LOL. Well, you have the sig twice, so 20TH only seems fair

I just did reconsider, and, actually changed their entry. It should be hashcoins.com not hashcoin
As for the actual score, Im pleased to see so many others are getting the hang of it. Indeed, I dont want private skype calls, I want public evidence that everyone can scrutinize. If they can show it to me on skype, surely they can upload it to youtube?

Since you dont mind laughing at your victims, can you just honestly answer one question: how much did you make from this scam?

I sure have.
I own a non trivial amount of bitcoins, most of which in a cold wallet.

I see it slightly differently. If what you see is true, then this 'false' altcoin market only drew capital from short term speculators, not long term "believers".  I havent traded a satoshi for altcoins, and I suspect you didnt either. So the current btc valuation is probably a lot more representative  and therefore whats happened this year was a healthy correction. So thank you scam coins .

BTW, keep up the good work with badbitcoins, and feel free to use idea's or contents you will find in my signature to improve your site.

3 ponzi's collapsed this week, exactly as predicted.
cloudmining.website will join the list, or apparently already has: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=843417.msg9978356#msg9978356

Thanks, didnt know about that one. At first glance only 1+2+3 seem to apply.  Anything else I should know?

Who even cares about the "funds". It was supposedly a mining operation, not an online wallet

A local cookie factory is also restructuring, perhaps that sheds more light on the issue?
RM never sold mining contracts, isnt even bankrupt yet or failing to meet its obligations, and the idea that RM provided hardware to hashie gen 1 is just a confusion that turned in to fantasy.

What makes his claim even more ridiculous is the fact he fails to see that while cex.io sets monthly fees for their contracts (and did so ages ago and actually lowered them several times without any contractual obligationto do so), it doesnt set contract prices, the market does. Their contracts trade freely, they cant help if morons are charging and paying ridiculously high prices that can never turn a profit.

You can even take it one step further, if they were crooks, what on earth is preventing cex.io from dumping a bazillion more GH on to that market? For those prices, its a no brainer to do so, regardless if you have the hashrate to back it up (and they probably do, or could easily obtain them).

FFS.. No. Of course not. Its not rocket science. You pay $x per month flat fee. A month is a unit of time. Actual fees are then appropriated per block.  So if a block takes 2x longer to mine than average, you would expect to pay 2x more in fees on that block, because it took twice as long. and vice versa, a block thats found in half the average time will only cost you half as much in fees. Because the fees you pay per time unit, not per block. I already explained this to you several times and this is my last reply to you. Your inability to do math and comprehend simple concepts doesnt make cex.io a scam. Please take this elsewhere.

So what is the true identity behind your current favorite cloudmining ponzi, "cloudmining.website" If Im not mistaken?

Market cap of B.Mine/B.Sell is too low IMO for this to be plausible. Im not sure how big gen 1 ponzi was (do we have an estimate?), but I suspect it was bigger than "B.", and then you'd be assuming hashie was the only one trading it, which seems far fetched.

First of all, as others pointed out, not all cloudmining services are ponzi scams. Most are, but there are exceptions. See the link in my sig to learn more.
Of course, that does not mean at all that  those few legitimate services are generally profitable,  because they are not.

What I take more exception with however, is your proposed alternative. Lending bitcoins is generally an even worse idea than (cloud) mining. Its hard to see why a legitimate borrower would want to borrow bitcoins, considering its volatility. Most investments and costs are still fiat denominated, so the exchange risk is enormous for a borrower, he might see his debt double or triple in mere months.  The sad reality is that most of these of borrowers will end up using the BTC for cloudmining ponzi's (and will default on their loans when said ponzi collapses), gambling (same thing, you might as well gamble yourself), as a way to short sell bitcoin (probably resulting in a default  if BTC price goes up significantly) or plain old scamming the lenders by taking out ever bigger loans, increasing their credibility rating each time, until one day, they run. Cloudmining is usually a bad idea, lending out BTC an even worse one.

As for 'investing'; there is pretty much nothing you should even consider investing BTC in. Out of 100's or 1000's of IPO and scheme's Ive seen over the years, I can name precisely ONE that actually returned substantially more to its investors than it collected (asicminer). There are plenty of BTC related companies  I would like to be able to invest in (bitpay to name just one), but none of them raise capital through BTC, for the same reasons explained above.

In the end, bitcoin itself is your investment. Dont try to 'grow' it, you dont do that with an investment in gold or silver either.  Put it in a cold wallet and hang on to it. Thats the only truly sensible thing you can do with it, besides using it for buying stuff.

Yeah, its tricky. In general, if a verifiable business address is posted (that doesnt belong to a 'vrtiual presence' provider) and as long as no one reports the address is fake/abandoned/empty, I tend to grant that point, sometimes reluctantly like for hashprofit,  regardless of whois. After all, whois info can be faked just as well, whoisguard is turned on by default by some hosting companies. So by itself its not a smoking gun, but its an element I take in to consideration when judging point #6.

Zeusminer isnt a manufacturer of sha256 hardware, afaict its (allegedly) a reseller.


See above.
Besides, Ive already granted them the point "3" for pictures/video of their installation, but it wasnt based on the ones you linked.


Claiming to use some particular hardware doesnt score you any points in my rating. Having the manufacturer endorse you as a large customer, does.

Please dont. Im not interesting in hearing how well ponzi's work prior to their collapse. Its meaningless.
Unless you discovered some evidence of scamming, keep you "experience" to yourself.

Flying pink unicorns are for real. Prove me wrong.

.

I dont. All my criteria are explicitly stated and applied as objectively as I can. Its not a matter of 'opinion', either the evidence is there, or its not.


A block can be found after any arbitrary number of accepted shares, it all depends on network difficulty, the difficulty setting of the pool and :drumroll: LUCK.
What you still fail to understand is that your # submitted shares will correlate linearly with the  # shares the pool needed to find the block, assuming roughly constant hashrate. So what I said is still completely ttrue, and if you are going to insult me after the nonsense you have been posting, I suggest you start your own thread where you provide proof that organofcorti and me have no idea what we're talking about.

I think a more interesting contest would be guessing on what day cryptomine ponzi will collapse.
Im gonna go first and guess december 31. What do I win if Im right?