Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

[dyask]

The could be the source of the 6 THs.  It simply isn't a valid point to be using.

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

I haven't downplayed anything.  I simply don't share the same views.   I find your use of vulgar language and insults to be also tiresome.     

As far as scams go, scrypt.cc is really small compared to LTCgear, GAW or Mt.Gox.   That doesn't mean that someone wasn't hurt a lot worse at scrypt.cc than others by those scams.    However what is going on is the people on the extreme end of the scam scale are unhappy with anyone not as extreme as them.    Since the "hack", scrypt.cc has been a complete scam and I haven't said it is legit.   Pretty amazing how much I'm attacked just because I don't suck up the scam police.   

Hahahaha, this is why I figured if he isn't a shill then he's got to be socially autistic in order to explain how he repeatedly states something and then contradicts it a few sentences later, all the while repeating things that are irrelevant to the discussion and ignoring aspects that are important.

BTW, dyask, a 'tone complaint' is just another form of blatantly fallacious argument which is used to distract from the fact that you fail to rebut the points being raised and choose, instead, to complain about how they are said.

You're being challenged, not because you don't 'suck up to the scam police' but because your posts are largely nonsensical ramblings containing contradictions and irrelevant statements along with assertions which appear to be an attempt to downplay the size of the scam that is scrypt.cc

What of any value have you ever added to this thread?    Attacking someone doesn't provide any value.  (While using a run-on sentence, Mr grammer policeman.)

Your post is actually a nonsensical rambling.    You claim I contradicting myself but fail to point out what the contradiction is.    So much for your logic.

[dyask]

As far as scams go, scrypt.cc is really small compared to LTCgear, GAW or Mt.Gox.   

Small is relativ. When you consider that there are still 1900 BTC in Cold Wallet. ($430.852)
And that's just from the new Hotwallet.

But it really makes no difference how much it is. Stolen is stolen.

My account has been locked by the way. Shows "password invalid".
The reset option no longer exists.

But never mind, i'm done with that shit.
Just wanted to mention it.

No attack, but anyone who doubts that this project is a huge fraud, obviously has severe mental problems.

Yes the scrypt.cc problem can be very relevant to a single person.    I'm sorry to hear about your problems.

There could be many cold wallets with BTC in them.   When mentioning wallets addresses are useful, otherwise it could be just any wallet. 

[Soylent_Green]

Yes the scrypt.cc problem can be very relevant to a single person.    I'm sorry to hear about your problems.

There could be many cold wallets with BTC in them.   When mentioning wallets addresses are useful, otherwise it could be just any wallet. 

My problem is very small in comparison to some other people.
A guy lost 15 BTC. Other invested their life savings.

And yes, that is of course stupid.
But imagin that there are people who have access to the Internet only a few hours a day.
Or just do not have the time, knowledge or simply ability to gather information.


I feel sorry for who have heard of the 'great new breakthrough technology', and were then ripped off from such a lousy rat.

I have tagged the cold wallet adresses @ blockseer.com
https://www.blockseer.com/address_labels?title=SCRYPT.CC%20COLD%20STORAGE

You need a account to view them.

It's a good tool to track the Hotwallet transactions.

[dyask]

Right now the MHs held by users is only worth 165 BTC since the price of MHS is currently at .00033 BTC / MHS.  

Can I ask where did you get this data from?
How do you know how many total MHS there are in the ledger, both for sale and in individual accounts not for sale?

From the 850 gh/s of total mining power of course.

But he spectacularly missed my question and got straight down to the task of attacking others. Seems too preoccupied in having the same arguments over and over.
Forget the 6Ths thing. I have never stated that and I am not interested in that particular aspect.

To be clear, my question is:

regarding the 165BTC claim, where did you get this data from?

The Admin (when it was Marcello Santos) claimed that 500 GHs had been sold to users and that they had 350 GHs mining for the partners.    

Now 500 GHs is a large number for scrypt mining.   That is the number I was using.   500 MHs * best ask price.

The 500 GHs is also consistent with the amount of orders on the ask book and is also possible from the size of the BTC deposited into the site threw the 2 hotwallets.   So it is the best number we have right now.    It also goes back about five or six months when scrypt.cc was clearly selling KHs (later converted to MHs.)    

An additional data point that I don't have any direct evidence for it polling has been done on IRC and it came up with the people responding owning a little over 200 GHs.   That was on the scrypt.cc channel and one could ask about it there.  

Since the hack, the nature of scrypt.cc has changed a lot.   This has nothing to do with if it was a scam before or not, it is just what has gone on there recently.   First there was the withholding earnings for about a weeks, then the 20% only payment that has gone down and down, and additionally a series of thefts that has resulted in a 1/3 reduction in the already greatly depressed rewards.   On top of this the one thing that normally worked well, withdraws, now only works in a "random" and insanely slow fashion.   I have to wonder if there hasn't been an ownership change since the hack.   For the record, I'm not claiming the site was legit before the hack.   I'm just not sure Marcello is still the "Admin" as he used to talk with people often, although he did disappear for around seven months, mostly this time last year.   Still the site wasn't as bad last year.


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

[ziomar]

Wow still here talking about this shit show!
At least is there somebody trying to find the admin motherfucker??

[Viper_Unleashed]

LOL !!!!! getting more interesting each day

[cryptodevil]

Wow, dyask, you are really starting to confirm my suspicions that you are either a shill apologist for scrypt.cc or you are autistic. Which part of the following contradiction which was highlighted in bold a number of times do you think is not a contradiction?

You claim I contradicting myself but fail to point out what the contradiction is.    So much for your logic.

I haven't downplayed anything.  I simply don't share the same views.   I find your use of vulgar language and insults to be also tiresome.    

As far as scams go, scrypt.cc is really small compared to LTCgear, GAW or Mt.Gox.  

Is it that you can't see the contradiction? Is your autism such that you don't recognise how badly you are presenting yourself in this thread?

Or are you more involved in this scam than simply being a defrauded 'investor' and this whole schtick you are playing of posting rambling deflection exactly that, deflection?

Up until the hack scrypt.cc was questionable and definitely high risk.   Since the hack it has turned really ugly.   It might come back and people might get out, but right now it is a horrible place to be stuck.    I was at scrypt.cc before you even had an account here at bitcointalk.   There is a lot of history there.  

See, the thing is, even before the 'hack' the same math which I used (see the link in my signature) to prove scrypt.cc was lying about their mining was still applicable evidence proving they were lying about their mining. So there was no 'questionable' about it, they were fraudulently misrepresenting their operation and what they claimed to be selling/trading.

That you, persistently, appear to want to keep downplaying the scale of the criminal fraud, while ignoring the facts of the thousands of btc which were fraudulently stolen from 'investors' over the last several months, really is becoming noticeable behind your rambling misuse of logic and reasoning.

I stand by my observation, you are either autistic and mentally unable to see how your posts actually read, or you are intentionally behaving in this manner in order to distract from the central issue, namely, that scrypt.cc has stolen millions of dollars worth of bitcoin from people by fraudulent misrepresentation.

[dyask]

You also need to do your homework!   My untrusted feedback came from yonce and his sock puppet accounts.   He was actively recruiting people to sign up to HYIPs using his referral links.  His come-on was that he was an expert and would advise people when to stop.    I tried to put a stop to his referral links and was largely successful.  But I got his untrusted negative feedback.   However, he just pops up with new accounts from time to time.    I got the negative feedback form him for following the rules of the forum.  

So what about it?   My offer is firm if you don't want to have trusted negative feedback just let me know and remove the lie you put on my feedback.   I do not support scams, but I don't support lies about potential scams either.   The truth is enough and when you don't know the truth you shouldn't make up stuff or use stuff once you find out it is not true.    I don't care about minor wording errors that happens to everyone.  

So far you have swore at me, tried to insult me and lied in the feedback about me.   All I did to you was point out the part of data that could be easily proved to be untrue.   There were other points I could pick at, but there is a chance they are could turn out to be true, so I left those alone.   There are a lot of things we don't know about, but claiming the impossible isn't necessary.  

Up until the hack scrypt.cc was questionable and definitely high risk.   Since the hack it has turned really ugly.   It might come back and people might get out, but right now it is a horrible place to be stuck.    I was at scrypt.cc before you even had an account here at bitcointalk.   There is a lot of history there.  

If you choose to live your lie, so be it.  
  

*Yawn*

Once again, I've posted proof and you've posted drivel. Care to refute the facts in evidence once again? Did Dogie do another thread I missed about your alleged sock puppet accounts? Cause the one I posted is full of proof, just like the thread CryptoDevil started is full of actual factual proof of this scam. The thing you seem to be missing is that I can back my assertions with facts; your history on this thread alone makes me think CryptoDevil is right about you being autistic or something similar to it.

And where exactly did I "lie" in my feedback? Kid you need some thicker skin for as much as you post on this forum. And I say "kid," because it's the sign of a child to lash out with the ferocity you do, then to whine about being insulted, having negative feedback, blah blah blah. You say I get upset because people don't listen to me? Look at you, fella.

And no, ScryptCC was not legit up until the hack. There was a week where LTC mining diff dropped 5%, LTC price went up 200% +, and ScryptCC payouts dropped. Well before the hack, I believe after the "data center move." If that wasn't a huge red flag, then you don't understand mining.

Got any facts? Come back and start over when you do.

Scrypt.cc paid out in BTC.   To understand the ups and down of the payouts you had to not only look at difficulty but the exchange rate of BTC/LTC.    Furthermore the idea behind scrypt.cc is what it was mining the most profitable scrypt coins, as least as much as is could.    It was pretty complex to guess.   However since the hack it hasn't followed any of those rules.  

As for you lies:  "Shill for ScryptCC."   That is a flat out lie.  I'm not paid by scrypt.cc, encouraged by it or in any way connected to other than having accounts there.   Those accounts are hopeless losses at this point.   I realize is standard procedure to call someone you don't agree with a shill, doesn't make it true.  

"Admits to being a long-standing investor in a known scam and defends the site to this day."
Well I'm a long time investor but pointing out falsehoods being thrown about it isn't really defending it.   "known scam" is debatable, it clearly wasn't a scam in March of 2014, however the mining and site were very small compared to now.   With the ASICs it has been very different than the GPU days and currently it is acting as a scam.  

"Blatantly lies about performance of the site in the face of much evidence to the contrary."
Flat out lie.   The only point I've made about performance is pointing out the days to breakeven is controlled by the market there.   That is 100% true, although that point is currently moot.  

[dyask]

Wow, dyask, you are really starting to confirm my suspicions that you are either a shill apologist for scrypt.cc or you are autistic.

My suspicions about you are that you are just trying to cause trouble.   Well I have news for you.  Anyone can pick and dice another's words to make it look bad.  That doesn't take any skill at all.   So put a cork in you insults and try to get back on topic. 

[ThePhwner]

butthurt

So you're saying bitillionaire and clownius are yonce's alts, who waited 10 and 15 months respectively until you posted in Paycoin in scrypt.cc threads so that they could leave you feedback for... something or other... that happened last year?

ThePhwner, can you repost dyask's feedback with some other wording and some other reference, there's plenty to choose from. Like this being a "small" scam, or the scam happening after the "hack", or the 160 GH/s "hashrate" or whatever. Let's see if he can keep his word if you remove what he perceives as a lie. If he doesn't I guess you can put another one in for that and be done with it.

Done. Found a much better reference link to use. Thanks.

[suchmoon]

butthurt

So you're saying bitillionaire and clownius are yonce's alts, who waited 10 and 15 months respectively until you posted in Paycoin in scrypt.cc threads so that they could leave you feedback for... something or other... that happened last year?

That feedback has mostly been in place over a year.  yonce though is very vindictive but as you can see his feedback isn't trusted.    

I can see a bunch of yonce's feedbacks, that is clear. But you responded to this screenshot:


Edited 2020-11-28 to fix a broken image

With this:

My untrusted feedback came from yonce and his sock puppet accounts.

Are you saying that bitillionaire and clownius are yonce's alts? Because it sounds like you are. There is nobody else on your untrusted feedback list.

So put a cork in you insults and try to get back on topic.  

Great advice. I take it you'll now stop picking fights with nearly everyone in the thread and derailing it with your personal trust analysis.

Next one gets a "Report to moderator" click, much as I hate to bother them with this shit.

[D4RK5T4R]

Right, everyone unbunch their panties, here is the topic:

Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

discuss

[Karpeon]

Ok guys I got it. I won't put another coin in it. Point made by almost everyone. In the meantime, if somebody know anything about WDS, or Admin showing up, or MHS prices, please post so I can make my life a little less miserable in terms of BTC gambling. The only difference between scrypt.cc and all the others that stole from me at the same time, is that the site is still online and I can only hope for... I don't know...whatever... Now I know exactly what to do with my BTC, but I have none of them...

[dyask]

Right, everyone unbunch their panties, here is the topic:

Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

discuss

Best case: Fractional mining ... which is pretty bad.  (Only really applies pre-hack)
Post Hack: Totally terrible place to be and people there are trapped because WDs barely work.   Theft has become a major issue.  Awards are less than 10% what they should be.    

WARNING:  Those are my views and for that I've been branded a defender of scrypt.cc.  

[dyask]

Ok guys I got it. I won't put another coin in it. Point made by almost everyone. In the meantime, if somebody know anything about WDS, or Admin showing up, or MHS prices, please post so I can make my life a little less miserable in terms of BTC gambling. The only difference between scrypt.cc and all the others that stole from me at the same time, is that the site is still online and I can only hope for... I don't know...whatever... Now I know exactly what to do with my BTC, but I have none of them...

A lot of people are watching for news.
#scrypt.cc at something like webchat.freenode.net. 
sccstats.com also watches.
https://scrypt-cc.slack.com/messages/scrypt_cc/   (But you need to be approved there, I think)

[suchmoon]

Right, everyone unbunch their panties, here is the topic:

Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

discuss

Ah crap... how about this:

With the ASICs it has been very different than the GPU days and currently it is acting as a scam.  

It's not "acting as a scam", it's a scam, i.e. taking money from users under false pretenses. This is me discussing dyask's statement and not preventing a discussion.

Best case: Fractional mining ... which is pretty bad.  (Only really applies pre-hack)

Nope. There never was any proof of mining, fractional or not. This is me discussing dyask's statement and not preventing a discussion.

[mod note: edited out off-topic content]

[ThePhwner]

Right, everyone unbunch their panties, here is the topic:

Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

discuss

Best case: Fractional mining ... which is pretty bad.  (Only really applies pre-hack)
Post Hack: Totally terrible place to be and people there are trapped because WDs barely work.   Theft has become a major issue.  Awards are less than 10% what they should be.    

WARNING:  Those are my views and for that I've been branded a defender of scrypt.cc.  

How is continuing to advocate for fractional mining not a defense of this scam and an obfuscation of facts? This is the basis for my negative trust rating.

[dyask]

Right, everyone unbunch their panties, here is the topic:

Scrypt.CC | Scrypt Cloud Mining

discuss

Best case: Fractional mining ... which is pretty bad.  (Only really applies pre-hack)
Post Hack: Totally terrible place to be and people there are trapped because WDs barely work.   Theft has become a major issue.  Awards are less than 10% what they should be.    

WARNING:  Those are my views and for that I've been branded a defender of scrypt.cc.  

How is continuing to advocate for fractional mining not a defense of this scam and an obfuscation of facts? This is the basis for my negative trust rating.

How is claiming fractional mining defending or obfuscation?   I can only assume you don't understand the meaning.   If indeed fractional mining is what is going on then it means the KHs was sold for which there wasn't any mining backing it up.    Your claim seems to be that there isn't any mining at all and clearly there isn't any more proof for that position than there is proof for the 850 GHs of mining.   

[cryptodevil]

Best case: Fractional mining ... which is pretty bad.  (Only really applies pre-hack)

Let me explain something to you, dyask, because you appear to be conflating the notion of 'fractional mining' with 'fractional banking'.

'Fractional Banking' is when the collective total of a Bank's customer deposits exceed the total cash balance the bank possesses. It essentially means that should there be a 'run' on the Bank, a lot of customers would not be able to withdraw all their funds. While this is serious it is nothing like the concept of 'fractional mining' other than the word 'Fractional' because the customers are not 'investing' their funds (generally speaking) if they are simply holding their money at the bank for security/convenience.

'Fractional Mining' is when an organisation has sold more mining hashrate than it actually is in possession of and utilises manipulative and deceptive practices in order to perpetuate the fraud and keep it running so that more people can be persuaded to 'invest', believing it to be an actual investment product, high-risk or otherwise.

This does not make it simply, 'pretty bad', it makes it an absolute criminal enterprise and the operators of this enterprise are guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, meaning that every single satoshi of 'profit' they make, all those thousands of bitcoin they have sent to their own wallets over the months, are effectively stolen funds.

Every single 'investor' who bought these fictitious, 'KHS'/'MHS' is entitled to receive their money back in full. That is tens of thousands of bitcoin.

So, no, this is not some 'paltry' couple of hundred bitcoin issue, it is a major fraud.

[dyask]

Best case: Fractional mining ... which is pretty bad.  (Only really applies pre-hack)

Let me explain something to you, dyask, because you appear to be conflating the notion of 'fractional mining' with 'fractional banking'.

'Fractional Banking' is when the collective total of a Bank's customer deposits exceed the total cash balance the bank possesses. It essentially means that should there be a 'run' on the Bank, a lot of customers would not be able to withdraw all their funds. While this is serious it is nothing like the concept of 'fractional mining' other than the word 'Fractional' because the customers are not 'investing' their funds (generally speaking) if they are simply holding their money at the bank for security/convenience.

'Fractional Mining' is when an organisation has sold more mining hashrate than it actually is in possession of and utilises manipulative and deceptive practices in order to perpetuate the fraud and keep it running so that more people can be persuaded to 'invest', believing it to be an actual investment product, high-risk or otherwise.

This does not make it simply, 'pretty bad', it makes it an absolute criminal enterprise and the operators of this enterprise are guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, meaning that every single satoshi of 'profit' they make, all those thousands of bitcoin they have sent to their own wallets over the months, are effectively stolen funds.

Every single 'investor' who bought these fictitious, 'KHS'/'MHS' is entitled to receive their money back in full. That is tens of thousands of bitcoin.

So, no, this is not some 'paltry' couple of hundred bitcoin issue, it is a major fraud.

I am not equating fractional banking with fractional mining.   Fractional mining isn't a defense and I'm not defending it as being okay.   You on the other hand are going on wild tangents over word choices you disagree with.