Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

[owlcatz]

Bug? audits crediting?
give back my coins
I requested withdraw 6.79650436 via 3FRCc62XwRSdNYbEnzrPV1WQUs2cYa3Gnx on august 20.  

No. He will not give you back your coins. Open another ticket. Have it get deleted. Kiss your coins good bye or try making smaller withdrawals. Also, READ the past 3 pages, ffs.

[dyask]

PSA: scrypt.cc is a scam, most likely of the "ponzi" variety. You will lose your money if you try to "invest" or "play" or whatever you want to call your participation in this shitshow. You've been warned.

More info here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0

i dont think it is helping anymore ...they wont stop investing as the faster ROI is quite impressing.

Well the two main attractions of scrypt.cc are now gone and lots are complaining about it.
 * Being paid every 10 minutes like clock work. 
 * Fast withdraws

For the past few days, 2 - ten minute ticks are not being paid per hour and all know the even the greatly slowed down withdraws are not working.    Those greatly reduce any ROI.   If scrypt.cc doesn't fix them the money will slow down.   33% reward reduction and nothing to do with the awards kind of kills the incentive.

Will you finally admit that scrypt.cc is a ponzi if you don't get any payouts for lets say 2 month?

You had the chance to play the ponzi after it was proved to be one (datacenter move).

A lot of crypto people have Ponzi on the brain.   There are a vast number of scams that are not ponzis, sometimes it is just plain theft.  Currently scrypt.cc is a horrible place to and there has been a lot of theft from the customers there.   I also admit I don't know what is really going on there, being a Ponzi scheme is only one possibility.    However, the way withdraws are currently being handled is consistent with what a Ponzi scheme would do.

The datacenter move only showed a small part of the claimed 850 GHs was possibly on LTC network.  (~150 GHs or so)     There are many conclusions that can be drawn from that, most of which are negative.    It doesn't prove there isn't any mining going on at scrypt.cc.    Personally I believe that there is fractional mining occurring there, but I don't have proof of that.  

[dyask]

Where in hell is the money for withdrawals coming from?

scamtos took my money, again.

I strongly suspect the majority of these payments is fake. The go to addresses of the administrator.
Then perhaps through a mixer service and as a "deposit" back into Hotwallet.

Someone on IRC said that at the beginning of this project, the KHS were sold for a value of 1€.
So theoretically the Admin has somewhere lying around several tens to hundreds of million dollars.

I think it is not so much, but he definitely has enough reserves to pretend activity.

When the KHS were sold for that much there were far fewer KHS.   By the time there were millions that price was very low.    

A better measure of the possible wealth is the new and old hot wallets that had something like 44657 BTC pass through them.

https://blockchain.info/address/19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ    (6000 BTC & growing)
https://blockchain.info/address/1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7   (38657 BTC)

The second one goes back to the beginning of scrypt.cc.    So if you are going to estimate possible gains assuming a pure Ponzi, that is the data to use.  

[suchmoon]

The datacenter move only showed a small part of the claimed 850 GHs was possibly on LTC network.  (~150 GHs or so)

Do you really think that if you repeat this long enough it will become true?

There was no such thing. There was no visible reduction in LTC network hashrate that would have lasted for ~48 hours and would have coincided with the "move". If you have proof to the contrary you're gonna need to post the block times and by extension we can then figure out which pool "admin" was supposed to be mining on. Two birds with one stone, good deal.

It is also technically impossible to perform such a move within that timeframe, even at 150 GH/s. That's ~500 Titans or ~1500 Terminators. Ask anybody who's done these things if you don't believe me.

[dyask]

The datacenter move only showed a small part of the claimed 850 GHs was possibly on LTC network.  (~150 GHs or so)

Do you really think that if you repeat this long enough it will become true?

There was no such thing. There was no visible reduction in LTC network hashrate that would have lasted for ~48 hours and would have coincided with the "move". If you have proof to the contrary you're gonna need to post the block times and by extension we can then figure out which pool "admin" was supposed to be mining on. Two birds with one stone, good deal.

It is also technically impossible to perform such a move within that timeframe, even at 150 GH/s. That's ~500 Titans or ~1500 Terminators. Ask anybody who's done these things if you don't believe me.

Let's get one thing straight, you are the one repeating themselves over and over, not me. 

There was a drop.

May 14 2015 39,268 -5.30% 1,124 GH/s
May 10 2015 41,466 6.91% 1,187 GH/s

You don't have any proof that drop wasn't caused by scypt.cc.   The only thing we can say for sure is that there wasn't anywhere near 850 GHs removed from the LTC network.   There have a few bigger hits too, so this isn't proof that the drop was from scrypt.cc, the timing just lines up.   At the time fast average dropped like a rock.   The real problem isn't the hit, it is the speed of the recovery.    The hit timing match up but the recovery was quicker than it should have been.   At the time the hit was very visible on the 504 average. 

Additionally scrypt.cc has always claimed the they mostly mine other alt coins besides LTC.    So we don't have real proof either way and there multiple things that could have happen that would have produced the same results.

So all we have is a lack of proof of 850 GHs.  Maybe we have proof of a smaller amount, I do agree it isn't great proof.     

[dyask]

PSA: scrypt.cc is a scam, most likely of the "ponzi" variety. You will lose your money if you try to "invest" or "play" or whatever you want to call your participation in this shitshow. You've been warned.

More info here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0

Case in point!   Repeating things over and over like a 3 year old.   What happen to free speech and the right to express your views?     What happened to the right to have a discussion about what is going on?   

It isn't that you don't have a right to call scrypt.cc a scam, you do.   However the way you do it is trolling and effectivity stomps on the rights of others, even people that agree with you. 
 

[Crestington]

The datacenter move only showed a small part of the claimed 850 GHs was possibly on LTC network.  (~150 GHs or so)

Do you really think that if you repeat this long enough it will become true?

There was no such thing. There was no visible reduction in LTC network hashrate that would have lasted for ~48 hours and would have coincided with the "move". If you have proof to the contrary you're gonna need to post the block times and by extension we can then figure out which pool "admin" was supposed to be mining on. Two birds with one stone, good deal.

It is also technically impossible to perform such a move within that timeframe, even at 150 GH/s. That's ~500 Titans or ~1500 Terminators. Ask anybody who's done these things if you don't believe me.

Let's get one thing straight, you are the one repeating themselves over and over, not me.  

There was a drop.

May 14 2015 39,268 -5.30% 1,124 GH/s
May 10 2015 41,466 6.91% 1,187 GH/s

You don't have any proof that drop wasn't caused by scypt.cc.   The only thing we can say for sure is that there wasn't anywhere near 850 GHs removed from the LTC network.   There have a few bigger hits too, so this isn't proof that the drop was from scrypt.cc, the timing just lines up.   At the time fast average dropped like a rock.   The real problem isn't the hit, it is the speed of the recovery.    The hit timing match up but the recovery was quicker than it should have been.   At the time the hit was very visible on the 504 average.  

Additionally scrypt.cc has always claimed the they mostly mine other alt coins besides LTC.    So we don't have real proof either way and there multiple things that could have happen that would have produced the same results.

So all we have is a lack of proof of 850 GHs.  Maybe we have proof of a smaller amount, I do agree it isn't great proof.    

Why do you continue to shill for a scam site?

You are attempting to create proof by making assumptions, if it were to be legit in any kind of way then the owner would provide proof of mining and solvency.

No proof = Scam

Attempting to perpetuate the scam by making false assumptions for the sole purpose of trying lure in new marks in order to retrieve your own Coins back is a form of scamming.

[suchmoon]

Let's get one thing straight, you are the one repeating themselves over and over, not me. 

There was a drop.

May 14 2015 39,268 -5.30% 1,124 GH/s
May 10 2015 41,466 6.91% 1,187 GH/s

You don't have any proof that drop wasn't caused by scypt.cc.   The only thing we can say for sure is that there wasn't anywhere near 850 GHs removed from the LTC network.   There have a few bigger hits too, so this isn't proof that the drop was from scrypt.cc, the timing just lines up.   At the time fast average dropped like a rock.   The real problem isn't the hit, it is the speed of the recovery.    The hit timing match up but the recovery was quicker than it should have been.   At the time the hit was very visible on the 504 average. 

Additionally scrypt.cc has always claimed the they mostly mine other alt coins besides LTC.    So we don't have real proof either way and there multiple things that could have happen that would have produced the same results.

So all we have is a lack of proof of 850 GHs.  Maybe we have proof of a smaller amount, I do agree it isn't great proof.     

You posted some numbers without explanation or source. Is that supposed to show "a drop"? Because it doesn't.

What you need to do is post the dates when the move was happening and show us the block time averages for that period and how that compares to the timings before and after the move. Bonus points if you can show that the shortfall came from one pool or from the "Unknown" part of the network.

Can you do that?

And you completely ignored the technical feasibility of such move, as usual.

PSA: scrypt.cc is a scam, most likely of the "ponzi" variety. You will lose your money if you try to "invest" or "play" or whatever you want to call your participation in this shitshow. You've been warned.

More info here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0

Case in point!   Repeating things over and over like a 3 year old.   What happen to free speech and the right to express your views?     What happened to the right to have a discussion about what is going on?  

It isn't that you don't have a right to call scrypt.cc a scam, you do.   However the way you do it is trolling and effectivity stomps on the rights of others, even people that agree with you.  
 

Me exercising my freedom of speech does not prevent you from exercising yours. However you're the one here whining that you somehow don't get a fair shake while at the same time posting made up "arguments" as to how scrypt.cc is anything but a ponzi. From where I'm standing your rights are fine, it's your facts that are lacking.

[yorll]

Suchnormal
Anyone doubt that Alias"24 hours crying" has lost a lot of money? You are a fool and you know .. you have no fucking idea invest also know .. and it's something you have to pay at your people... And I will not put in red

I pity you.

[dyask]

Let's get one thing straight, you are the one repeating themselves over and over, not me. 

There was a drop.

May 14 2015 39,268 -5.30% 1,124 GH/s
May 10 2015 41,466 6.91% 1,187 GH/s

You don't have any proof that drop wasn't caused by scypt.cc.   The only thing we can say for sure is that there wasn't anywhere near 850 GHs removed from the LTC network.   There have a few bigger hits too, so this isn't proof that the drop was from scrypt.cc, the timing just lines up.   At the time fast average dropped like a rock.   The real problem isn't the hit, it is the speed of the recovery.    The hit timing match up but the recovery was quicker than it should have been.   At the time the hit was very visible on the 504 average. 

Additionally scrypt.cc has always claimed the they mostly mine other alt coins besides LTC.    So we don't have real proof either way and there multiple things that could have happen that would have produced the same results.

So all we have is a lack of proof of 850 GHs.  Maybe we have proof of a smaller amount, I do agree it isn't great proof.     

You posted some numbers without explanation or source. Is that supposed to show "a drop"? Because it doesn't.

What you need to do is post the dates when the move was happening and show us the block time averages for that period and how that compares to the timings before and after the move. Bonus points if you can show that the shortfall came from one pool or from the "Unknown" part of the network.

Can you do that?

And you completely ignored the technical feasibility of such move, as usual.

PSA: scrypt.cc is a scam, most likely of the "ponzi" variety. You will lose your money if you try to "invest" or "play" or whatever you want to call your participation in this shitshow. You've been warned.

More info here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102560.0

Case in point!   Repeating things over and over like a 3 year old.   What happen to free speech and the right to express your views?     What happened to the right to have a discussion about what is going on?  

It isn't that you don't have a right to call scrypt.cc a scam, you do.   However the way you do it is trolling and effectivity stomps on the rights of others, even people that agree with you.  
 

Me exercising my freedom of speech does not prevent you from exercising yours. However you're the one here whining that you somehow don't get a fair shake while at the same time posting made up "arguments" as to how scrypt.cc is anything but a ponzi. From where I'm standing your rights are fine, it's your facts that are lacking.

Actually you are the one whining and complaining about what I said.   I wasn't complaining about you.   You are also the one repeating yourself over and over and over.

[dyask]

The datacenter move only showed a small part of the claimed 850 GHs was possibly on LTC network.  (~150 GHs or so)

Do you really think that if you repeat this long enough it will become true?

There was no such thing. There was no visible reduction in LTC network hashrate that would have lasted for ~48 hours and would have coincided with the "move". If you have proof to the contrary you're gonna need to post the block times and by extension we can then figure out which pool "admin" was supposed to be mining on. Two birds with one stone, good deal.

It is also technically impossible to perform such a move within that timeframe, even at 150 GH/s. That's ~500 Titans or ~1500 Terminators. Ask anybody who's done these things if you don't believe me.

Let's get one thing straight, you are the one repeating themselves over and over, not me.  

There was a drop.

May 14 2015 39,268 -5.30% 1,124 GH/s
May 10 2015 41,466 6.91% 1,187 GH/s

You don't have any proof that drop wasn't caused by scypt.cc.   The only thing we can say for sure is that there wasn't anywhere near 850 GHs removed from the LTC network.   There have a few bigger hits too, so this isn't proof that the drop was from scrypt.cc, the timing just lines up.   At the time fast average dropped like a rock.   The real problem isn't the hit, it is the speed of the recovery.    The hit timing match up but the recovery was quicker than it should have been.   At the time the hit was very visible on the 504 average.  

Additionally scrypt.cc has always claimed the they mostly mine other alt coins besides LTC.    So we don't have real proof either way and there multiple things that could have happen that would have produced the same results.

So all we have is a lack of proof of 850 GHs.  Maybe we have proof of a smaller amount, I do agree it isn't great proof.    

Why do you continue to shill for a scam site?

You are attempting to create proof by making assumptions, if it were to be legit in any kind of way then the owner would provide proof of mining and solvency.

No proof = Scam

Attempting to perpetuate the scam by making false assumptions for the sole purpose of trying lure in new marks in order to retrieve your own Coins back is a form of scamming.

I'm not shilling.   I'm pointing out the data for that event can mean a lot of different things.   

When have I ever encouraged anyone to deposit any BTC at any site, let alone scrypt.cc?   I haven't and I won't.    Right now if you put BTC into scrpyt.cc the odds are way against you ever pulling it out.   Currently people at scrypt.cc are also suffering from numerous thefts.   How is that shilling?

You are free to use your "No proof = Scam" standard.   I'm free to analyze data for myself and to draw my own conclusions.   

[cryptodevil]

The problem is, dyask, that you cite objective reasoning as your main motivator behind your assertions about scrypt.cc, yet you clearly fail to apply it correctly, which usually implies intentional bias. This is the reason why you are being challenged so vociferously, because your attempt to come across as analytical ends up reading like a veiled apologist.

Example:

You assert that the 'data centre' move 'event', with a notable drop in the LTC hashrate at that time followed by an increase to previous levels a few days later, suggests that scrypt.cc is not just a straight ponzi but is fractionally mining. You then suppose this to suggest 100+GH/s of Scrypt mining is a reasonable guesstimate.

Firstly, whether they are a straight ponzi or a fractional mining/ponzi is actually irrelevant. Scrypt.cc has fraudulently misrepresented themselves and sold 'KHS'/'MHS' as being a genuine share of Scrypt mining far beyond this figure. So to continue arguing over what they might, or might not, actually be doing is not only pointless, it makes you look like somebody who is intentionally trying to call people out for their use of the word 'ponzi' in order to muddy the waters of the situation and plant a seed of doubt as to the facts of this already-proven criminal scam.

Secondly, if you were being genuinely intellectually honest about this attempt to hypothesise Scrypt.cc's mining capability, you could not cite what is a regular occurrence on the LTC hashrate, namely, a drop followed a few days later by an increase, as being evidence of scrypt.cc's claim towards a data centre move, when the fact is that the LTC hashrate often sees marked reductions as mining farms switch on and off, miners move en-masse temporarily to a newly pumped coin, rig/hash rental rates improve, etc.  Meaning that, applying Occam's razor, you are wanting to introduce the concept of Scrypt.cc actually having several dozen GH/s of Scrypt mining power as explanation for a network hashrate event which is already accounted for by known and regular events. You essentially want to arbitrarily claim another explanation for an already-known regular occurrence, not because you have sufficient data or evidence to justify such but, instead, because you are taking the word of scrypt.cc in their claim to be mining with Scrypt ASICs and while you have to discard their announced total hash-power because mathematics proves that to be a lie, you still want to believe some of it to be true and crowbar that in as explanation for the noted hashrate drop at that time.

In your claim to be applying objective reasoning and critical analysis to the situation you are treating Scrypt.cc's own assertions as though they were valid data. You cannot do that and still assert that you are maintaining intellectual integrity.

This is why you read like a shill/apologist.


There is no data you can cite which would justify your claim towards scrypt.cc doing ANY mining. Even if they were doing some it is both irrelevant and utterly invalid to include even as supposition, because it is not just arbitrary it is wildly speculative.

[iambitcoin5]

Anybody know anything about hashflare.io and is it legit or not?

[suchmoon]

Anybody know anything about hashflare.io and is it legit or not?

It's not. Run by a hardware company that can't make hardware so they moved on to the "cloud", sound familiar? Obviously there is no proof of them actually mining anything. Don't fall into the trap.

[Phildo]

Where in hell is the money for withdrawals coming from?

scamtos took my money, again.

I strongly suspect the majority of these payments is fake. The go to addresses of the administrator.
Then perhaps through a mixer service and as a "deposit" back into Hotwallet.

Someone on IRC said that at the beginning of this project, the KHS were sold for a value of 1€.
So theoretically the Admin has somewhere lying around several tens to hundreds of million dollars.

I think it is not so much, but he definitely has enough reserves to pretend activity.

When the KHS were sold for that much there were far fewer KHS.   By the time there were millions that price was very low.    

A better measure of the possible wealth is the new and old hot wallets that had something like 44657 BTC pass through them.

https://blockchain.info/address/19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ    (6000 BTC & growing)
https://blockchain.info/address/1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7   (38657 BTC)

The second one goes back to the beginning of scrypt.cc.    So if you are going to estimate possible gains assuming a pure Ponzi, that is the data to use.  

That is not good data to use because you don't know how much of that 6k or 38k are the same coins being moved around in circles to trick people into thinking that something is happening.

[Crestington]

Hi guys, anyone knows which are the Hotwallets he used to send the last round of payments?

If someone could post the Hotwallets here I would really apreciate it.

Withdraws have been coming from: 1Bidh2XFr9JzfXppeZd2cPKpbnJGvqCY4h
Deposits have been going to: 19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ

Lately the deposit hot wallet has been funding the withdraw wallet.   It wasn't direct like that before the hack and also the withdraw wallets used to change a lot.   It seems this process is being managed differently now.

What you are doing is gossiping.   Maybe you just what things to be said that you can attack.   None of us knows why the 37MHs was taken form many accounts.  (Some people claimed other amounts.)  Maybe it is a part of a string of thefts or part of another hack or even some crazy set of bugs ...   I don't know the why and I don't know anyone that does know.    
    

im starting to understand why it says Warning: Trade with extreme caution! below your username. why would you care? the site stole from you and you are trying to understand why instead of trying to gain back what you own

would you accept this from any service provider?

The negative trust is from ThePhwner who put a false claim against me.   I returned the favor and gave him the negative trust too for lying about me.   If he wants to have it removed he can msg me and we will both remove the negative.  However the trust doesn't mean anything on me because I'm not trying to trade with anyone here.   I don't support scams or even encourage people to make investments in any crypto site.   I've been invested in many places so I've been caught in some scams.   I've actually avoided more scams than I've been caught in.

As for the scrypt.cc, of course I'm trying to get my losses back.   I just try to stick to what I know and I pointed out some information ThePhwner was using was factually incorrect.   That earned me the negative trust.     ThePhwner instead of admitting he had picked up some bad information, accused me of supporting Ponzi scams with the negative trust.    For proof he used some posts where I thought BTCTrader was more of a scam than BTCarbs.   That was over a year ago and I never encouraged anyone to invest in either site.   How is that supporting a Ponzi?  

Due to the low quality of many members here, trust doesn't really mean anything any more.    

Right now there is plenty of negative stuff about scrypt.cc.   No sense in getting mad about throwing about someone pointing something being said was false.  

As far as my comment that kken01 responded too, some of the posters here are just trying attack people.   They don't want facts they just want to appear self righteous.   Don't ask me why because I don't understand that mindset.    

Where in hell is the money for withdrawals coming from?

scamtos took my money, again.

I strongly suspect the majority of these payments is fake. The go to addresses of the administrator.
Then perhaps through a mixer service and as a "deposit" back into Hotwallet.

Someone on IRC said that at the beginning of this project, the KHS were sold for a value of 1€.
So theoretically the Admin has somewhere lying around several tens to hundreds of million dollars.

I think it is not so much, but he definitely has enough reserves to pretend activity.

When the KHS were sold for that much there were far fewer KHS.   By the time there were millions that price was very low.    

A better measure of the possible wealth is the new and old hot wallets that had something like 44657 BTC pass through them.

https://blockchain.info/address/19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ    (6000 BTC & growing)
https://blockchain.info/address/1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7   (38657 BTC)

The second one goes back to the beginning of scrypt.cc.    So if you are going to estimate possible gains assuming a pure Ponzi, that is the data to use.  

That is not good data to use because you don't know how much of that 6k or 38k are the same coins being moved around in circles to trick people into thinking that something is happening.

The datacenter move only showed a small part of the claimed 850 GHs was possibly on LTC network.  (~150 GHs or so)

Do you really think that if you repeat this long enough it will become true?

There was no such thing. There was no visible reduction in LTC network hashrate that would have lasted for ~48 hours and would have coincided with the "move". If you have proof to the contrary you're gonna need to post the block times and by extension we can then figure out which pool "admin" was supposed to be mining on. Two birds with one stone, good deal.

It is also technically impossible to perform such a move within that timeframe, even at 150 GH/s. That's ~500 Titans or ~1500 Terminators. Ask anybody who's done these things if you don't believe me.

Let's get one thing straight, you are the one repeating themselves over and over, not me.  

There was a drop.

May 14 2015 39,268 -5.30% 1,124 GH/s
May 10 2015 41,466 6.91% 1,187 GH/s

You don't have any proof that drop wasn't caused by scypt.cc.   The only thing we can say for sure is that there wasn't anywhere near 850 GHs removed from the LTC network.   There have a few bigger hits too, so this isn't proof that the drop was from scrypt.cc, the timing just lines up.   At the time fast average dropped like a rock.   The real problem isn't the hit, it is the speed of the recovery.    The hit timing match up but the recovery was quicker than it should have been.   At the time the hit was very visible on the 504 average.  

Additionally scrypt.cc has always claimed the they mostly mine other alt coins besides LTC.    So we don't have real proof either way and there multiple things that could have happen that would have produced the same results.

So all we have is a lack of proof of 850 GHs.  Maybe we have proof of a smaller amount, I do agree it isn't great proof.

Why do you continue to shill for a scam site?

You are attempting to create proof by making assumptions, if it were to be legit in any kind of way then the owner would provide proof of mining and solvency.

No proof = Scam

Attempting to perpetuate the scam by making false assumptions for the sole purpose of trying lure in new marks in order to retrieve your own Coins back is a form of scamming.

I'm not shilling.   I'm pointing out the data for that event can mean a lot of different things.  

When have I ever encouraged anyone to deposit any BTC at any site, let alone scrypt.cc?   I haven't and I won't.    Right now if you put BTC into scrpyt.cc the odds are way against you ever pulling it out.   Currently people at scrypt.cc are also suffering from numerous thefts.   How is that shilling?

You are free to use your "No proof = Scam" standard.   I'm free to analyze data for myself and to draw my own conclusions.  

For the last 2 months you have only posted on Scrypt.cc and BTCjam threads.

In your "proof" you commonly use the phrase "possibly" and "likely" which is creating false assumptions backed by 0 actual proof. The only proof can come from admin of the site, not from you.

1. 850 GHZ is enough to fork LTC.

2. Mining if it were in Brazil, would cost TWICE as much as a developed country such as US.

3. No proof of any mining ever.

4. Loss off KHS/MHS.

5. Physically impossible to move a data center in the timeframe given.

6. Delayed and lost BTC withdrawls, hacks, and auto reinvest.

7. No communication with holders despite the site actually functioning as a security, no face of the company and no contact details

Stop making assumptions about things you do not know and do not research properly, there is no "derp derp, what if" so please spare us your analyzations.

[dyask]

Where in hell is the money for withdrawals coming from?

scamtos took my money, again.

I strongly suspect the majority of these payments is fake. The go to addresses of the administrator.
Then perhaps through a mixer service and as a "deposit" back into Hotwallet.

Someone on IRC said that at the beginning of this project, the KHS were sold for a value of 1€.
So theoretically the Admin has somewhere lying around several tens to hundreds of million dollars.

I think it is not so much, but he definitely has enough reserves to pretend activity.

When the KHS were sold for that much there were far fewer KHS.   By the time there were millions that price was very low.    

A better measure of the possible wealth is the new and old hot wallets that had something like 44657 BTC pass through them.

https://blockchain.info/address/19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ    (6000 BTC & growing)
https://blockchain.info/address/1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7   (38657 BTC)

The second one goes back to the beginning of scrypt.cc.    So if you are going to estimate possible gains assuming a pure Ponzi, that is the data to use.  

That is not good data to use because you don't know how much of that 6k or 38k are the same coins being moved around in circles to trick people into thinking that something is happening.

It seems unlikely scrypt.cc would move deposit money around to just inflate the appearance of deposits.   While I'm sure they could do it, why would they?

Deposits used to move into 1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7 now they move into 19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ.  Those are the so called hotwallets.   This has been confirmed many times by different people.   If you make a deposit right now it will be moved from your deposit address to 19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ.    It is very likely that these two addresses show all the money that has been deposited into scrypt.cc.

The hard part is sizing the withdraws.  Prior to the hack many different addresses funded withdraws.   Now there only appears to be  1Bidh2XFr9JzfXppeZd2cPKpbnJGvqCY4h.   However no idea how long that will last.   So we really don't know how much of the 44657+ BTC has been withdrawn.

This data is much better than holding up a thumb and saying I heard KHS used to cost 1 euro so that means "he" has pulled in millions.   

[cesmak]

There was a drop.

May 14 2015 39,268 -5.30% 1,124 GH/s
May 10 2015 41,466 6.91% 1,187 GH/s

Dyask I told you some pages before that the power outage was on MAY 11, so you date is incorrect and don't coincide with the incident, so you are't proving anyting !!!

For reference PAGE 80 OF THIS THREAD

[Crestington]

Where in hell is the money for withdrawals coming from?

scamtos took my money, again.

I strongly suspect the majority of these payments is fake. The go to addresses of the administrator.
Then perhaps through a mixer service and as a "deposit" back into Hotwallet.

Someone on IRC said that at the beginning of this project, the KHS were sold for a value of 1€.
So theoretically the Admin has somewhere lying around several tens to hundreds of million dollars.

I think it is not so much, but he definitely has enough reserves to pretend activity.

When the KHS were sold for that much there were far fewer KHS.   By the time there were millions that price was very low.    

A better measure of the possible wealth is the new and old hot wallets that had something like 44657 BTC pass through them.

https://blockchain.info/address/19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ    (6000 BTC & growing)
https://blockchain.info/address/1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7   (38657 BTC)

The second one goes back to the beginning of scrypt.cc.    So if you are going to estimate possible gains assuming a pure Ponzi, that is the data to use.  

That is not good data to use because you don't know how much of that 6k or 38k are the same coins being moved around in circles to trick people into thinking that something is happening.

It seems unlikely scrypt.cc would move deposit money around to just inflate the appearance of deposits.   While I'm sure they could do it, why would they?

Deposits used to move into 1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7 now they move into 19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ.  Those are the so called hotwallets.   This has been confirmed many times by different people.   If you make a deposit right now it will be moved from your deposit address to 19mcjofGwKxGwhaZwDwPjdWd1KrFCZgoJJ.    It is very likely that these two addresses show all the money that has been deposited into scrypt.cc.

The hard part is sizing the withdraws.  Prior to the hack many different addresses funded withdraws.   Now there only appears to be  1Bidh2XFr9JzfXppeZd2cPKpbnJGvqCY4h.   However no idea how long that will last.   So we really don't know how much of the 44657+ BTC has been withdrawn.

This data is much better than holding up a thumb and saying I heard KHS used to cost 1 euro so that means "he" has pulled in millions.  

There you go making assumptions again....

Whether you realize it or not, you are perpetuating the scam by defending Scrypt.cc in any way. Either have irrefutable proof of the data you are analyzing or don't bother posting because it shows you really know nothing at all.

[dyask]

The problem is, dyask, that you cite objective reasoning as your main motivator behind your assertions about scrypt.cc, yet you clearly fail to apply it correctly, which usually implies intentional bias. This is the reason why you are being challenged so vociferously, because your attempt to come across as analytical ends up reading like a veiled apologist.

What is wrong with trying to be objective?  I'm not making assertions either but I guess you don't really understand what an assertion is.  

As far as applying my knowledge, how would you know what I'm doing?   I'm one of the few that managed to get out of BTCarbs whole, maybe I was lucky but I didn't do buy just screaming scam, scam, scam!   For the record the BTCArbs admin that paid some people back, claimed is was intended to be real and not a scam at all.    With LTCgear, I'm in vastly deeper than here and that is mainly because some of the people here screaming scam about scrypt.cc were singing LTCgears praise.   That one burns but I'm going after my losses there multiple ways.  LTCgear stopped paying last December.  

With scrypt.cc things look really bad, I'll grant you that.   We don't know what is really going on there but lately it has just been getting worse.   I've had many chats with Marcello the Admin there in the past and I don't believe he is out to hurt people, however, I don't know if he is in control.   It fact it would appear that whoever is currently running scrypt.cc has no problems with outright theft.   I'll take steps, but my current focus is just to minimize losses.   This could play out for many months.  

At no point have I ever not claimed these types of investments aren't risky.   The closest claim to supporting scypt.cc I've ever made, is saying a much shorter time to breakeven gives people more options for how to manage an investment.   However, that doesn't apply to scrypt.cc anymore because it isn't possible to get your investment out easily.  Until the "hack" it was always easy to get your money out of scrypt.cc, that was important and something that set it apart in a lot of ways.  That when on for well over a year.  That has changed and it changes everything.   I don't mean the up to 24 hour delay, that could be lived with.   I mean getting withdraws is extremely difficult an appears to mostly require a lot of luck.      

For the record every BTC related investment I've been involved in has been called a Ponzi, except for the loaning sites which have so many other scam borrowers.   That includes all the sites that have been cleared as legit too by providing proof of mining.   As an example there people jumping up here and there claiming hashnest is a scam, at least on the hashnest chat.  

Seeing a scam is easy.  Avoiding them or getting out of them isn't so easy unless you don't diversify.  

EDIT: I've been burned before at scrypt.cc and recovered there too.   I don't know if this is the end or not, but the hit this time is very minor.   Don't invest what you can't afford to use is the best rule to follow on every type of investment.