and, secondly, not all PoW altcoins are scrypt.

That is a massive amount of scrypt hashpower that apparently went offline and if they go on to claim it is back online at any point in the coming days there would be a noticeable degree of fluctuation in the hashrate for many scrypt coins. Which we won't see.

*sigh*

Just because you don't see a scammer suddenly legging it across the virtual landscape clutching a bag full of money, it does not mean the scam you are being fooled by is not a scam.

There is a reason this Ponzi has lasted so long and that is because it has been carefully engineered, technically and socially, to minimise on the withdrawals by way of encouraging people to re-invest their 'profit'. That is how these schemes work, by putting numbers on the screen to show a thousand people they have made good money and so why would they not want to plow it straight back in again, so they can make even more!!!!!!111!!!11!elebenty!!!1!

The story of the miners having their electricity cut off is all part of the process of milking the cash-cow further.

Let me give you an idea of how easy it is to keep a fractional-reserve Ponzi going:

1. 1000 'Investors' send 1 BTC each to buy 1000KHS which will pay them 0.001 per day
2. The scheme now has a balance of 1000 BTC
3. The console screen each 'investor' sees, will show them regularly earning their 0.001 each day
4. Occasionally an 'investor' is going to want to cash out some of their 'profit', so after 50 days a hundred of them withdraw 0.05 to their own BTC wallet.
5. The scheme now has a balance of 995 BTC
6. Everybody hears how 'profit' is being easily withdrawn, so there is no need to worry and they can, instead, 're-invest' their 0.05 they have made after 50 days, back in to the scheme in order to 'compound' their 'profit', right?

So far it has cost the scheme 5 BTC out of the 1000 BTC they received, to run for 50 days and, because people are making good money and, actually, can earn more by referring new 'investors' to the scheme, then even more people start joining up and paying in their 1 BTC each.

The more people joining the scheme means that the fraction who do withdraw are allowed to in order to encourage more investors to see that it is 'legitimate' and, therefore, add their BTC into the pot.

Way more BTC goes in than ever comes out.

This is what fraudulent 'cloud mining' is all about.

There is no reason to believe that scrypt.cc is anything other than a scheme as described above. All the signs are there and none to suggest otherwise.

Smarmy sycophancy will get you nowhere in your failed attempt to promote fallacious theism.


No, for a person to say, "There is no God" he would need to define the myriad variations of everybody's personal subjective claim towards their own personal God, which is not what this is about and would be a pointless exercise.

If a human being is told by another human being, "There is a God", yet the person making the assertion cannot provide a reasonable definition of what they actually mean in terms of tangible characteristics nor, for that matter, any evidence or reasoning to support their claim, requiring the employment of logical fallacy such as special pleading, then the person who is being told, "There is a God", is correct to reject that assertion on the basis that it is clearly groundless and utterly lacking in any objective substance.

This does not require the person being told, "There is a God" to have to derive anything themselves about this 'God' other than the fact the assertion being made towards the existence of said entity is grossly flawed.

Remember, I no more need to disprove your assertion, "There is a God" any more than I need to disprove somebody else's assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn flying around Saturn". You are the one making the claim towards something, that the basis for your claim is devoid of reason and substance means I can simply dismiss it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"


So who created your 'Creator'? You will, no doubt, want to respond along the lines of how your 'Creator' didn't need to be created because, well, 'God'. Does it ever occur to you that your argument is absurd in that, on the one hand, you want to claim that everything has to have a creator except for the one thing you claim does not, a thing which you are applying arbitrary characteristics to because, as we know, that is all you can do when it comes to fictional characters.

Your 'logic' is grossly flawed.


Dude, you already had this claim torn apart in the 'Miracles of . . .' thread which was rapidly closed because the absurd notion that there are statements in that book concerning scientific facts which, allegedly, could not have been known at the time it was written, was exposed for being the absurdity it is.

There is nothing in that book which indicates it is anything other than a book written from the imagination of man.

Stop trying to kid yourself that it is, or at least limit yourself to claiming such only when you are in the company of equally intellectually dishonest people who are as desperate as yourself to believe such bollocks.


Fuck's sake, so what do you think is the process which serves to demonstrate the atheist lack of belief in the existence of a deity? Yes, that's right, it is the process of rejecting the theist assertion, "There is a God" on the basis it is intellectually dishonest and utterly unsound.

Most of the people I know who express a 'lack of belief in the existence of an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn', do so on the basis of what? Yes, that's right, through the process of rejecting the invisible-pink-unicornist assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn", on the basis of it being equally unsound an assertion to make!


I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.


Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!

Way to rebut my valid points there, real solid reasoning and counter-argument. Sure showed me.

Oh, one small thing, I guess you know nothing of the 'tone complaint' dishonest argument. Learn it. Avoid using it. Otherwise you simply look like you're doing the one thing you are doing, which is to avoid having to actually answer the content of what I am saying, by complaining about how I am saying it.