Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

[PDOR figlio di KMER]

Dont forget you can get free 100GH for 1 week too. I believe

if you buy other 100 ghs, for how much? 1 year?
sha256 hashpower goes over and over up, 2 years ago i coulld mine 20 euro/25 dollars in 30 days with a poor 7770 of 193 mhs, in 24 month power needed 1.000.000x? it's sone of terahash
21 month ago i remember jalapenjo asic 5 ghs 399 dollars, now it give you half dollar of bitcoin sucking 10 dollars of energy

scrypt difficulty in 1 year went fron 3000 to 40000 so about 12x
so i prefer a ponzi scrypt.cc instead of something in whith every week my mining decrease of 20% as in sha256

sha256 is too easy, and asic are far to  go as moore law(double power every 18 month)
neiither script is in moore but is quite, last 5 month no many news

[galdur]

Back to scrypt.cc

Now they´re getting tired of trading peanuts and about 60 BTC worth is spread over 686-690 I see. We´ll see how that goes.

P.S. Yeah actually 120 now. I guess the whales are resigned to the inevitable; that to attract new money and buying to service their needs much higher yield and shorter ROI is needed.

[ilic]

so any update on the 350ghash being added?

[galdur]

RE: Ming power. I´ve seen this typo somewhere else before just can´t remember which operation. May even have seen it more than once. I´m sure it all went six feet under long ago. In any event, criminals tend to be traced by their repetitive patterns in behavior. It´s just an observation, not that I´m accusing these latest ming power guys of anything. I don´t have a clue about them nor do I care all that much.

[cryptodevil]

Glad you didn't loose too much too. At least it was just profit. I did find is suspicious that the miners could be relocated in a day. The LTC hash rate didn't decline as much as it should of during this "off time" too. That raised from red flags for me as-well

They're not relocated in a day. He said that today. They're not all back on line. A lot of hashing power is still at DC4. He said that today. They're trying to resolve the power issues but they need the lawyers to work it out.

I see how this could appear to all add up, but at the same time - you can't rule out that this is a complete fabrication.  For all we know, his name is not really Marcelo Santos.

I'm half IN half OUT at the moment...

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.

[galdur]

I don´t know; we´re talking about soon sixteen months that this operation has been going. It seems kind of unlikely that all this time nobody has gone down there to check things out. Especially since the guy is encouraging people all the time to do so. Those who can afford to have tens of thousands of dollars sitting there and there have been quite a few, probably can afford to spend some time in Brazil or hire someone to do so. Not that it´s a huge undertaking anyway. Which means that some have done just that in the last almost a year and a half. Otherwise we need to really stretch the probabilities I guess. Now; whether they have had any reason to broadcast their findings is their own business of course.

[cryptodevil]

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.

[galdur]

I think you need to read my post again. Not that your comprehension is much of a concern to me. I don´t really waste time on interpretations.

[cryptodevil]

I don´t know; we´re talking about soon sixteen months that this operation has been going. It seems kind of unlikely that all this time nobody has gone down there to check things out. Especially since the guy is encouraging people all the time to do so. Those who can afford to have tens of thousands of dollars sitting there and there have been quite a few, probably can afford to spend some time in Brazil or hire someone to do so. Not that it´s a huge undertaking anyway. Which means that some have done just that in the last almost a year and a half. Otherwise we need to really stretch the probabilities I guess. Now; whether they have had any reason to broadcast their findings is their own business of course.

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'.

[galdur]

Well, in the civilized parts of the world it isn´t up to the accused to prove their innocence but rather the accuser to prove them guilty. But I´m sure that this means nothing to you since you clearly are unaware of this concept.

[cryptodevil]

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.

[galdur]

Bye bye forever. Not going to waste time squabbling with you.

[cryptodevil]

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.

[flyingplows]

Well, in the civilized parts of the world it isn´t up to the accused to prove their innocence but rather the accuser to prove them guilty. But I´m sure that this means nothing to you since you clearly are unaware of this concept.

Exactly. The thing that they don't provide at least minimal evidence of mining  is more than enough to prove that it's a ponzi. More than enough proof.
Now, isn't it obvious that if they provide proof and still had this ROI their customer base would tenfold if not 100x ? Why they don't provide the proof then? You know why, but I can tell you. Because there is no proof and no mining.
Now go buy some PayCons[CON]!

[Mario241077]

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.

yes sir, very good words +1

[galdur]

Well, in the civilized parts of the world it isn´t up to the accused to prove their innocence but rather the accuser to prove them guilty. But I´m sure that this means nothing to you since you clearly are unaware of this concept.

Exactly. The thing that they don't provide at least minimal evidence of mining  is more than enough to prove that it's a ponzi. More than enough proof.
Now, isn't it obvious that if they provide proof and still had this ROI their customer base would tenfold if not 100x ? Why they don't provide the proof then? You know why, but I can tell you. Because there is no proof and no mining.
Now go buy some PayCons[CON]!

Well, maybe they and their customers don´t really give a hoot about some anon nobodies on some message board demanding this or that.

[flyingplows]

Well, in the civilized parts of the world it isn´t up to the accused to prove their innocence but rather the accuser to prove them guilty. But I´m sure that this means nothing to you since you clearly are unaware of this concept.

Exactly. The thing that they don't provide at least minimal evidence of mining  is more than enough to prove that it's a ponzi. More than enough proof.
Now, isn't it obvious that if they provide proof and still had this ROI their customer base would tenfold if not 100x ? Why they don't provide the proof then? You know why, but I can tell you. Because there is no proof and no mining.
Now go buy some PayCons[CON]!

Well, maybe they and their customers don´t really give a hoot about some anon nobodies on some message board demanding this or that.

Well, maybe they had zero customers if they didn't actively advertise on *some* message board, having a dedicated active thread, running a signature campaign and having shills all around

[galdur]

Well, in the civilized parts of the world it isn´t up to the accused to prove their innocence but rather the accuser to prove them guilty. But I´m sure that this means nothing to you since you clearly are unaware of this concept.

Exactly. The thing that they don't provide at least minimal evidence of mining  is more than enough to prove that it's a ponzi. More than enough proof.
Now, isn't it obvious that if they provide proof and still had this ROI their customer base would tenfold if not 100x ? Why they don't provide the proof then? You know why, but I can tell you. Because there is no proof and no mining.
Now go buy some PayCons[CON]!

Well, maybe they and their customers don´t really give a hoot about some anon nobodies on some message board demanding this or that.

Well, maybe they had zero customers if they didn't actively advertise on *some* message board, having a dedicated active thread, running a signature campaign and having shills all around

Come on, this is really desperate. Are you fruitcakes involved in some sort of extortion racket?

[flyingplows]

Well, in the civilized parts of the world it isn´t up to the accused to prove their innocence but rather the accuser to prove them guilty. But I´m sure that this means nothing to you since you clearly are unaware of this concept.

Exactly. The thing that they don't provide at least minimal evidence of mining  is more than enough to prove that it's a ponzi. More than enough proof.
Now, isn't it obvious that if they provide proof and still had this ROI their customer base would tenfold if not 100x ? Why they don't provide the proof then? You know why, but I can tell you. Because there is no proof and no mining.
Now go buy some PayCons[CON]!

Well, maybe they and their customers don´t really give a hoot about some anon nobodies on some message board demanding this or that.

Well, maybe they had zero customers if they didn't actively advertise on *some* message board, having a dedicated active thread, running a signature campaign and having shills all around

Come on, this is really desperate. Are you fruitcakes involved in some sort of extortion racket?

No, defending obvious scams in their threads is desperate because everywhere else it's already taken for a fact.
And yes, we are just anon nobodies like all potential customers are, who do you expect to ask for proof? Bill Gates?
BTW, WHO ARE THEY?

[galdur]

But I agree it´s kind of suspicious that a cloud mining operation has a thread on Bitcointalk, It´s certainly unusual. And they have a signature campaign ? Did that start yesterday ?