Quote from: dyask on September 12, 2015, 09:31:09 AM

Quote from: tulundon on September 12, 2015, 09:13:04 AM

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.

Quote from: dyask on September 13, 2015, 07:13:43 AM

Quote from: kken01 on September 12, 2015, 11:26:58 AM

Quote from: dyask on September 12, 2015, 08:47:00 AM

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. Cheesy

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. Wink

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.

Quote from: Phildo on September 14, 2015, 05:38:17 AM

Quote from: dyask on September 14, 2015, 12:23:28 AM

Quote from: Soylent_Green on September 13, 2015, 11:05:41 PM

Quote from: iambitcoin5 on September 13, 2015, 10:28:16 PM

Where in hell is the money for withdrawals coming from?

Quote from: bastilar on September 13, 2015, 10:51:10 PM

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.

Quote from: dyask on September 14, 2015, 03:49:34 AM

Quote from: Crestington on September 14, 2015, 02:36:29 AM

Quote from: dyask on September 14, 2015, 02:13:38 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on September 14, 2015, 12:28:37 AM

Quote from: dyask on September 14, 2015, 12:11:26 AM

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.