At this point it doesn't matter if things start working again. It would take ten seconds to drop a status update. This panic is manufactured.
How do you figure that the panic is manufactured when we all know it is a criminally fraudulent operation? Why wouldn't you panic if you had funds in this scam? |
|
|
|
Man the guy had it all... the opportunities he had with people with money and if he had half a brain he could be a real millionaire. Instead he managed to fuck up opportunities handed to him on a silver plate. Absolutely. Hell, with Stuart Fraser on his side he could have legitimately bought himself all the genuine brain-power he needed to develop a legitimate cryptocurrency platform for Cantor Fitzgerald to sign-off on and gone into the big league of Crypto. Instead he couldn't help but piss it all away on power-trips and brash displays of wealth. Maybe all he has is his, 'brilliant cock'. |
|
|
|
<fnurgle>
You *really* need to try reading up on debating technique little guy, your immaturity is showing. But, you know, you're right. I really should stop posting that link repeatedly in this thread. I have taken your advice and decided, instead, to make it loud and proud on my signature which previously just linked to the Ponzi101 thread but which now links conveniently to the math you can't deny. Cheers fella. :thumbsup: |
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong some of you go out of your way to find the truth and help people by protecting them from scams and other Ponzi schemes but at the same time it's almost as if u want scrypt.cc to fail just waiting to be there to point fingers and saying to everyone I told you. Once u have posted your proof and show people the truth it's up to them now to let me make their own choices as it is their money. By repeating over and over just starts to get annoying not helpful anymore. If someone wants to invest without researching again it's their problem from that point not yours or mine. U can't save everyone not matter what u say there is always someone will do opposite. With most investments usually has some form of risk of losing your money some way or another. How anyone has this much time to be here consistently repeating the same things must have not much of a life.
Really, shill? That all you got? A complaint about how frequently we keep the subject of the proof of scam current in this topic; so it doesn't get buried by sock puppet shill posts, BTW; and then an ad hominem about how sad and lonely etc. we must be. Yeah I'm just gonna go right ahead and keep up the effort along with the other decent human beings here who are determined to force this scam to stop operating, not because we want to laugh at its victims but because we want these toxic and harmful scams out of crypto. |
|
|
|
Just in case any of you missed this being posted in the main English language scrypt.cc thread. Excuse the use of English for this post, I do not know Russian https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0Scrypt.cc mathematically proven to be lying about their mining. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, what an epic scryptard shill love in from a bunch of sock puppet accounts.
Tell you what, scammers, how about actually rebutting the facts instead of spamming this thread with vapid praise for your scam and throwing the word 'troll' around like it magically makes it so scrypt.cc hasn't been mathematically proven to be lying.
|
|
|
|
khash price plumetting at the moment, down to 260sat.
not sure why people are dumping, i just bought another 20,000 or so at around 280 average.
once rewards get increased again which they will (just like always) the price will go back up to 500-1000 range again.
crazyness.
I don't see these prices. I see ~360 and all dust. A couple BTC will take it back up to 400+. There's less buying pressure right now because the blockchain got stuck once again. They still owe all of us one week's worth of profit plus the value of the KHS in our accounts. It was not right to ask for new investors at a discounted price all week and then just vanish on the day of the payout. It seems so pre-arranged. He had a plan and a BS tale to sell. Otherwise, would he not be communicating here or on facebook? Why the silence??? LMFAO, there is no way that marcelo is ever going to repay anyone for the lost "mining", as he is not mining. Silence works better for a ponzi in this situation, nothing bad to see in the trollbox, no warning signs on their social media. Makes it easier to catch the last few marks for the scam before it burns itself out.I wouldn't hold my breath on SCC going down. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is to get some BTC out of you trolls  Trolls are people who make antagonistic posts just to annoy people. We are posting provable facts while you shill incessantly in defense of a scam. |
|
|
|
khash price plumetting at the moment, down to 260sat.
not sure why people are dumping, i just bought another 20,000 or so at around 280 average.
once rewards get increased again which they will (just like always) the price will go back up to 500-1000 range again.
crazyness.
Craziness? No, perhaps some sanity is setting in as people realise the truth that scrypt.cc is lying about their mining which means you are all being sold 'KHS' that is simply a number on a screen with nothing of substance behind it. |
|
|
|
They went for OVER A YEAR, and to me I find that kind But then again, I'm pretty naive so I need opinion from what you guys think if I should bail or stay. Thanks
Well for starters they aren't mining and provably so. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0Also, for most of their 'long' existence they were barely functional, try reading the start of this thread. Most of the first year is covered by the first 30 pages because it was limping along as a substandard site until 'Admin' posted how he had 'got well and spent time travelling the world buying Scrypt ASIC miners' which, if you read the explanation in that link I gave you, is utter bullshit. So, you are 'investing' in a scheme which is predicated on lying to everybody, what do you think you should do? |
|
|
|
@D4RK5T4R I also already said even if scc is mining with 1kh its mining.
I was just relieving you of any doubt that marcelo did claim to be mining with 850 ghs, as you seemed to be under the impression that he had never stated that. Ok still all the proof is in the sentence scc wrote. Go with it or don't. How about the fact that he's sold at least 500GH/s-worth of his 'KHS'? That means scrypt.cc should be mining with 500GH/s of Scrypt for the holders of those sold 'KHS'. Which they aren't, because . . . math. |
|
|
|
i can't judge any other website scam or not...
You don't have to, the link I provided in my previous reply shows you that math can prove they are lying, no subjective opinion required, all objective fact. |
|
|
|
Just a crazy though
Let's imagine that Scrypt.cc is not a scam and it is just as admin says. Could it be that the big LTC price raise recently is due to scryptcc mining and holding the LTC mined (instead of selling for BTC as it used to do before the hack)?
I know, I know many of you are very smart and say it is a scam. But just imagine it was not. Would that be a explanation of LTC price raise?
Just want to know your opinion, I am a newbie to all this.
Firstly, as has been pointed out to you already, mathematics prove they are not mining with either 850 or even 500GH/s of Scrypt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0Secondly, think for a moment will you? The 'mining returns' are paid in BTC, which would mean that even *if* scrypt.cc were mining LTC, they'd be needing to sell all that LTC each day in return for BTC to restore the lost funds from the 'hack and pay their users, thereby lowering the price of LTC, not raising it. In any event, they're lying about mining, that's all you need to know to understand the situation. Cloud mining companies who fail to provide verifiable proof of their mining are not mining, they are scamming. |
|
|
|
|
I've got a scheduled court date with them in August.
It hasn't been cheap but I had the legal firm do all the work and they'll also handle the court for me as well, seeing as I'm not in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, yeah you can do it with any of these scammers' signature codes. Just copy their template and change the wording and links to suit.
I got the idea from someone else here I'd seen had done it so I can't take the credit for it.
|
|
|
|
He sure is advertising like crazy.
Admin:
Blockchain.info's API's having more issues then I thought.
Admin:
I don't know how long it's going to take but we're running scripts crediting the balance in their intermediate addresses.
Admin:
We ran through half of the last night, we're running through all of them right now.
Admin:
Takes a bit since there's over 10K addresses to check.
Admin:
So anyone with a stuck withdraw, it'll be credited in 2 hours max.
Admin:
Referrals will begin crediting today. Why does he still need a referral system if he's sold all the 'KHS' several months back? Don't worry, I already know the answer. |
|
|
|
With all due respect -- and I say that because I know from your posts you do value intellectual honesty -- you have no basis to say there is no "need" for God or an Intelligent Designer. Simply because we can speculate on numerous possible theories and hypotheses which could be used to explain processes we have yet to more accurately observe and measure, none of which would require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being. Sentence fragment. "Simply because [what you said afterwards]," then what? I'm not getting on your case for a typo. I'll assume the 'then what' is what follows in your next sentence. I meant the "Simply because . . ." on the basis of an answer to your rebuttal concerning my assertion that there is no 'need' for a 'God' to explain how our Universe works. Try reading it as though I were answering to you as though you had said, "Why do you believe your assertion to be true". Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly enough in that sense and so you read it as the lead-in to an assertion, as opposed to the clarification of a previous answer. So, on the basis that explanations exist which do not require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, they are by default *more likely* to be correct as they do not invoke infinitely more complex elements, namely, god(s). This is incorrect, aside from the fact that it says virtually nothing. When I say it is "incorrect," I mean that it is actually you, here, who is introducing unnecessary assumptions. You are assuming that it is "more likely" correct that an omnipotent God is not the missing explanatory element, which itself is likely based upon another, unspoken -- and more fundamental -- assumption that there is no means of determining whether an omnipotent God is necessary or not. If there is a means to determine whether or not God must exist by necessity, then we would also have a means of making such a determination in the absence of any assumption. And when I say that "it says virtually nothing," I'm speaking to the obvious fact that no explanation/theory includes that which is outside of its own scope. You're essentially saying something along the lines of, "A theory can be assumed to be more correct because of that which it can't account for." It might not seem to you like this is what you are saying, but in the absence of any knowledge about whether there is actually a means for accounting for what is beyond current explanation, then it is indeed what you are implying. I am applying Occam's razor in determining, in that it is possible for us to hypothesize explanations for Universal characteristics which are drawn from already-proven scientific theory, possible answers to questions about our Universe which have yet to be more definitely proven through multiple-disciplinary scientific observation and measurement. If we can propose answers which are at least based on what we know, as opposed to answers based on spurious and wildly speculative arbitrary claims towards entities derived solely from human imagination for which there exists no quantifiable characteristic, ergo far more complex given that non-quantifiable characteristics of an entity require the introduction of a whole new realm of supposition outside of known Universal laws, then we are more likely to be introducing elements which are closer to defining the true characteristics of the thing we are seeking to understand. On one hand, a telescope can provide us with data that lends to the extrapolation of an expanding universe from a single point in space; on the other hand, the fact that we observe galaxies in similar stages of development equidistant to our relative locality (i.e. to our right, we see galaxies at age x and at distance y, but we also see this if we look left, up, down, etc.) seems to suggest that we are always at the center of the Universe. Empirical methods have no means of resolving empirical paradoxes, and it is only by deferring to abstract methods such as logic and mathematics that we can possibly resolve these paradoxes. You are basing your argument on scientific limitation through technological measurement on a single-point of data, namely, a telescope, which you already know to be insufficient a reliable empirical observation, yet you show you are more than aware of the multi-disciplined nature of accepted scientific theory by mentioning the need for objective reasoning through logic and, of course, the use of mathematics. But in citing how erroneously interpreted a measurement can be from the objective data gathered from a single piece of technology, you are ignoring the fact that all accepted scientific theory is based on numerous technological tools, as well as logic and maths. We don't have to rely on our faulty perceptions and we don't need to imagine ourselves an omnipotent super-being as a reasonable answer to anything because said super-being would be infinitely more complex as it would need to exist outside of Universal natural law. But without knowing 'all that we can know,' we 1) can't assume God does or does not exist, and 2) can't assume that exploring the issue and possibly arriving at a conclusion won't yield practical value that is currently unknown to us. That sounds to me like a plea for science to stop being so unaccommodating to the idea of a God! Trouble is, you want the 'issue' explored and, let's be honest here, science is more than willing to explore anything and everything that it is reasonable to study, but as we have covered long-previously, you cannot define any element of this 'God' because, by its very nature, it is supposedly beyond our Universe. So how can we study something for which exists no definable characteristic other than the claimed omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence? The only way to study for something like that is to go all 'god of the gaps' which I'm sure you're not willing to accept as a reasonable position because it essentially says if we don't have an answer yet for what goes in that gap in our understanding, then God. Edit: The most intellectually dishonest point you make is even saying things like "philosophical gymnastics" to begin with. Absolutely all knowledge is predicated upon logic and Philosophy. Hearing you talk like this is like hearing BADdecker refer to the theories of science as "science fiction." A logical explanation, equal-to or greater in scope, trumps a scientific explanation 100% of the time, all the time, every time.
LOL, ok fair point. I know how much you love yourself plenty of philosophy. I'm just saying that you appear too ready to use broad philosophical brushstrokes to claim, "Hey, there could be a God", while ignoring the practical realities of what that actually translates to in terms of the difference between there being a invisible incorporeal floating dragon in your garage or something that you've probably just imagined up as being possibly there. |
|
|
|
I got google 2fas on authy, however, they only work on my mobile. desktop is always off (checked clock sync) - but only the non-authy 2fas
Do you have the desktop fully set up with your phone and does your phone automatically allow apps to sync data? Because some people have that permission switched off to save on potential data charges. |
|
|
|
I like your signature.  Guess not many will realize its content. Thanks, yeah I've got a thing about scam cloud mining sites and the negative repercussions on the wider cryptosphere. Is Authy creating the same codes like 2FA or does the site owner need to use it? Authy can handle any 2fa, including the 'standard'. So, if Google's Authenticator can work for a site, then Authy most definitely will. It's just a predefined cryptographic code sequence, it isn't unique to Google. |
|
|
|
I cannot recommend highly enough that you ditch Google's authenticator and use Authy ( www.authy.com). It allows you to connect up your desktop and your mobile devices so that if you lose one of them to disaster you can still recover the situation easily. It is far more versatile an app. The Google 2fa 'backup' codes are only for your Google account, not for any of the services you had registered on the Authenticator and the 'transfer to new device'? Same thing, just for your Google 2fa. the problem with authy is, that you're not able to sync google 2fa in the cloud. there are only local backups, correct me if I'm wrong please Well I've got authy on multiple devices including laptops and desktop and all of my 2fa codes for all services, including Google's login 2fa are there. You can protect the desktop version with a master password for opening, but I get your point. The ability to create backups of all your 2fa codes is there as well, which is a whole lot more useful than Google's offering. Yes, I know you can argue for limiting the spread of which devices your run on and where you keep your backups but, to be honest with you, I'm more concerned about losing my 2fa codes than I am about being targeted by a hacker who can crack my password manager and my authy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
