Quote from: ThePhwner on September 18, 2015, 11:47:06 AM

Quote from: dyask on September 18, 2015, 06:17:14 AM

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. Wink

*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.