Bitcoin Forum

I have been advocating against BC.Game primarily for quite some time. I personally believe that there is serious corruption in this forum relating to this casino, and that if any other casino was conducting its practices similarly to BC.Game, they'd be persecuted and banished (or at least, they would not have a +20 trust rating)

I also personally believe that the threads linked in this thread are only those who have gone public, and that bc.game are more than likely to have scammed people who do not make their frozen or stolen funds public.

Here are over 25 thread just in the last 15 pages of the scam accusations board:
BC Game restricting withdrawals on over 350k USD [RESOLVED] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5529588.0)
BC.GAME IS A SCAM (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530208.0)
BC GAME SCAMMERS LIARS (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530476.0)
BcGame withdraw issues funds missing! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5527279.0)
BC.GAME $3,112 Winnings Missing and Balance Disappearing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5526961.0)
[BC.Game] 12K USDT + 1,4k BCD locked - Since April 2024 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5498732.0)
BC.Game stole my money (Solved) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5526166.0)
BCGame KYC, Error 4001: Account Verification Required (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5526527.0)
BC GAME NOT PAYING WITHDRAW (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5525285.0)
BC.Game.US KYC verification issue (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5526357.0)
bc.game odd tos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5527382.0)
BC game KYC failed after withdrawing money ( SOLVED ) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5526654.0)
BC.GAME KYC Issues. Not letting me withdraw $14k. Horrible support.  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5525162.0)
BC.GAME scam casino, cheating players, misleading promos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5507329.0)
BC GAME FIRST TIME KYC FAILED, AND THE LIVE SUPPORT DOESNT REPLIED (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5522072.0)
Bc Game - Error 4001 when logging in - Resolved - Thank you HolyDarkness  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5516330.0)
BCgame $10000 locked ?? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5516779.0)
BCgame - resolved  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5510689.0)
BC.Game - can't withdraw 7.97 BTC (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471569.0)
Solved : BC.Game - can't withdraw 10 BTC NOV-2024 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5517339.0)
BC Game deleted my account with level 44 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5512842.0)
BCGame withdraw and tip permission have been suspended. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5510315.0)
$7,000,000 @ BC.Game (2500+ ETH) [SOLVED LIKE A BOSS] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5504423.0)
[Resolved] [BC.GAME] Account permanently locked, 74k USD withheld, casino unr... (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5504473.0)
BC.GAME Wont Let Me Withdraw (SOLVED) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5506469.0)
BC GAME 2400 USDT CAN'T DO KYC ''SOLVED'' (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5505477.0)
Bc.games is a scam now not approving kyc to steal player funds (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5503527.0)
BC.Game Review: Uncovering the Truth – Is BC.Game a Scam? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5503095.0)
bc.game and stake.com originals casino games are 100% a scam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5495559.0)

Why are "Resolved" threads here?
New info (recently added):

This is not trustworthy behavior from a casino - making a final decision and only resolving it after it was posting on bitcointalk. Of course, none of you who posted will be effected by this, because you exist on bitcointalk and thus it is not a part of the strategy to scam you. However, those who are not a part of bitcointalk can and will be scammed, until they post here. This is a form of scamming, whether people want to admit it or not.
[/quote]


There are many advocates who are supportive of BC.Game and I do not trust them. Some have of these DT members have left irresponsible positive feedbacks for things like giving away money in contests or in the games and rounds board, or when BC.Game have given the money for something like a sponsorship...this is the equivalent of purchasing feedback, and is indirect corruption (giving away money or "donations" to build trust). Below are the DT users who I have excluded from my trust list for giving positive feedback to BC.Game:
~efialtis
~Peanutswar
~bitmover
~jayce
~CLS63
~Etranger
~nakamura12
~boltz
~famososMuertos
~inspace
~bitbollo
~GazetaBitcoin
~willi9974
~Real-Duke
~buwaytress
~paid2
~ChiBitCTy
~TryNinja
~hopenotlate
~KTChampions

If a positive feedback is changed to something rightful like a neutral (especially for things like giving away free money), then I will reconsider the ~ upon being notified about it. I will also put more time into reviewing each member to refine my choice...however for now, trusting this casino is potentially harmful, so I am no longer trusting anyone in DT who trusts them.

I believe that other, more trustworthy members of the forum should be a bit more pragmatic, and review the trust profile of BC.Game (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2503677) and adjust their trust settings based on who in DT is giving away positive feedback just because a casino gave them some form of reward that resulted in the feedback[/url]. This is not how any trust system should work. Trust should be based on trades and mutual risks, not because someone or an entity gave you money for free.

---

I have decided that (after feedback), distrusting members who dealt with bc.game is probably not the right course of action. I've struck this, though maintain that this thread has a valid premise:
If bc.game only deals with cases posted publicly, isn't it likely that many cases that aren't posted about go unresolved?.

It's a very fair point to make, and the casino is clearly one that is showing malpractice. A casino like bc.game does not deserve a +20 / 0 / 0 trust rating. It deserves to have warnings (at least) painted on it.

From making this thread, icopress has destroyed my forum profile. I believe I've made a sound point. I am disappointed to know that he is able to do something like this.

If I may ask, why putting threads of issues that were successfully resolved? Don'tyou think that adding them might mean that BC.Game actually solve issues and claims that are legitimate thereby making this post and your actions out of place?

Secondly, are you sure that you have done your background checks properly to confirm that all the people you listed, who have given positive trust ratings to BC.Game, have been given financial favours by the casinos? Don't you think some might trust the casino based on their experience with the casino and the ability to make hitch free gambling and withdrawal from the casino? If, by chance, I happen to win a huge amount of money from BC.Game and got my withdrawal processed, are you saying that if I drop positive rating, you will add me to your distrust list? Well, I will like to get your answer. But i know for sure that you have right to trust or distrust anyone based on your personal conviction and conscience and so does others and using a list of scam accusations that some are actually resolved, to draw conclusion may leave a lot of question marks.

Finally, most of the popular casinos have series of scam accusations, with some resolved and others pending just like the list you posted, so I don't know why you think its perculiar to BC.Game.

NB: I'm not advocating for BC.Game neither am I in anyway supporting your position,  I just made my points from the angle of someone that seeks clarifications.

There was a similar discussion and I will quote the most merited post.


This mean most people agree if someone left positive feedback even it's "free money" by your own definition, because when people are participating in contest, they also carry the same risk that Bc.game will not give the reward. You know, it's possible to run a contest and the sponsor can accuse or doing anything in order to not give the reward.

At least eight of those threads' titles contain the world Solved, and I believe a couple more were solved, but the OP did not update the thread title. I understand that you wanted to mention how many scam accusations are raised against a specific casino. Is it alarming? I think so. I have been criticizing the BC game for their worst support. Most of these scam accusations wouldn't even be created if their support did not copy-paste pre-generated text from their support software. They barely read what the players write to them.

Considering the free service holy darkness provides and the number of cases he resolved, I believe it's just a pure failure of their support. I still believe the casino does not intend to scam people. But they have to work on their support, and they have room to improve. 

I made custom Btc Coin and Aluminium cards for bc.game and all works very fine. Good communication in the Design and Production Phase. They make free raffles with all the cards. So all was very good in my small sector and contact point.

You should remove the solved topics in your or let it better in, so every can see bc.game is working on some topics and it is not all black what you see.

Switch my trust topic to neutral so long so many open Problems.

I would say that is absolutly Not a scam, maybe a unlucky Support / Support process in the Company Helpdesk.

Best regards,
Willi

The argument that "most of these are solved" are irrelevant. The main point is that BC.Game prey on those who do not post about their negative experience and who accept that they have been scammed and move on. Some people value their privacy and will not conduct KYC. Some are consumed or busy with their lives and do not want to fight online in attempt to get their funds back, or don't fight as they believe they have no voice. Some people don't even know there is a forum or avenue to post on to get their money back. So what, some are solved, what about the ones that aren't that we do not know about? Can anyone really confidently say that the ones that are resolved are 100% of the instances where players lost their funds? Isn't the fact that people had issues alone or this kind of practice of forcing people to post publicly to get their funds back a non-trustworthy practice? I believe it's not trustworthy and that there are many victims without a voice.

I also believe that holydarkness is not a random good Samaritan. There is incentive or motivation for him to do what he does from another party. I welcome him to publicly deny this officially for the record.


This is a poor reason to give positive trust. So does that mean that I can run contests and giveaways in order to build my trust here? No, it should not mean that. There is no risk participating in a giveaway or a post, and it is not a trustworthy action to give away money or to sponsor something...for this reason is why so much corruption exists in the world through political donations and lobbying. Is that the same kind of system that this community should follow?


A casino (or any service for that matter) is obligated to provide a 100% legitimate service. BC.game is far from that description. It does not matter if there are players who use the casino with no trouble, if there are a group of people who become a victim. I think it is irresponsible for someone who is a part of DT to leave a positive trust rating for a casino that consistently has issues with their players, and where the question of "how many victims are there without a voice?" remains a very legitimate question. For this reason, I distrust anyone who is giving positive trust ratings to this casino, as they are not giving trust ratings to people or entities who have flawless, trustworthy reputations, but they are are giving positive trust ratings to people or entities who are leveraging advertising and their perceived trustworthiness to lure and damage a select group of people who do not use their voice.


I will further refine both the thread and the trust selections over time, separating the unresolved from the resolved and also add commentary so that the reader can distinguish or gauge the legitimacy of any unresolved cases without investigating for themselves. For now, the purpose of listing all threads is simple - whether issues are resolved or not, there were issues, and there isn't just one or two, there are tens, maybe hundreds if I counted past 15 pages...and as mentioned earlier in this post, the very legitimate question is "how many victims are there without a voice?".

I appreciate that you've done the responsible thing and have changed the rating to neutral. In fact, yours was one of the few where you had actually provided something in a transaction (and did not just receive free money in a contest or something of the like), so really your rating is somewhat fine and I would have removed you from my distrust list anyway after refinement. I have removed you from my distrust list now and changed it to trustworthy, as what you have done is a trustworthy thing to do - to not give positive trust to an entity that is clearly causing problems for many people. - and I believe everyone should be following this practice, and that it's the responsible thing to do with DT power.

I mean, you can if you want, no one can limit you.

There's risk of participating giveaway, as I mentioned before, not all sponsor will distribute the reward. If the sponsor delay in distribute the reward or not give the reward, they deserve to get negative trust right?

CMIIW, they didn't force the winners to left positive trust, so it was the users. If you can caught them asking for positive trust, it will be an another discussion.

I am not going to dive into the threads BenCodie mentioned in opening post to check between solved and still actual and what are players fault anf what not, but I somewhat agree that my positive trust is stretched a bit too far for mainly being based on their long lasting signature campaign and just revised it to neutral.
But I think it is also worth mentioning in it they paid a $7 million win to a players of their after some problems at the beginning.

I am pretty surprised that an user with experience with gambling and forum is going to trust some random accusations (and most have also the tag RESOLVED ::)  10 of 25!!!!  :-X ).
You must be aware that there are TONS of scams against casino on line and bookmakers. Most of these accusations are rants made by people that get caught.
If you are acting in a certain way you can just ask a lawyer or gambling group to get help....

Of course I am not trusting any version since if I have not access to all details I want to accuse or help anyone
(and this is not my business I have many things more interested to do...).

My green trust has been left to this user because this user made a purchase and pay directly with no waste of time.
Other people even if not tagged are professional time waster, that delay sell, delay agreements and more.
Ok probably they don't have a casino on line but interactions are really difficult since they are just wasting time (I get 3 of these this year...)

Unless there is a real accusation against this bookmaker/casino I would never review my trust.
I would prefer that these searches are made with a certain effort, because if you're judgement is based on "number of accusation" and not "how many real issues there are" ....

I feel like while there's a sense in your post, your approach is wrong. You are totally painting them black or bad, if you have a personal beef it shouldn't cloud your final judgement against them. They are not the only Casinos having much scam accusations while many has already been resolved, yes they might have bad customer service but it's not like other Casinos don't have similar issues but the fact that these Casinos do have a representatives here to handle such issues, still speak positively of them.

In the aspect of Casinos scam accusations, anyone who would be interested to get an actual information about them, I think holydarkness threads cover everything and he has been doing very well in handling between such customers and the Casinos, picking sure a justified resolved is given.
 List Scam Accusation Cases Against Betting Platform on The Forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481683.msg63504246#msg63504246)

I get your point but to be frank, this just doesn't occur only with Bc game or any other Casinos, members of the forum also give positive feedback to other members for keeping up to their words in managing contest or rewards.

BenCodie,
I will carefully look at some of the posts you mentioned. However,  some of them are already marked as "SOLVED".

About my DT feedback:
I have had several commercial relationships with BC.GAME. This is exactly why the feedback/trust system was created.

they sponsored my website, rented my signature , etc, and always paid as agreed. Trust feedback is designed specially for that. I trust them for commercial relationships.

I believe i am one of the few DT members who doesn't give feedbacks like "this is a nice guy", or "he created a nice project" etc. All of those feedback are clearly a misuse of the trust system, and some kind of abuse.

Trust list is not what you should really concern yourself about as long as more DTs added you to their trust list.

@BenCodie
Do you think I should not Trust Stake campaign manager for keeping to her promise by paying me weekly? It is like a kind of trade or agreement that was fulfilled. Although, you are not wrong to add or remove anyone from your trust list as long as you do not like the judgement of the person. But I do not think you do it rightly this time around. Although, it is your opinion. But it would have been better to go directly after bc.game account on this forum directly instead of removing those users from your trust list.

By considering that the argument "most of these are solved" is irrelevant, you exclude yourself from the position of being neutral and relevant for this type of calling out a service.

Everything you wrote below is looking at things from only one angle and you can apply that to all casinos.

What about those who use the casino every day and are aware that it is their fault if they lose money on gambling? Nobody knows anything about them?

It doesn't really matter, but BC has paid out over $10,000,000 over the years (including through the threads mentioned) and there is only one bookmaker on the forum that has done more for this community than BC. Btw, the neutral tag I had left for this user for a year previously accurately described his position in this community, but it was neutral because I believed that everyone deserves a second chance. The tag has changed to red and I would definitely avoid trading with him because spreading charlatan ideas under the guise of snake oil is a big red flag.

OP, feel free to tell me what in my feedback left to BC is not accurate:

---

There is actually no risk participating in signature campaign, so following your logic, why did you left this feedback?

after reading some topics and my own experiences, i turn back my trust from neutral to positive.
Nothing what in my kind of situation can say negative.

individual negative experiences certainly have their reason, can be handled better if necessary, but everything i have seen and experienced so far does not justify a neutral or even red flag. all positive from my side

Best regards,
Willi

Lol. Last week, you removed me (https://loyce.club/trust/2025-02-22_Sat_09.01h/404695.html) from your Trust list after I called you out on your baseless accusations (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530309.msg65068624#msg65068624).
Instead of excluding good users, you should ask yourself why only 1 inactive user (https://loyce.club/trust/2025-02-22_Sat_09.01h/404695.html) included you on him Trust list, while 10 others excluded you.

First of all, allow me to extend my deepest sympathy. Truly. It seems you're so much damaged and betrayed by the world that you find and perceive kindness and sincerity as rare as a unicorn with a mermaid tail flying above Avengers Tower.

That said, would you want to extend that question with other casinos too? Or is it strictly limited to BC?

Sportsbet? DuckDice? FortuneJack? Shuffle? Because I have their contacts too and they're one chat away from a discussion about cases, just like BC. Oh, Rollbit too, since I recently acquired their rep's personal contact.

How about Joya v. lightbet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5493475.0), since I even go to a length to get their attention, though the situation ended unresolved. But looking at how I exhaust a lot of effort to get them to address the matter, certainly the "incentive or motivation" is greater than what's with BC, who reachable through an instant app.

While we're at it, how about Roobet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5507320.msg64542977#msg64542977)? I went far and deep to establish a contact, from reaching some contact, to reaching their live support, to emailing their support team as suggested, and repeating the process to other division as they dumped the situation to that division and they required me to explain from the beginning again.

Duelbits? I have email correspondencies with their rep to prove that I went to a length to get to the bottom of a case.

I don't have any intention to write this as a means to brag, simply to give an explicit picture of how I went deep on so many cases across casinos, not just BC. So, do you want to extend that question with those casinos too? And others that I don't bother to mention as it's in a distant past [and mentioning all of them would just make me sound like bragging]


Let me save some of your time, I have built a list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481683.0) of cases against casinos, with status of being resolved, unresolved, etc. the most recent cases have added feature as suggested by other player where the conclusion of the case were linked to the entry so people can easily find them.

There are more lists on page two, as I've exceeded the number of maximum characters in one [well, three] posts on the first page as the list grows, so I have to move the older ones to the second page. And it only covers cases from 2023, mentioning that just in case you find that I didn't include cases pre-2023 of all casinos as something shady.

What a way to make a fool of themselves and self-destruct in public. I can think of plenty of ways to create this thread where someone could present the facts and open a reasoned debate. But no, the OP had to come and give us yet another lecture on the forum with that condescending tone.

Wasn't this the guy who criticised casinos and gambling, only to end up wearing a paid casino signature shortly afterwards?

And he's not even in DT, talking with that cocky attitude to DT members. It seems to me it won't be long before they distrust him, and I can already see that one of them has struck back.

Okay...I've got the condescending tone? I'd self reflect. I've not done anything than make a fair conclusion: Why should anyone trust a casino that has a new scam report and prays on victims on who do not speak out in public?

It's a fair conclusion to make.

In relation to being paid to put some text in my signature, I have explained this before and have no interest in re-hashing the argument. I disagree that wearing signatures are only for those who praise and promote casinos. Advertisements can be displayed anywhere, they aren't selected based on beliefs (hence ad networks and paid placement ads, do you think google (for example) personally endorses the paid ads at the top of their searches? No. As long as they follow guidelines, anything can be displayed - my guidelines are, as long as they are legitimate, they can pay for my signature).

Also, in relation to icopress, this is simply power abuse. I have a right to speak freely, and I have been punished for kicking the hornets nest. I am not surprised at all that he of all people has abused the trust system because of this thread. "I would definitely avoid trading with him because spreading charlatan ideas under the guise of snake oil is a big red flag." is a very inaccurate way to describe me.


I disagree. You risk providing an advertisement for a payment, and not receiving the payment. This is different to receiving a payment that requires nothing in return other than receiving the payment, or making a post (as is in a contest for example).


You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.


I recall you leaving out answers to key questions that otherwise validate what I'm talking about. Another reputable member also has the proof and base to the accusations. I am not surprised to see you jump in to recover after our discussion last week. As for the trust list, I was gang distrusted a while ago for no good reason. I am clearly not approved by those who control the power here and have not been for a while. That's just how it is. Aside from that, I've made hundreds of good posts that help people, generally seek to do what is good and right in the forum and do my best to call out malpractice, just like bc.game. Though this is not only unappreciated though I have now been punished for it, since so many are fed by those who are not on the good side of the fence.


Great work, you have finally done what you have wanted to do since you left that neutral feedback. This is power abuse at its finest. None of what I have said or done here warrants you the right to destroy the trust feedback that represents whether or not I can trade with people on this forum. You have left a negative feedback based on your opinion of me, which is completely unacceptable. Though of course, you will get away with it. Congratulations.

As for bc.game, they have paid out that much, though how much have they taken from those who did not make a thread? The scam strategy is clear to me in my opinion - confiscate funds, place difficult KYC and requirements to get the money back, and if they don't have the will or the desire to hand over their information or to open a public thread, then keep the funds. It is a reasonable assumption given how many times people have had to kick and scream on the forum in order for their thread to be resolved, and if they hadn't, it is unlikely it ever would have been.


There is no trade involved in participating in a giveaway. No money or value is risked other than a minuscule amount of effort that can't possibly be considered enough to consider an entity or person as trustworthy. I think that's a rational opinion.


It is irrelevant, as it is evidence that there are problems with the casino on an ongoing basis, which makes it less trustworthy. BC.game have a "stellar reputation" on their profile, though is that the truth of their reputation? These threads prove that it is not stellar. It is sub-par at best. Yes, the angle can be applied to all casinos probably, though bc.game currently stands out the most to me in comparison to others, and a lot of their trust has been farmed from giving away money, not from legitimately trading with members on the forum or doing things that are actually signs of trustworthiness...

If Bc.game gain trust from giving away money, why do they not have any negative feedback for holding or freezing money of their players? Isn't that the inverse?


Willingly losing money is different to being wrongfully scammed.

---

I can not believe that someone is allowed to abuse their power in such a way - three trust ratings, two negative and a neutral, spun into disgusting and tarnishing statements for discussing their malpractice:




I am not a liar, I call things for how they are. It is factual that icopress promotes a borderline scam casino, and has been involved in suspicious activities including jambler (which powered mixers that may/may not have scammed this forum), betnomi (the casino that scammed a lot of users on the forum) and now actively uses his power to keep the bc.game scheme alive, and to silence anyone who speaks against it (like myself).

I also do not abuse negative feedback. If one looks at my profile, I've left a negative feedback on bc.game for a legitimate reason. Since, my reputation has been destroyed for simply pointing out that bc.game is only refunding those who make public threads about its misconduct, and that there are likely to be victims who do not speak, or do not adhere to their requirements to unfreeze their funds. that was the conclusion of this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5533262.0), and I believe that it is a fair one.

Nice try. I don't owe you anything, and especially not when it's totally off-topic.

When the whole world is against you, maybe you're the one who's wrong.

Nice try about what? Is what I said untrue?


When you go against an agenda with a large payroll, you will always be told that you are wrong. In these cases, it's only a select few who are upset with what I am saying (understandably so, since it directly involves their conduct).

Well, I actually need that to be very clear, for what I'll propose next, in regards to "publicly and officially deny" on the record... as I've made it quite abundance in many occasions, yet people keep questioning that. I need to be sure if you're referring to BC or all of the casinos mentioned and not mentioned on my above post.

Given you mention the plural, I'll guess it's safe to assume we're going with all of the casinos, that you accuse me of getting incentives from casinos for the work I've done.

Factually, I've addressed this several times on several occasions, but at this point, I am a bit tired and sick of the rambling of those people who can't appreciate a "Samaritan" work, of how many hours I pour to help others that at times need to take my own personal time, and I wanted to... play, so here's my counter proposal for your challenge for me to publicly and officially deny that I get incentivized for solving cases on the record:

This is the written ageement we'll enter, read carefully and give your consent, as your consent or non-consent is the answer of your own challenge:

---

---

"I, holydarkness, will give you, BenCodie, until end of this month, 28th of February 2025, to prove that I, holydarkness, get incentivized by any casino for resolving cases and acting as bridge between the casinos and people.

Should you, BenCodie, successfully prove that I, holydarkness, getting incentivized by casinos, I, holydarkness, will accept the punishment that the forum deemed necessary, be it negative feedback or flags or both, as well as will pay you, BenCodie, USD 5,000 for your effort to unearth the misdeed that I, holydarkness, has done all this years.

IF you, BenCodie, failed to provide necessary and solid-based evidence of said accusation before 28th of February 2025 though, you, BenCodie, shall pay me, holydarkness, USD 50,000 for the inconvenience you, BenCodie, caused to me, holydarkness, that I, holydarkness, perceived as a smear campaign and libel attempt."

---

---

Do we have a deal?

---

Edit: oh, I have no interest to wait for your agreement by 28th, where you can just back down on the last second when you realized you're neck deep in shit. So, I give you until 23:59:59 forum time to give your answer. Should you agree, I'll need you to escrow the fund to a trusted escrow provider [I shall do that too]. Should you disagree, then kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned.

Should you give no answer by 23:59:59, today, we shall conclude that you choose to back up from the deep shit you put yourself into.

Yes, you have freedom of speech, you're entitled to speak freely, but you have to remember that freedom of speech does not equal to freedom from consequences.

Payroll, says the clown. Like the casino that pays you for your signature, which is the same one that pays me?

The person you're replying to has a signature that doesn't pay them, and the other one who just offered you a bet to see if you put your money where your mouth is doesn't have a BC Game signature either.

But keep making a fool of yourself. I'm having a good laugh!

 ;D

I originally stated that you are welcome to plainly, simply and clearly state that you do not receive an incentive to do what you do for casinos.


All that you needed to reply from the beginning in response was something like this:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users..

The incentive being outside of the signature campaign (if that wasn't already obvious)

As for my second statement, what I had put in brackets was an alternative way of wording what you have not publicly denied (that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos - alternatively phrased (or, in other words) that you work for the casinos as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control:

I am obviously not interested in your bet as I don't have access to your private communications (which even so, messages can be deleted) nor do I have access to your wallets (also can be deleted). I have only been interested in a sentence along the lines of:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users.

Since I mentioned you. Not sure what the problem is with welcome you to post something so simple...I personally would have accepted that, as putting something in clear writing is something that a lot of guilty people around here tend to avoid doing. I have not actually accused you of any wrongdoing if you correctly read my posts, only stated my belief and provided alternative wording, with a welcome for you to clearly deny it.


No, payroll is not just in the scope of a signature campaign. Transactions outside of signature campaigns exist.

It's ironic that you came here claiming that I had a condescending tone, and yet both of your posts have been probably the most belittling and condescending posts I've seen on this forum in a while. Why are you either so offended or feel the need to come here just to insult me? Do you have some sort of involvement in the topic that you're reacting to, or what's your motivation for posting the way that you are?


LoyceV gets paid a handsome amount by Foxpup and go knows who/what else in relation to this forum, LoyceV has many other avenues to be paid outside of being a part of a signature campaign. The relevance of holydarkness having a bc.game signature or not is irrelevant too. As I've said, transactions aren't just from signature campaigns.

Not going deep into investigating Op's claim, it is a common sense to agree that much complaints and scam accusations against BC.Game is not a good sign. I remember even reading in the BH section about BC.Games and the US citizens with KYC.

I see some people coming with the defence that some of those issues were solved. You should also ask if BC.Games would have willingly solved these issues assuming they were not called out by the victims. It will be beneficial to all if BC.Game pay attention to how they perform their business or reform some of their policies.

See? That's what I was talking about before. What you're saying seems like a much more reasonable way to approach things, and if the OP had started a thread in that tone, things would be very different.

But no, he had to come around here with his superior attitude to give us all a lesson, to 'punish' the members who gave the casino positive feedback (justifiably), and when, quite rightly, people turn against him, he invents a conspiracy that basically the whole world is against him. All that's left is for him to say he's going to tell his mum.

[Disclaimer: I always try my best not to swear with full heart and seriousness, to face situations on the forum with cool and level headedness, walking away for fresh air when things became incredibly stupid. This time though, I'll let go and express myself as some people needs to be pulled out from the dream world they're living in. So, my apology in advance if anybody find this post explosive or excessive or inappropriate --not you, BenCodie, I am referring to others who unfortunate enought to have to read this filthy post.]

You seemed very confident and mighty before, by criticizing my post, when all I tried was to be thorough before I complied to your request and upped the ante to make it more formal and serious. You even emphasizing the chance of me addressing the matter as per what I marked in red,


And when things become real, where push become shove, and reality slapped you so hard in your face that your eyes watered, that freedom of speech does not come with freedom from consequences, your tail tucked between your leg so quickly.

Does this mean it is safe for all of us to conclude that you're all bark and no bites? That you can talk the talk, but when it comes to the walk, you're limping?

To respond to your post, no, I will not just simply said, "I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users," and let it go.

What good shall it bring? People asked so many times, I patiently tell them that I am not, but that they're free to prove otherwise, yet it kept being asked over and over and over. Imagine being someone who spent a lot of time, literally handling situation and trying to help as many sides as I can, and the "pay back" I get was a fuckin shit trying to paint me as bad and question my sincerity by challenging me, welcoming me to publicly deny that I got incentivized, even upped the ante by doubting I will publicly address the matter. So this is me addressing it, just as you demanded by letting myself introduce you to real world and the definition of consequences:

Either you accept the deal, and start investigating me, my wallet address is there, it's a readily available information, if you can't find it, it means your intelligence is far lower than what you tried to cast to the public, but fret not, you should only ask and I will gladly provide it for you. And it can't be deleted [not sure where you get that idea, that "[...] wallet (also can be deleted)"]. Blockchain is there, and will stays there no matter what, I don't think anyone has control over what's shown and not shown on Blockchain, thus it can't be deleted. SMH.

You won't need to see my private communications, since if I do get paid by casinos, the damning proof will be there in the Blockchain, not in the conversation.

Or, back down from your own challenge, admit that you run your mouth too wide and you bite more than you can chew, that there are chances that you made post without thorough thinking, just a feigned intelligence, as when you're asked to prove your own accusation, it's all suddenly a tucked tail. It's ok, us the forum users are begin to get used with snowflakes. You're free to back down and disagree from the counter-challenge I propose.

But since you disagree, then, to quote myself, "kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned."

If you can't be man enough to accept the deal that you started yourself, then at least be a boy enough to accept the consequences of that freedom of speech.

Two hours and forty minutes. Tick tock.

There are just toxic, bitter people who are masters at obscuring their true motives and resorting to techniques like "plausible deniability" (his response to your post is a great example). And as soon as you disagree with his inflated ego or make a reasonable contradiction, you become a target.

How many members will congratulate the BetFury campaign manager for allowing the OP to participate in a high paying campaign knowing that he was a narcissistic loose cannon that points one way one day and in a completely different direction the next day.  Knowing this, he still enrolled him and welcomed him.

Before the BetFury campaign manager brought this egotistic deluded individual back to posting full time courtesy of enrolling him in the campaign, the OP was looking around for loans and was not getting much joy (nor did he have joy with signature campaigns).

Now that he back he has to meet his quota in order to get paid in full. The OP is posting new low level attention-seeking nonsense akin to OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and all of this is happening because of yet another in a long line of mistakes/errors/incompetencies/misjudgements by the BetFury campaign manager.

October 2024: $125 @ 12% repaid within 3 weeks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5514528.0)
November 2024: 500 USD - 20% - 2 Months - To pursue potentially golden opportunity. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5520368.0)
January 2025:  400 USDT, 480 USDT by March 30 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5527796.0)

I tallied all the casino threads in Scam Accusations that were either posted or bumped in the last year (17 pages -- it should be noted that many of these complaints were resolved, miscommunications, erroneous or duplications), and here is a list of the top 10 casinos by total # of threads, along with their domain rating according to ahrefs (https://ahrefs.com/) (a rough indicator of the popularity of a website based on its number of backlinks):

BC.GAME: 44 - 79
Rollbit: 37 - 62
Stake: 28 - 80
Shuffle: 19 - 63
Sportsbet.io: 17 - 76
Freebitco.in: 12 - 80
TrustDice: 9 - 68
Fortunejack: 8 - 70
Chips.gg: 7 - 40
DuelBits: 7 - 66

So dividing the complaints by domain rating gives you an idea of how frequent complaints are relative to the site's number of backlinks:

BC.GAME: 0.557
Rollbit: 0.597
Stake: 0.35
Shuffle: 0.302
Sportsbet.io: 0.224
Freebitco.in: 0.15
TrustDice: 0.132
Fortunejack: 0.114
Chips.gg: 0.175
DuelBits: 0.106

So this does put BC.GAME on the high side.

Another way to measure would be by complaints/traffic (in thousands of hits per month, also from ahrefs):

BC.GAME: 44/649.7 = 0.068
Rollbit: 37/22 = 1.68
Stake: 28/1700 = 0.016
Shuffle: 19/15.3 = 1.24
Sportsbet.io: 17/560.2 = 0.03
Freebitco.in: 12/431.1 = 0.028
TrustDice: 9/17.3 = 0.52
Fortunejack: 8/8.4 = 0.952
Chips.gg: 7/0.666 = 10.5
DuelBits: 7/12.7 = 0.551

Here the results are much more varied, but BC.GAME is much lower than average.

The point being, if a site get a lot more traffic, its bound to have more complaints.

Lolz! I see this thread as a kind of trust conflict. The Op who is accusing people of trust others for commercial transaction also trust another for the same commercial purpose. So who is to blame is unknown. The only thing is he (the Op) didn't use another account for this thread but his main account. In most cases we see people creating newbie account for threads like this.
BC.Game was accused of scamming and many threads were created as of then and when they came back, they created a thread to solve all the genuine accusations and they did. And if anyone is still having issue with them, they should visit the ANN thread or the thread created to solve scam cases. There is no hidden places for a shy person in cases like this. Come out and solve your problems. I am not speaking for bc.game but telling the truth.

What personal motivations could I possibly have for calling you out? It does no good for me to expose that you are a shady person. It only paints a target on my back for negative and neutral trust like yours and JollyGood.

Do you deny that you could have done better as a business person here? Do you deny that what you advertise/have advertised has involved scams or bad end user outcomes?


"Narcissism is a self-centered personality style characterized as having an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, often at the expense of others."

I am very concerned with malpractice and corruption about the forum, and asking the questions/saying the things no one else will always expense people who don't want to talk about those topics. Though, it is not out of being self-centered or preoccupied with myself. I am simply disappointed with the forum and how it has turned into a community that is not completely in-line with Bitcoin and its values, and yet succeeds and feeds unaligned people on the back of Bitcoin's name.

You have called me a narcissist and someone with OCD in a single post...Though being that you are clearly a manipulative person, your comments don't particularly bother me. I believe that a good chunk of the forum who have interacted with you are aware that you are the true narcissist, and either use you as an asset in their power game, or fear getting on your bad side (otherwise attacks just like the one's you follow me with would likely ensue).


My tail is not tucked between my legs and the reality is still the same. I am allowed to have my beliefs that are based on likelihoods and probabilities, and that's all I've done here. I've not come here saying "I am certain of this" or "I am certain of that", I've had doubts and beliefs.

I believe there is truth in my beliefs, I have no motive to just make up nonsense.


I find it odd that you are doing and saying just about everything that you can just to avoid saying something that affirms to me and everyone else that you a good samaritan with no financial motivation?


The problem with your deal is that you can easily have dealt with people with addresses that you've never posted publicly. You are acting as if this investigation is a doable one, however your private communications with casino administrations and the fact that you can use addresses that have never been posted before effect whether it is possible or not.

The alternative is to simply get a statement from you, one that says that you have no financial motivation for what you do, and out of all the words you've posted, you have continued to refuse to make a clear and concise statement that you have no financial motivation, and instead have chosen to abuse and threaten me over a fair belief.

I will not be posting an apology as you've come at me from a very aggressive angle just for doubting your motives, all to avoid giving your word in a clear statement that explicitly says that you have no financial motivation for what you do, in a forum where the attitude even by well-respected members is financially motivated:


You can question my trust all that you want, however my thoughts and my questioning of the gambling lobby that clearly exists in this forum is not an indication that I am not a trustworthy person, and the trust tool is being used by upset people like icopress who don't like what I'm posting about, and wish to discredit and suppress any such talk.


This doesn't take into account cases that were never posted by more vulnerable victims, which is a key point of this thread.

This feels more like a personal vendetta against the manager or the site, not sure why without going through all of your posts @BenCodie or without you stating why. If it's against the manager shouldn't you take the issue private unless you have specific complaints that show they are shady? If it's about the site in general, many have given you reasons/proof that more than 1 site(BC.Game) has plenty of accusations against them. Solved and unsolved. Nutildah provided you a nice bit of info in their last post.

I would think that someone who thinks they are an intelligent person (i'm not saying you are or aren't) would post more than what you have. Managers in general, at least most of them, do not seek out scams. If actual legit scam accusations are coming up and not getting solved, generally it is the manager stopping the campaign and all advertising either permanently or until accusations are acknowledged and dealt with.

Go back through your research and show us only unsolved accusations that are actually legit. Show the accusations the casino is refusing to acknowledge. Show us proof the casino is stealing from players. I think you'll get more support for a thread like that vs calling out everyone and being an ass to reputable members like you are in this thread. You have to handle a situation better IMO otherwise noone is going to take you serious and you only lose credibility.

I did not once mention icopress in the original thread. It seems like a personal vendetta because icopress promotes campaigns that have had shady elements, and because bc.game is one of those campaigns.

bc.game have a lot of cases that are popping up consistently (which only seem to be resolved after they've been posted), which not only proves time and time again that they are an unreliable platform for players, though raises the question of how many vulnerable victims there are who have not posted publicly and have accepted that their funds are lost with bc.game.


I could have done a better job in the OP and the presentation of the problem, and while that does not make the problem any less legitimate, I could have put more time into making that aspect of this thread better.

You're taking what I said waaay out of context. That post isn't even from this thread; its addressing an entirely different subject. And that issue was that no matter how you dice it, theymos would have to rely on somebody to manage forum donations.


How is the non-existence of something evidence of anything?

The point was that a current theme of the environment of the forum is financial motivation over being a good Samaritan, hence my belief about holydarkness.

If what you were saying, that someone should be paid to simply manage a key of a multi-signature wallet (which to me is still laughable if it's in the name of a community like this one) doesn't apply to my point, then how about this one where another highly reputable member stated that a salary is needed just to get advice from trusted forum members before spending money on development?



No, theymos does not need to rely on anyone to manage forum donations if it was managed by a council of multi-signature key holders. The control that he has over forum donations is not a necessity, it's a choice (a choice that lead to the irresponsible management and ultimate outcome of the new forum software).


If I own a casino, a very large casino, and my pattern of behavior is to freeze people's accounts, hold them hostage of KYC, and wait for them to either seek legal help, give in to my demands and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the accounts - then it is reasonable to assume that there are a portion of people who do not seek legal help, give in to demands, and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the account.

If we were to go deeper into your question, I'd ask a few back:
- How can you prove that bc.game is not swindling more vulnerable players/the portion of people I just described?
- Doesn't bc.game's track record and long list of accusations and problems increase the probability that this portion of people exists?
- Does their current track record deserve a +20 / 0 trust rating? Shouldn't there at least be a warning of their history of poor behavior?

It would be good to have your opinion through answering those questions.

I'm not going to indulge your whataboutisms as its a pointless exercise.


So you're operating under an assumption, and its unfair to single out bc.game from all the other casinos that are potentially doing the same kind of thing when making this assumption.


The burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the claims.


You're ignoring my demonstration that this casino is considerably more popular than most of its peers, so like I said before, its bound to have more complaints against it than less popular casinos.


If you dig into the trust rating, which isn't shown to people not logged into the forum, you'll see most of the positive trusts are for fulfillment of promises & financial obligations. I have no problem with casinos having negative trusts as well, if they are based on legitimate reasons. Yours is based on unfounded allegations, and it really does seem like you are simply trying to punish the campaign manager for perceived wrongdoing.

Can you help me to understand why we have such a contrasting opinion here? That is that in my opinion these answers are key for your input on the main topic, while in your opinion they are pointless to answer?


So what you are saying that is if I am to raise awareness about this problem (that definitely exists on more casinos than just bc.game, as we've already established with your data), that I must do so for all casinos at once? In my mind that does not sound like a very natural process, and a bit of an unreasonable expectation/pressure to put on someone, is it fair for me to be thinking this way?

Of course I'm already of the assumption that you and many others in this thread instead prefer me to just stop speaking about it at all. Is that a rightful assumption?


There is proof that there is reasonable cause for concern that there is theft occurring on an unspoken level, theft from parties who do not speak on this forum. This proof that there is reasonable cause for concern are the amount of threads that had to be posted before they were resolved, and the high probability that not 100% of the cases have been posted and have not been resolved (as it is unreasonable to assume that every single person was firstly willing to meet KYC demands from bc.game, and additionally that they would come to bitcointalk to post about the problem).


Firstly, what's the score on ignoring certain parts of each others post? I hardly skip over something, while you and others consistently ignore key details. Have you noticed that? Or do you think that is untrue?

As for your demonstration, that's not how I see it. How I see it is that bc.game and its peers exhibit the same problem, and bc.game is one of the most prominent and (in my eyes) the most shadiest from my witnessing and research that spans over a year, hence I'm looking most closely at them over time and why I posted about them first.


I am not targeting icopress, and I promise you that it only just so happens that I also believe he is shady while he manages the campaign for this casino. The two issues are not intertwined, but are probably correlated. That's my honest position. I am not raising awareness about this casino just because I believe that icopress is a corrupt and shady character. That would be unacceptable.

I made this thread as part of raising awareness of a genuine problem that I believe exists, and that you and others are now (seemingly purposefully) dismissing - That a form of corruption and/or scam exists, where a casino freezes players and keeps confiscated money from people who are not willing to both do KYC, and who do not become a part of the bitcointalk community to have the problem resolved. Traditionally, Bitcoin is more aligned with those who believe in privacy than those who believe that KYC is a fair and necessary practice, making anyone who is not willing to complete KYC is a large and vulnerable group of people - people who casinos would take advantage of.

I personally believe that you are are ignoring that this problem exists, or that you believe that it is not a problem (for some reason). I believe there is a reason why the problem is ignored and that the shared attitude by established members, and that it relates to corruption that I believe has influence from the gambling industry (and mixer industry) and relationships with the upper echelon of Bitcointalk.

What do you think about that? You're welcome to call me a crazy conspiracy theorist and that everything I said above is 100% untrue. In fact, if you, LoyceV, JollyGood, icopress, holydarkness, theymos and any other upper echelon members are all welcome to clearly that you believe it is 100% untrue, like so:

I, /username, believe that the quote below by BenCodie is 100% untrue

I will definitely think more about my position if the entire theory and its possibility is denied outright by many respected members.

Skipping everything that is a waste of time. My words stand for themselves, as do his, and the reader can form their own opinions.


No, stop assuming things.


Untrue, and more whataboutism.


I don't believe you.


You are entitled to your opinion. Have a great day.

I find what you find to be a waste of time interesting.


So you prefer me not to stop speaking about casinos? Sorry for my wrongful assumption, that's just what I've gotten from your previous posts. Good to know that you don't prefer me to stop speaking about the casinos.


I disagree, and I don't see the whataboutism in what you quoted.


I'm not surprised.


It's a shame that I didn't get to learn yours about the main topic. Not surprised though. Have a great day.

On the lines of your egotistic attitude that I have already alluded to.

You (just as every other member) have a right to ask as many questions as you would like because if questions and debate are cast aside there is not much left in the forum.

Many others share your disappointment with the forum as far as the lack of migration to new software is concerned but probably for other reasons too for example distribution of merits and account rank system to name a few. On this, I can understand any frustration that manifests because members that care about the forum do not like the direction of certain aspects but the manner in which that frustration is channelled is extremely important.

If you are concerned with malpractice and corruption, you should articulate your case in a manner that does not alienate others and is designed to generate a welcomed debate. If you do not trust BC.Game that is your prerogative and of course you have a right to your opinion. Now, if I disagree with your opinion you might suggest I am participating in their signature campaign therefore am biased. I could apply the same logic and state you have an agenda against BC.Game because you are being paid by a competitor casino to participate in their signature campaign. The cycle continues.

It does not change the fact BC.Game have some resolved and some unresolved scam accusations but many casino/gaming websites are the same therefore we can come to our own judgment about them (just you did). Nor does it change the fact BC.Game paid out $7 million to a single winner therefore those that like/support/trust it whether participating in a signature campaign nor not, also have a right to their views.

It seems in the OP you alluded to the view of certain members running giveaways and adding BC.Game to their trust inclusions are effectively corrupt therefore are biased and will defend BC.Game. You then struck it out and that is a positive move. As for your personal grudge against icopress (most if us that recall the incident) are aware it coincided with you making multiple attempts to join his campaigns and refusal to hire you. On that basis it seems (as I am giving the benefit of the doubt) your dislike and distrust of BC.Game is more about your sentiments towards icopress.

I will not seek details of how/why you have concluded I am a manipulative person, instead it is reassuring to know my words did not (and will not) bother you. Having said that, I will try to refrain from using certain words and I will try to engage with you.

Regarding your distrust of BC.Game, it has been noted therefore what remains to be discussed here?

Lol. Big surprise:

So how's that power play working out for you OP:

That doesn't sound to me like thick skinned leader behaviour to be honest. I mean, if it were someone else I would see it as normal, but to throw that in his face sounds to me like being upset that he has excluded you and wanting to get in his face. Now all you can get is another one of his wall of text in response. But if it's the exception that proves the (thick skinned) rule or something, it's welcome.

I'm not upset, it's just funny he did exactly what I expected. Excluding him in retaliation would be bad, and I see no reason to do so.

Lol.

"Addicted to, or manifesting, egotism; having an exaggerated view of one's own importance or good qualities. "

I don't make much effort to exaggerate my own importance or my own good qualities. I naturally am who I am, I don't amplify that. I definitely amplify suspicious traits of others who wield power, for obvious reasons. That's still my perspective even after looking back at a lot of my posts.


A lot of what you said here is fine. I don't have much of a problem with it nor do I have any comments. If there's something you want me to address that I didn't then quote it and I will respond.


The details involve your purposeful ignorance of the dates in which I began to see red flags with whirl wind - when you claimed that I applied for their campaign despite having red flags, when the truth was that I had noticed red flags many months after I applied for their campaign. You created and locked threads, created walls of text, and even left an invalid neutral trust rating based on this information that you made up or misunderstood.

There's not much else to be discussed, I'm only responding to people in this thread at this point. If I have something to add, I will add it down the track. Time will tell if bc.game are good for this community or not.


There were multiple things that you said and didn't say in our previous conversations that lead to my conclusion that I no longer trust you. I am happy to share the quotes and reasons if you like.


I don't need to post a wall of text.


I lost my trust for LoyceV here and after a pattern of behavior of intentionally ignoring parts of posts that would provide key details to a topic (which I find untrustworthy) I added LoyceV and nutildah to my distrust list.

As mentioned by a member earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is with you because you are the one making the allegation. You have presented nothing of substance against BC.Game (or against icopress for that matter).

I disagree with your version of events.

The manner in which you exposed your selfish behaviour towards the community (regarding the Whirlwind campaign) was your own doing and you only have yourself to blame for how members feel towards you. Furthermore, the feedback I left for your is valid and appropriate but based on the seriousness of the situation probably should have been negative. Your retaliatory feedback was unjustified but it does not concern me.

As mentioned by a member earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is with you because you are the one making the allegation. You have presented nothing of substance against BC.Game (or against icopress for that matter).[/quote]

A track record of only resolving issues that are posted on the forum alongside having tens to hundreds of issues in total is of enough substance to at least suspect that bc.game is stealing from members who do not have a voice on the forum, or who are more vulnerable to KYC checks due to privacy concerns or language barriers.


When beliefs are put aside, anyone feeling any type of way toward me for getting paid to have a signature is likely a hypocrite, as they are more than likely to also be getting paid to wear a signature. The whole notion is still invalid and anyone who is judging me for wearing one while also wearing one, well, I could not really care less about those people's feelings.

As for your feedback, you can try and manipulate again by trying to say it's valid, though the fact is that it's invalid as it does not take into account that I did not think there were red flags at the time the campaign was posted/time I applied, while you say in your feedback that I applied for the campaign "despite knowing red flags" (untrue).

Ironically, a big deal was made out of me not posting when I had red flags, to which I responded "There was not enough hard proof yet", to which the general response was that I should have posted anyway to protect the community - now here I am doing so for bc.game, a platform showing red flags, and it doesn't seem all too appreciated. Funny that  ::)

Buddy. I think your tongue is your enemy.

It's idiotic that you're trying to refer to the fact that I managed the Betnomi campaign and the Mixer campaigns. The mentioned Mixer and the company providing the software are the oldest in this niche and have been working smoothly since 2018. And when I managed the Betnomi campaign, I made sure that they gave large sums to non-commercial events, not to mention that there was not a single unresolved case with users, since I always contacted the owner and asked to postpone everything in order to consider this or that case.

This is my last message to any of your nonsense.

Good job starting your post with a condescending sentence to make the other party seem less credible. Means nothing to me.

Who cares how much you "made sure" Betnomi gave away in non-commercial events, when they ended up rugging anyway? As far as I'm concerned that's pig butchering (investing in building trust only to scam at the end), and that's what's public...it doesn't include any unspoken malpractice prior to shutting down. As for the mixer company, I'm not going to take your word for it, and if you don't want me theorizing in public, how about sharing with us all what your relationship with Ja mbler is? Your primary motivation was not to run their signature campaign, it was more than that, which ties into my general belief that that you are more than just a "campaign manager".  You're welcome to say the following if you want to publicly deny that you have more involvement than just managing campaigns:
"I, icopress, have only ever managed campaigns for projects. I never have any financial incentive outside of what I am paid strictly for running signature/bounty/advertising campaigns, and have never had any additional financial incentives/stake in anything that I promote.".

These are the campaigns I found that were/are managed by icopress and you asked to join. You cite Betnomi as a scam yet you yourself asked to be enrolled with the words "Hi. Can I please enter this campaign?". Does this not embarrass you?

eXch: https://ninjastic.space/post/63153170
Webmixer: https://ninjastic.space/post/62914497
eXch: https://ninjastic.space/post/62730290
0xBET: https://ninjastic.space/post/62711173
MixTum: https://ninjastic.space/post/62698826
MixTum: https://ninjastic.space/post/62688851
MixTum: https://ninjastic.space/post/62658980
AgoraDesk: https://ninjastic.space/post/62563061
MixTum: https://ninjastic.space/post/62399331
MixTum: https://ninjastic.space/post/62358636
Betnomi: https://ninjastic.space/post/61460878 (Hi. Can I please enter this campaign?)

It seems somewhat incomprehensible for you to be pushing an agenda about lack of trust towards icopress/Betnomi/Jambler in a thread about you not trusting BC.Game. I doubt anybody reading actually believes this thread is about BC.Game. On the contrary, it seems to be about your sentiments towards icopress ever since he overlooked you when you wanted to participate in several campaigns he managed.

I wanted to stay away from this troll here even though my name was mentioned in this subject a few times but I want to answer from now on. What is the exact reason that you added me to this topic?

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/03/04/0U3Xv.png (https://www.talkimg.com/image/0U3Xv)

Do you think there is a mistake about the information on this image?

What part of it is embarrassing? That before I dug and learnt more about icopress, I applied to campaigns ran by him? This is just like your whirlwind manipulation all over again. You are failing to acknowledge the time in which things happen. All of what you posted was prior to being more informed. Applying to betnomi was before the fact it was a scam and before I suspected involvement by icopress. Everything else were just normal signature campaign applications, which you could compile for anyone on the forum. Since digging and learning more about icopress and shadow information about the community, I stay away from icopress campaigns and I don't trust icopress as well as a growing list of others. After betnomi, after other red flags that I have found and may one day post about (when there's a air tight case, if ever), I learned he was likely to be a suspicious character and not a good force for the community.


I'm not a troll.

The mistake in that information is that they gave you money then you gave them a trust rating. You nor the pool risked anything to receive that money, therefore no trust was actually involved. The trust rating was essentially purchased through their sponsorship, a transaction in which you or the "Fantasy Premier League" risked nothing to be a part of. If entities can sponsor groups or members for trust, that is dangerous and will enable those with capital resources to increase their trust by throwing their money around, just as has happened here.

Once could argue the "Fantasy Premier League" risked advertising bc.game for no payment, though that is highly unlikely that any entity would instantly destroy their brand by taking a free ad and then not paying, and this also does not consider if it was paid before the advertising or afterward (if before, there was truly no risk or trust involved here, if anything, bc.game trusted "Fantasy Premier League" to apply the advertisement, which then bc.game leaving trust for "Fantasy Premier League" is more appropriate.

This is incorrect. When someone says they're gonna do something involving money, and then they do it, that is reasonable grounds for leaving a positive trust. It demonstrates the ability to follow through on a financial obligation. It was already obvious from your posts about DT that you don't really understand how the trust system functions, but now your hatred is blinding your ability to think clearly.

So by your logic, I should be leaving a trust rating for betfury and ab de royse for my current campaign, and leave the brand and the campaign manager a positive trust rating for every other campaign I participate in as well, as should everyone else? As that is the same logic.

Do you not see a problem in allowing advertising payments to influence the rating that determines if someone is trustworthy? I am not blinded, I just see a very clear problem, that the current system allows people and entities to essentially purchase trust.

As for the posts about DT, remind me how long ago that was again? Seems like you're beating an old drum just to validate what you're saying and to discredit any opinion I have about the trust system.

No, that's not what I'm saying. You're going out of your way to misunderstand things, so this will be my last post in this thread. Whether you understand it or not, well, I can only do so much.

To be clear, leaving a trust for a campaign manager is completely up to you. As is leaving a positive trust for anybody who said they are going to do something involving money and then does it. As is leaving any kind of trust - positive, negative, or neutral - at all.

I am simply explaining why leaving a positive trust is OK when someone follows through on a financial obligation. I didn't say anything about what you personally should or shouldn't be doing.

Yes, its true that sometimes people go out of their way to farm trust through giveaways and whatever. However, that doesn't necessarily make the positive feedback they receive invalid.


This has been a side effect of the trust system since the beginning of time. As with every other forum operation you have a complaint about, its not a perfect system. If you don't like it, don't use it. You haven't changed the way I feel about anything regarding the trust system, and in my humble opinion, the manner in which you've chosen to express your opinion won't change anybody else's mind, either.


It was less than 4 days ago (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5533262.msg65127101#msg65127101), in this thread.

Honestly, I am not going out of my way to do anything.


Is that not a form of using money to game a system that is designed to measure the trustworthiness of a member?


I'm guessing that the top of the bitcointalk pyramid do not want it to change and thus another case of corruption preventing evolution. Right? Such a shame how this forum is so contradictory to what Bitcoin is all about, and how corrupt this forum is. It sees a problem, it knows a problem, but for some strange reason, doesn't want to fix the problem.

I don't expect to change how you feel, as you've made it clear many times that you are not a person who is for change or evolution and that you are quite comfortable with where you sit currently. This is common for someone who sits comfortably and high-up in a corrupt system.


You're going to have to quote because I don't see it.

Such a bold statement from someone who caught red-handed fabricating statement to drive the narrative into his favor. Tell me again, how many other false and misleading statements you made in your case that is yet to be unearthed?

But thanks, that post remind me that I actually have not addressed OP's question about me.

---

OP, sorry for the very delayed response. Though I'll say that I am glad that it took me this long to answer. The first three days when I initially tried to draft a reply, though I've been walking out rather often whenever I find it challenging to patiently address the intelligence of yours that's reflected in your post as it is alarmingly questionable, my final draft is still full of R-rated words.

Understanding the situation now that you're simply trying to throw muds at someone and I just happened to be your collateral damage that you'll happily drag into the mud, regardless of the situation that you're rather well understand, which accidentally also show the length of your intelligence, helps me compose a better mannered response:


I somewhat still stand with most of my original response that was part of my earlier draft for this statement, though it is now very demure and very mindful: what good shall it bring?

People asked so many times, I patiently tell them that I am not, but that they're free to prove otherwise. Yet it kept being asked over and over and over. One person, to another, each with their own agenda.

Imagine being someone who spent a lot of time, literally handling situation and trying to help as many sides as I can, and the "pay back" I get was people like you trying to paint me as bad and question my sincerity by challenging me, welcoming me to publicly deny that I got incentivized for bridging with casinos.

This question should not even be asked by someone who made a post in a neighboring thread, that made him fully aware about a post where I explained something like this:


That should already so obvious --at least for those with IQ above room temperature, in Celsius-- to answer that question of yours. I mean, I got compensated by BC [or any other casino] for bridging issues with them? My involvement basically resulted in either proving that the players are indeed abusers or... [prepare your notebook and write this down] I get the casinos to have to pay the players. And they compensate me for this? In what crazy world would a company pay someone to get them lose money?

Logic? Use them.

But well, I think I can [kinda have to here] understand that it's rather hard for you to understand. I mean, you seems to find a difficulty in understanding that "push" here refers to a figure of speech that I am asking them and bothering them on daily basis to keep things in motion instead of pushing in the sense of applying some force.


So, here, let me help you: I am not get compensated by any casino for the work I do helping people get their issues with casinos resolved.

There, the statement. Feel free to not take my words for granted and prove that I got compensated by casinos for solving cases.


Understandable.

When push comes to shove, the individuals involved in pushing and shoving usually need a backbone. The absence or the lack of its existence, or perhaps the dysfunction of it, tends to make people have to back away as they are incapable of doing the activity.


My problem? And something so simple? Let me ask you something before I answer that: did you think it through? Before you ask? Before you construct the "fair belief" that you have? I am talking about that whole "threaten me over a fair belief."

I mean, fair belief? Fair belief?? Fair belief. Ha.

In what world is it fair?

Did you try to put your feet in my shoes when you proposed me that question? I spent hours of my personal time, daily, trying to get matters resolved, chasing casino reps to attend to cases.

There were instances where the casino's rep weren't active for a long time and I have to track them down, writing emails, waiting in queue for live support, being thrown from one department to other department of emails only to be told that I should escalate to other department. I have a notebook full of scribbled things to do, what cases against whom that's still open, what point should be inquired to which casino and what info should be relayed to what member. Pages and pages of them.

And what I get is someone ask me if I get paid by casinos for bridging them, hiding under "fair belief"? That most likely built with a bias and prejudice so great that the belief is so myopic that it failed to see the simple logic proposed above: why would a casino pay someone to bridge them only to cost them money because that person literally demanded them to pay the players.

Suppose you're saying I am overreacting by simple question of "fair belief",

I am pouring all of myself into each and every cases I handle, exhausting all the effort I have to get them resolved, never expecting any form of return other than a satisfaction I feel when someone gets what's rightfully theirs and read how happy they are, or a satisfaction in form of getting scammers cornered with their lies and attempt to cheat casinos [which, in case it missed your brain where logic should reside] is also members of this forum that has right to be protected and treated as an equal as other members, to feel safe to roam around the boards of the forum.

And what do I get instead? A "genius" with whatever agenda or vendetta against someone or a platform or whatever that is that I couldn't care less, who dragged me into muds because I am a collateral damage in his agenda to drive a narrative. That is fair?

Wondering if logic has to come with IQ way above the temperature of boiling water [again, in Celsius] in order for it to work smoothly.

Buddy, even the law is blind, you're caught redhanded spoiling the reputation of a brand that doesn't have anything against them on the forum, them paying millions of dollar case would be reasonable for any sane person to believe that.

Do you know what? Distrusting them yourself is one thing, but in public asking others to follow through what you want (aka peer pressure) isn't a good trait to have in my opinion, it's a crime in many countries to spoil the reputation of some business without any substantial proof.

If you do that IRL, would you call the law/court corrupt? If so, do you want me to write detailed instructions as to how you can get a third chance? // This is the least I can do, since you were to kind to offer me a second chance in my thread.

You have been caught red handed multiple times trying to ruin other forum members' reputation in the reputation board, how about that? How do you see that? Finally, you got caught and you sold your account and came here with a newbie account. LOL. If your account was hacked, you could simply sign a message from your wallet and ask the recovery team to recover your account. But that is not what happened in your case.

I see how aggressive you were towards the people. If someone talked against you, you jumped over them and tried to ruin their reputation. Now you are criticizing BenCodie here. Irony!

NB: I have nothing against BC game, and Bencodie.

Are we talking about me, here, now, seriously? Most likely going to be a long lasting impression.


If you have nothing against the person who made this thread or who this is for, then you shouldn't be posting off-topic stuff.

Sorry, this seems crafted to not include parties such as a campaign manager (who is technically not a casino).

I am wondering why you are avoiding the provided statement:
"I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

If you are unaware of copy pasting, you simply highlight the text, click copy (or ctrl + v on your desktop or cmd + v if using mac), and then paste.


An answer to this question would be reasonable as it relates to the original topic. Why, in your opinion, do they need to be pushed to pay, if they are such a trustworthy and reliable gambling establishment?


As I said earlier, the information I need to win the bet (access to your private communications and any wallets) are not available to me, so I am signing up for a losing bet even if it is true that you receive some form of incentive for what you do between players and casinos.


I teared up at this big dump of emotion (Not really). Seriously, stop wasting your time writing so many words, I genuinely feel a little sorry for how much time are losing and how little cares I give since all of this time I've only asked that you copy and paste a sentence that absolves you of any involvement in the corruption, and forces you to double down that you are good Samaritan that is not incentivized by anyone to do what you do.

It's a fair belief because corruption exists in this forum and in the casino section (many casinos have scammed, many scam players using rules like KYC and other nonsense, many members of the forum propagate it knowingly unknowingly and shady practices are apparent by high ranking individuals of the forum, therefore the belief that you are incentivized to do what you do is a fair belief in my eyes).


I've never once proclaimed myself to be a genius. I do not have an agenda. I am simply an individual who is appalled with how far this forum has deviated from Bitcoin's core values, and appalled with the very likely fact that casinos are scamming individuals who do not have a voice, and are getting away with it, on top of the fact that their business model (when it isn't additionally cheating or exploiting players) is as close to theft as it gets without being theft.


The most logical thing to have done from post number one, was to copy and paste the sentence that would have allowed me to say "sorry for involving you holydarkness, I appreciate the work you do for players on the forum". Though after all of this garbage posting and avoidance of copy and pasting the one sentence you needed to post to prove that you have no incentive to do what you do, we are way past that.


Your post hardly made sense and in my opinion, you only made this half-nonsensical post because of my involvement in the thread that you connected you to very distrusted account/your other account on the forum. Considering how long you tried to persuade the entire community that you were not an alt of that account (despite there being hard blockchain proof), and now recently admitting it in this thread (http://), you proved to me and everyone else that you are a liar and that you are capable of lying repeatedly, and therefore much of what you say is hardly of any credibility here (or anywhere).


Technically, if you have something against me, this also isn't the place for it. People should only be posting here if they have something to discuss about the topic itself, and if they have something against me, they should be making another thread and taking the discussion there.

It's there, semantically. And if you wondered why I refused to use the word, it's because I don't see, want to use, and/or self proclaim myself as "a good samaritan". Lest people use that statement against me and say I'm a narcisist, having god-complex, or seeing myself so highly as an equal to someone mentioned in a bible as a prodigy. Hence, the statement with exact point conveyed in it: that I am not paid by casinos to help bridging situations with players.

If I may return the favor though, why insist on the exact wording while the statement I gave you conveyed the point you're trying to prove? Unless that is not what you're trying to prove? While we're at it, do you mind to answer my question about the logic behind being paid by casinos for making them lose money? I really want to know your thought on this and I am ready to be impressed. Kindly don't let me down.

About the challenge, in other perspective, we can also say, "one can't prove what does not exist." Namely, the payment for acting as a bridge and go back and forth between casinos and players are nonexistent.

And about "push", it's been explained in the post. Did you not read the post? I thought you're "genuinely feel a little sorry for how much time are losing" from reading that many words of mine? Yet you seemingly missed the part where I cover the "push" part? That it's a "figure of speech that I am asking them and bothering them on daily basis to keep things in motion instead of pushing in the sense of applying some force." So which one is it? You read my post carefully and feel little sorry for how much time are losing [sic] or you did not read them, just skimmed through, hence missing the part where I explained about the figure of speech?

In case you wondered, it's not just BC, it's every single casino which their staff's personal contact is in my possession. Like... that's what being a bridge mean, to connect the player who raises dispute and the casino being disputed, and keep it flowing, until we find the bottom of it.

So, that's the gist of it. You got what you want, that's the extent of the statement I can give. It conveyed the exact meaning you're wanting me to say, that I am not paid by casinos to act as a bridge between them. But if you want me to say the exact word, unfortunately I can't, for the reason above: I don't want weaponize haters of mine by having them a chance to say I have an NPD or delusion of grandeur or the likes.

Leave it there with your tucked tail and dysfunctional back, or take a path where you insist me to say the exact word, which I will, upon you accepting to take responsibility where, in the future, when someone ever use this situation against me, the good Samaritan thingy, you'll pay me 25,000 USD for every time it's being used, plus explaining to that people why I said the good Samaritan word.

Look, such words from people like you do not match at all. You are known for posting off-topic in different threads and attacking others. When someone shows their irony, I can't stop myself from commenting. But I love how you changed your attitude when you got caught.

You shouldn't do it either.

You don't owe him anything. And its not because we're fellow strongarms for casinos, its because his logic sucks and yours doesn't.

@BenCodie, your name caught my attention in a recent conversation with a reputed member. I think your assumptions about the casino in question are a little biased, I do not mean that this bias comes from any vested interest (I have no proof of that, nor do I want to go through your posts). I remember the casino in question processed  $7 million worth of cashouts to a single user, and you are well aware of that. I am mentioning becuase I was a part of that effort. I also now realize that I have to give positive feedback to the casino in question as well along with the user who got his cashouts as I have given my trust feedback to betcoin.ag (that too was late).
I will do this for all casinos that have honored my winnings (1000$ onwards).

---

---

Having said that, I want to register my objection to the negative trust given by @icopress on your profile. Although it seems like he is defaming the casino but it must be met with arguments like other reputed members have done. It is a kind of bullying. Even a neutral is not right in this case.

I don't think they're biased, I think they're circumstantially justified. I don't think anyone can certainly say that every person who has their account frozen and requested KYC on bc.game or any casino who does this kind of practice (Stake.com coming up a lot lately) comes here to make a thread to be able to have it resolved as:
- some people do not want to comply with KYC or similar measures to begin with
- some people are not aware of this forum
- some people do not have the time or the confidence that they will get their funds back, and will accept that they've been scammed.

There is very valid premise in this thread, though it is the job of members like icopress and others who defended bc.game to defend them (they get paid to do so, or are paid by people who get paid to do so).

I believe that everything above is fact.


Ever heard of PR stunts? Number one, that $7,000,000 payout could have been an inside move (speculation but not an impossibility) and number two, of course, not honoring that payout would have meant the end of bc.game. Just because a $7,000,000 payout was honored, doesn't mean that 1000 $1000 payouts ($1,000,000) have been honored and have not slipped through the cracks.

The above is speculation but should not be put past an already-shady casino as an impossibility.


He won't listen to your objection because he already got away with abusing his power twice now on my profile. It doesn't bother me though considering the red tags he will surely receive when I eventually post my mega thread :)


How about this:
"I, holydarkness, do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

It's not there semantically as it does not include campaign managers.


I insist on the wording to be specific, as one should be in this forum where many members twist their words and statements to evade guilt. It's nothing personal, it's just for a clear record.

The logic is simple:
- Casinos (and their shady counterparts) have figured they can steal from players under the guise of KYC and stringent verification processes.
- They also understand that as a result, they must manage PR by having members (like yourself) answer those who decide to voice on the forum.
- Result: Casinos get good PR and gain good reputation on bitcointalk while taking advantage of members who do not want to complete kyc or do not have a voice due to language barrier or simple unawareness of being able to increase chances of recovery by posting on the forum.

To manage PR, they need a bridge. The reason I highlighted in the last quote to specify that you don't get paid by other parties (like campaign managers) as the chain of command would likely be casino > campaign manager > "bridge" (as you call it).


Yes, to be frank I am sick of your walls and walls of text that to me, can be condensed into fewer sentences. Figure of speech or not, there is truth in that figure of speech. You are a part of ensuring that casinos hold up their end of the deal that they should be honoring by default...and that is a problem. Your job (or good will) should not exist in a world where casinos are operating fairly. That was my point.


Again, to believe you do this out of nothing but the goodness of your heart is hard. Very hard...but if you do, good on you (in a way).


My tail is far from tucked behind my legs. You have avoided exact wording and the final statement that you do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users. is still yet to be confirmed. You've used semantics only to confirm that you don't get paid directly by casinos. If it is confirmed by you that you don't get paid to be the bridge by any party whatsoever, I'll include it in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that you are serving. My suggestion? Stop wasting your time being the bridge between casinos and the players, as you are aiding them to selectively scam individuals who do not post here on bitcointalk without even knowing it (in my opinion, you believe what you want).


Oh, burn!  ::)

Yawn.

I'm quite close of losing my interest in helping you get your clarification. Especially as it's proven you did not read explanation carefully and your logic is indeed, flawed; which I'll try to explain below, so kindly be honest to yourself this time and really spare the time instead of saying that you're sorry for the time wasted, while you actually didn't even pay attention to all of the text.¹


Orrrrr... so you can use it for things like this?


Since you're investigating casinos like BC and another bunch of casinos, it must have been made abundantly clear to you that I specified in a lot of threads against Stake that I can't help users for Stake-related issues, as I don't have Stake's contact. So, what's that post about? Unless you're not genuinely reading those threads and it's just empty words? Like the genuity of your feeling for the time wasted reading my post, while you later admit you didn't read thoroughly?

So, the agreement will still stands, with a bit of modification. I'll say what you asked above, copy and paste them, to be exactly as you instructed. But if in the future, someone ever use the statement and/or the situation, verbatim or semantically, in a negative connotation, just like what you did above, [and to make it abundantly clear, the word "bridge", used like above quoted, is obviously and automatically fall into the semantic category of the statement], you'll pay me 25,000 USD for every time the situation occurs, as well as explaining to the public of that self-proclaimed thingy or whatever semantic and/or verbatim word they used. Stressing the point, as I am fair, it'll only take effect if it's used in negative connotation.


The logic is flawed:
- at least half of the accusations against casinos in SA board were an attempt by the player to strongarm the casino. The part where the casinos did made mistake and/or their requirement for KYC and the likes are fulfilled by the player, are quickly fixed.
- KYC is part of the casinos ToS. It's on every users [in this forum, outside this forum, and in real life] duty to read ToS, since they're agreed to it without any coercion. If the player didn't want to do KYC, then don't play on the casino who clearly state they can ask for it anytime they want. There are KYC-free casinos out there. Use them.
- I am kinda sure I am working with^[2] a completely different staffs from what a campaign manager were in touch with. CM are dealing with [I assume] marketing team, I am exchanging words with compliance and security guys. Or, someone that's on an even higher up position, that can maneuver inter-departments, but quite likely are not the one who are in touch with CMs. And other than the extremely few [desperate] occasions where I asked a CM for a contact of the staff they're in touch with for that campaign purpose, which will later redirect me to other staffs, I barely brushed with any CMs for issues.

Feel free to ask your current CM about how many times I am reaching him for disputes against casinos that he managed.

It should be abundantly clear if you answered my question ¹ from the beginning. I mean, can you imagine how awkward it'll be? The CM [or whoever in touch with me] said something like, "hey, this is 100 USD, your fee for our casino's case against HolyDickness that let us win and voided the fund from the player", and later on "uhh, hi, sorry, but uhh... the case with HornyDarkness? Yeah, we have to pay 350,000 USD because you help the player get to the bottom of it. Uhh... can you perhaps pay us back some fee? Since we have to pay the player because of you. Oh, while we're at it, the other case also cost us 80,000 USD. Where can we bill you? You want the sum of the amount you owed us because you made us have to pay the player although we pay you to be a bridge?"

Logic. Use them fix them, since yours is obviously broken.


The world of which... part of the cases are the players tried to manipulate the casino, bigger half of it is about them violating ToS, the other part are about player needed KYC to be resetted as they [not the casino] made mistake from their side during the process, and the others are players jumping out of patience where the providers [not the casinos] are asking for investigation?


No, I do it to build up a momentum that'll bait you to create this thread, of which I can challenge you and reap easy 25,000 USD for every time someone used the statement [in negative connotation], in semantic or verbatim way, that you worked so hard to insist me to say. It's a long term plan. And most definitely not out of nothing but the goodness of my heart, I specifically tried to reap from you.


Well, the ball is in your court. Agree as above, and I'll copy paste what you want me to copy paste.


If I don't get paid to be the bridge you'll... what, now? Include me in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that I am [not] serving but you'll apparently say I am serving? That's what will happen to me if I confirmed that I don't get paid? Jesus and Mary the Holy Mother of God... and Joseph, who forgot to pull! So what'll happen if [let's amuse ourself for a second for a made up scenario] I say that I am paid? I'll be skinned alive with butter knife?


Your suggestion is dully noted [not a typo].

---

¹ this one is not answered yet: "In what crazy world would a company pay someone to get them lose money?" and IIRC, it will be the third time I ask. Is there a specific reason you keep missing to explain the logic behind this? Like... your whole narrative crumbled?

² do I have to explain that "working with" here is a figure of speech where I am not actually working with and for them, but rather attempting "together" to get to the bottom of cases? 'Fraid that you can't catch that.

Now that is your opinion and purely speculative. The facts are clear, bc.games honored a $7,000,000 payout and we all witnessed it. There is no single casino (nor will be  ;D) against which there is not even a single scam accusation somewhere. I appreciate your scepticism but I expected a lot more balanced view from an experienced member like you.


I just wanted to register my objection so that it does not go unnoticed (on my behalf). I mean, I saw something which I think is wrong I spoke my mind. 

You never had an interest in being specific - your actions are not that of an innocent one who is seeking to close a discussion as soon as possible and move on without qualms. It's that of one who beats around the bush with their words. I can't be blamed for not replying perfectly to walls and walls of text, when I have (since the beginning) only asked you to tell us all that you have no incentive to do what you do from any party. thousands of words later, you still haven't done that, and yet you continue to post demands and expectations from me that are irrelevant and designed to discredit me. This is not behavior of an innocent person. It's deflective and hostile.


I'll apologize for my honest mistake. I don't follow you around everywhere and was not aware that you don't handle stake cases. I was actually being genuine in my post. You are a self-proclaimed bridge between casinos and players, you do work for free and you are motivated nothing more than making sure the player gets paid, is that not accurate, outside of my mistake of not following you so closely to know that Stake is not one of those casinos that you try to be the bridge for?


I never agreed to this crap and I'm dismissing it again. You don't write the law here and I sure as hell am not agreeing to this paragraph that states I'll pay 25,000 USD every time I quote your own words. You called yourself a bridge. I described you as a bridge because I believe that's a fair thing to call you (you communicate with players and casinos thus a bridge between the two). There's really nothing wrong with that description.


The logic is not flawed and none of what you said here flaws the overall point which was that your statement was flawed, as it only specified that you don't get paid by casinos and did not include any other parties. All you have done is validate that claim with what you've said, you've not flawed anything in what I have said.


I've already answered your question in what I said in the last post (who is not reading now, btw?)

It's called PR (Public relations). The casino is not paying to get them to lose money, they are paying to have any case that hurts their reputation solved (they aren't losing money by paying  people their rightful balance, by the way, it is paying money to keep the balances of those who do not do KYC or do not make threads to be heard).

All of those quotes and sentences you made up in attempt to discredit the above are both childish and pathetic.


Using a terms of service to steal does not make it the players fault. A fair outcome would be to refund deposits minus winnings (and/or losses) if the player does not ask for KYC and if KYC was really a requirement then KYC would be asked for upon signup like most exchanges these days not after deposit/playing/winning as cases many cases report/how it works.


You can give it up with this 25,000 USD nonsense because I'm personally paying zero mind to this at this point.


Or just prove to myself and everyone else that you do what you do for free? Right now it is still factual to say that you never clearly stated that you don't receive any form of financial motivation from any party whatsoever to be the bridge (as you say) between players and casinos through the very clear and short sentence I've provided and refined for you, designed to force you to lie, or to completely absolve you as a paid PR puppet:

"I, holydarkness, do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

For as long as you avoid copy and pasting the statement, you leave the door open to the conclusion that you are a PR puppet that is in some way financially motivated to do what he does.

The ball is in your court and has been for quite some time now. All of the unrelated garbage you're posting surrounding the request to prove that you are an innocent and good person who is truly doing their best to be between players and casinos for nothing more than human good, is just noise.


1. You are serving the casinos by doing their PR/"customer service" work on the forum for them (for free, apparently/TBC), whether you like it or not that is an accurate way to describe what you are doing.
2. To be perfectly clear, I had meant/said that if you confirm that no party pays you to do be the bridge whatsoever, then I will be sure to explicitly mention that in the megathread that while you bridge between players and casinos by doing what you do, you don't get paid to do so (which is a lot better than being paid to do casino PR work for casinos especially if there is substantial research to support that casinos on this forum are selectively scamming players and only resolving matters posted publicly)

To be honest with you, the amount of posts and beating around the bush have already been noted, whether you confirm it or not does mean something but not as much as in comparison to if you had of just come to the thread, explicitly stated that you do not get paid and then that was that. Your behavior (again) does not signal an innocent person.


I think it's more about your actions between now and when the problem is more apparent and substantiated than it currently is now. You've been made aware that by doing the PR/"bridge" work that you do for casinos, that you may be enabling selective scamming as a result. By continuing, you are now aware of this possibility:

...and when the problem is more apparent/publicly substantiated, you will certainly not look good by being made aware of it now and continuing with these actions anyway. Whether you are paid or not is actually somewhat irrelevant to the bigger picture at this stage, similar to exchanges I've had with nutildah and their obvious negligence to corruption in the forum, you being able to say "how was I supposed to know that's what was going on?" after these exchanges will simply not be possible for you in comparison to the problem coming to light and as if we never had these conversations.


If you think that you are working "together" with casinos to get to the bottom of cases (as if they are unaware of the cases to begin with), then my new personal thought is that you are just a naive person who thinks he is doing something good and is either unaware of or denying the possibility of casinos taking advantage of you doing their PR work for them, and enabling them to keep/take whatever is not publicly posted about.

To be clear, PR work in this context is communicating with players about the complaints that should have been solved by private support ticket to begin with and should be handled by the official account/representatives of the casino themselves.


It would have been the end of bc.game if they did not honor it. Since the $7,000,00 was the players money to begin with, it's not like it came out of their pocket. It's hardly a sign of trust, just that they do what they are supposed to do by default (regardless of the size of the withdrawal).


Thank you for doing that. I agree with you and wish that others were as honest and confident to do the same (if they agree) rather than siding with power.

This is a trust issue. And if B.C Game offended your, it might not do the same to me and with that good deed with me and solid transaction with me if I like the way we didn't the financial transaction, I will trust them so what I am saying is that trust system is not the with all persons but we operate differently even in the real life.
I know and saw B.C Game has resolved many people accusations and most of the threads you have displayed at the Op has been resolved. Now what was your case with them is not found in the Op but other persons issues were carried along on your head.

Drama unfolds as Ben suspects that BC.game gets way too many complaints and that most of those cases go unresolved. But, more drama as they feel alot of trusted accounts in here have, in one way or the other, trusted BC.game and they shouldn't be part of his trust list.

Look, the rate of incorrect reports on this board has increasingly risen above the average. I cannot count the number of reports that have been made (even against other casinos) that were later traced to an issue from the reporters themselves. It's either they colluded, broke the multi-account rule, deposited just to milk the casinos off of their bonuses and then placing a withdrawal command afterwards, etc.
I got myself involved innit one time cause I wanted to see the end of it -- the accuser never responded again.

BC.GAME is indeed a famous casino and most of the users who created fake accusations against it are actually those people who broke rules of it and when they find no other place to defame such a good casinos then they come here and create baseless and fake accusations against it.

Personally, I've never faced any issue with BC.GAME and in past I was also among the participants who promoted it and currently they're sponsoring IPL 2025 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5535535.msg65179485#msg65179485), and I'm managing that campaign for them.

They've been doing quite good on this forum and they're the ones who have been paying the participants of the campaign on time and they're sponsoring so many events on this forum. And, that alone is more than enough to show that they're legit with their business.

False accusations are not only created against BC.GAME but against many other casinos as well and because of those false accusations we can't say that BC.GAME or other reputed casinos are not doing well.

Personally, I believe BC.GAME is a good and legit casino and hope to see more good from them. I've also left my honest trust feedback on their profile and that's 100% my personal opinion about them.

How is it that all of you, after 11 days of inactivity, have come here to defend bc.game? Were any of you paid for this post, or directed here in some way? I know what I'd bet, if I were a betting man.

All of you have missed the point.

If 50 legitimate cases are made about bc.game and all 50 are resolved only because they were posted here, how do we know there are not more that are not resolved, who did not post here?

I put this quote in very large text:

This is not trustworthy behavior from a casino - making a final decision and only resolving it after it was posting on bitcointalk. Of course, none of you who posted will be effected by this, because you exist on bitcointalk and thus it is not a part of the strategy to scam you. However, those who are not a part of bitcointalk can and will be scammed, until they post here. This is a form of scamming, whether people want to admit it or not.

OK, so you didn't actually provide "new proof" of anything. I don't think you really understand what that word means.


Your paranoia is now bordering on the level of psychosis. Everyone that disagrees with you is somehow "corrupt" or a paid agent.


That's the thing: we don't know. Nobody knows. Again, the non-existence of something isn't evidence of anything. 50 cases and 50 resolutions would be an astounding rate compared to every other casino that's ever been complained about on this forum, and a sign that they care about their customers.

And I know this doesn't matter to you, but as I already pointed out, BC.GAME is literally the 2nd biggest casino that has a signature campaign here on the forum, with only Stake being bigger. Ergo, they're bound to have more complaints against them than other casinos. They assuredly don't get every decision right 100% of the time -- nobody does.

This does not mean I endorse BC.GAME in any way; I'm just stating some simple logic.

It says "New info" and the new info is someone directly claiming that bc.game had made a final decision and only after they came here to post is when their situation was resolved.


That's what you're stooping to? Putting a psychosis label on me? Who is everyone? No one has proved it wrong, while I continue to build research that includes so much negligence, beating around the bush and circumstantial evidence to support that corruption and paid agents exist on the forum, if they aren't already an alt/farmed account of the group responsible.

Besides, I made a valid observation and asked valid questions, since after 11 days of inactivity 3 people came here, completely overlooked the point, and posted in favor of bc.game. All I asked is if they were paid to post or directed here in some way, which is not an unreasonable thing to ask them. Can confidently say:
No one on the forum directly paid or incentivized by any other member to make posts that are guided or designed to support another party
or
farmed accounts and alts aren't used to add support to groups and narratives

Ignore them both or come up with some lingual loophole just like all of the other quotes in my collection.


Clearly you didn't look at the new information which validates that bc.game had made a final decision and only after the user came here to post did they overturn the case. The user himself said that if they did not come here to post, they would not have had their case resolved.

You should stop posting for your own sake. This post stinks of negligence.