Quote from: ThePhwner on August 31, 2015, 08:00:21 PM

OK, now I get it. You're trying to be funny. You really know what's going on, and you're trying to come up with the most random and bizarre scenario you can to be hilarious. Well done sir.
[/quote]

All right, still not quite...

I'm not being random, nor is it funny.

There seems to me to be no problem with scrypt, and momentarily i will dig through my wallet history for your evidence requests that withdraws that are successfully honored, as i am very offended by your lack of acceptance of any other rationale to be as good a solution as your own admission that you lack any real evidence other than an absurd 850 GHs.

I am not satisfied with a one track approach to anything, and I am very convinced that scrypt.cc does not possess the square mile facility network it would need to store any amount of mining peripherals required to produce such a large volume of traffic.

And so i produce an honest, reasonable theory to counter the "Absence of evidence = Evidence of Absence" theory that seems to be the only acceptable solution. I have never had issues with scrypt.cc, and perhaps i am lucky after all. However my deposits post now just as quickly as before the power scandal, painfully slowly. I have only requested 5 withdrawals, all of them honored, and before you speak ill, i will produce results, and i will provide them. However i have never mined a profit of what my hashing power was, and was in fact producing only what i had rightfully invested. Before the "Hacker" my investment totaled 150MH, and cost me $300 and produced $5. Now ask yourself what miner in the world produces 150MH, costs $300, and produces more volume than was literally invested in itself.

The simple fact is, scrypt.cc is not selling hash power 1:1, and in fact as a share. A page from your own book tells you that PAMIC is the same and you swear by that. But Bitmain is a company, and needs to respond to keep their business. Marcello Santos is an individual, insult and slander him enough, and I'd hide too and make sure none of you got anything. Believe what you want, but i will provide your evidence, and any disputes to my suggestion that 850 GH is too high to be anything but a magic share count, should as well be supported by evidence.

If you can't See anymore, this thread has ceased being about Scrypt.cc in general and now a flame train. I request a bit of civility, and organization. If somebody does have a problem, and has a reasonable concern to doubt the validity of scrypt.cc, please preempt any form of loss that we may all use to define fact from guesswork. If you can please take regular screenshots of before and after any form of potentially disputable claim, as i have seen many requests to prove ones success to no avail, but no requests for evidence of failures. And To lead in my own request i will produce my successful withdrawal transactions. I will return when i do, but please understand, the admin of scrypt.cc is only human too, please extend to him the due process of an evidence based investigation that you yourselves would request in his stead.

From now on lets try to keep things cleaner and scientific, please. The internet needs less flame wars.

Kenny

Edit:My transaction ids:

9560f6c1bbf4d968cd65a6a18c686d96e212e912097a740991ae15122a352fa7
2d09b35ae304b441ac0e507bbcc3818659619d62803038086e964105f99a5768
2deda5e3f099e3d8e14abcbf40e0b8e2dcfe8e50f0e532d97ed72e8e7895138a
2cf9da80f184f5be4bf39cb91c193cd0af8998693c2c5f3793c964914fd3d256

I must apologize off the bat, i have had in fact 4 successful withdrawals and not 5. I did not check my Scrypt with draw page before hand and was off by 1.