Bitcoin Forum

Prelude:
So a few days ago, user @amelik2 created an accusation thread against FJ (Fortune Jack). Claiming that FJ had basically scammed out around 5 BTC from him with a fake case of multi-accounting. Due to some gap in communications, a potential case was being developed. Basically all FJ initially did was replied with a Screenshot of their TOS and bunch of IP addresses which was pretty vague on how they detected multi-accounts.

https://i.imgur.com/tbwRmrc.png

The initial impression I got by reading their thread was that only IP logs were being used to establish the case for multi-accounting. If you have the slightest bit of knowledge regarding networking or how ISPs work in general you will know that there are a very limited number of IPs out there. Basically we can't have a unique IP address for each and every one of us... Most of the time an IP address is being shared among thousands if not tens of thousands of users and it isn't an optimal way to establish that people are multi-accounting. You can read more about the subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion

What I initially thought was that this could be exploited by any casino which has similar TOS, Imagine this. You are the casino, you establish a case for multi-accounts by merely using IP logs, according to your TOS. Let's say you are running low on the bankroll and some user X wins a large sum of Bitcoins and you can't pay that user out. What you can potentially do is bail yourself out by making a fake case against user X by merely showing countless other accounts which have been made by the same IP address, you could even make fake entries in your database to make an even stronger case for yourself. if you had been running for a few years you won't even have to worry about your reputation as one-off cases usually are dismissed by the community. Looks like a lucrative business doesn't it? You keep making money with the house edge and if someone hits a homerun your TOS has got you covered...

However, this wasn't the case with FJ. User @amelik2 was originally betting from his alt account @PatDugan. He got banned on his @PatDugan account, ^{( you can read about why in the original FJ thread )}. He then proceeded to revive his inactive account, which had been inactive for 8 months the same day he got banned and was matched with the same IP address and same betting behaviour. He went on to win around 5 BTC but was then later denied the payout as the evidence was pretty compelling. Something which I agree with but this thread isn't about the @amelik2's case or FJ but rather the industry standard of how cases for multi-accounting are made and how you are already gambling your money away before you even place a bet on some random Crypto casino online.

Multi-accounts and the industry-standard:
Most online casinos dealing with FIAT require you to perform a KYC before you can deposit or place a bet on their platform. This process should weed out potential cases of fraud later down the line. It is industry standard for a reason because it works. The question is should Crypto Casinos/Bookmakers adopt the same standards for detecting multi-accounts and preventing fraud? TBH I'm not entirely sure. The very purpose of these casinos/bookmakers is to facilitate the crypto community. If they are going to implement a KYC before deposit then there isn't a unique selling point for them. Having said that there is no way to prevent abusers from abusing their promos if they don't use something like KYC... The UIDs ^{( they are like IMEIs but for PCs )} can be manipulated ^{( something I suggested in the FJ thread but requires some knowledge to do it )}, IPs, as discussed above, aren't the best way to link multiple accounts. KYC does seem to do the trick for both the user and the service provider as it kinda ensures nobody is getting screwed end of the day.

I'm interested in hearing the opinion of you guys. Should these casinos adopt a KYC first policy, the industry-standard? If not then there is nothing stopping them to screw users over and vice versa. Without KYC both are parties are at risk of getting screwed over by each other. The users could find ways to create multiple accounts and casinos can bail themselves out by creating fake cases. So having a KYC first policy does seem to work.

Nice post and interesting topic :)

I have done countless KYC with FIAT bookies and of course never had any problems with being accused of multi-accounting (I was harassed with other issues, but that is not the topic here). So indeed the industry standard does work and even protects yourself against the bookmaker - but both only to a certain extent.

Looking from a (FIAT) bookmakers perspective, KYC isn't the holy grail though. The reason to do multi-accounting is mostly for new customers bonuses or some other kind of free money. And because there is quite a lot of free money to get, and people would do a lot to get this money, even bookmakers with strict KYC have to take additional steps to keep multi-accounting at bay.
If you take a look at the T&C`s for some first deposit bonus, you will see a lot of restrictions. Certain countries with a history of multi-accounting are excluded, deposits with Skrill/Neteller are excluded, the rollover requirements have been upped. Bookmakers had to put these additional conditions in place, because even with KYC, some users used very sophisticated methods to still register multiple accounts and cost them a lot of money. And even with all this, there is still abuse happening.

Now for crypto bookies, I am not sure, if this would work for them. Technically it would work of course, but economically I am not sure. As you mentioned it's their USP and you would have to figure out, why people are playing at crypto books/casinos in first place. Privacy reasons ? The odds ? Not being able to use FIAT to deposit/withdraw ?
By adopting KYC, they would probably lose a lot, if not all, of customers that value the privacy aspect of things. You might also lose a good amount of people that can't use FIAT - playing at crypto books/casinos without KYC is really easy and convenient. Registering takes a minute, depositing is easy and fast, withdrawals are fast-ish. By implementing KYC, you are building a hurdle, that a lot of these people might not be willing to jump over. Recreational players just want to gamble a bit, without too much paperwork and hassle.

For me personally, I am fine with doing KYC at more or less all FIAT bookies, but very hesitant to do with crypto bookies. Crypto bookies always have some shadiness surrounding them imo. You never know who are the people behind it, they have some weird licenses (if any) and are more likely to vanish on a daily basis or scam you. I just don't trust them that much like I do with FIAT bookies, especially with the well established ones. When I speak of trust, I am referring to A) my money being safe and B) them not selling my data.

So in the end, I think the crypto bookmakers just have to live with multi-accounting and we as betting/gambling people have to be cautious playing there, since you are always in danger of being accused of multi-accounting for the reasons you mentioned. The gambling community just has no lobby and we are always sitting at the short-end of things. Just adapt.

Good read. I like the idea of yours to which a certain account must be bound to a hardware ID, kind of like Windows activation wherein the user is only allowed to activate one product key to a certain hardware, and the rest of hardware IDs being used to log in the user will be flagged and would not be authorized to log in. Kinda limiting to the end-user but much more secure and avoids KYC. While as you say, it can be edited out, I wonder how many nerds would be willing to do so just to take advantage of gambling bonuses?

I'm not convinced that online crypto casinos enforcing KYC would solve the problem in the first place. As we've seen time and time again, people do not value their privacy at all. Even people involved in crypto currency, who you would like to think are a little bit more clued up on such matters than the general population, are more than happy to send their KYC documents to any exchange, web wallet, ICO, IEO, airdrop, whatever, that asks for it. If I were so inclined, in the next few hours and at zero cost to myself I could launch a new token by just copying the code of an existing one and giving it a different name, launch a bounty campaign on the forum for my new token, set a rule that all bounty hunters had to complete KYC, and I have little doubt I would receive dozens of sets of documents within a couple of days. All of these documents could then be used to open accounts and complete KYC proceedings on various online casinos without much hassle. If a casino asked for something specific ("a photo of you holding your ID with a piece of paper which says the casino's name", or something similar), there are people who are more than happy to sell that for a very small fee.

If the main issue is with people using multi-accounts to abuse promotions, then I would much rather use a casino with no promotions than complete KYC.

If we're talking about most crypto casinos and not casinos in general i'd say somewhat adopt it similar to how the big crypto exchanges does it small limits for those accounts with no KYC then a bigger one to those who follow KYC. I doubt the same case will happen to small gamblers and if it does they're just stopping their potential loyal gamblers.
I still remember the time when my account was frozen because there's a link between me and a few users eventually the issue was cleared but still scary since it could happen to others as well.

It's not necessarily nerds, it's more people that want to make easy money and probably poor-ish people for whom like 100,- Euro is a fortune.

Abusing first deposit bonuses is quite a profitable business. Some example:

You have two bookmakers, that give you a 100% first deposit bonus, 100,- max. You register with both and deposit 100,- each. You now have 400,- in total. You look for some 2-way bet, maybe an over/under bet in American Sports, because odds are always good there and low juice.

Bookmaker A: You place 200,- on the over for 1.95 odds.
Bookmaker B: You place 200,- on the under for 1.95 odds.

This will leave you with 390,- in one of these bookmakers. But you still have to rollover your initial deposit. Now you go on to a third bookmaker, which also offers a 100% first deposit bonus and deposit 100,- there, getting 100,- on top. You again bet on some 2-way bet for 200,-/200,-. If you lose the bet at the third bookmaker, you will have 580,- (300,- of your own money in total) at the one bookmaker, with some of the rollover requirements already done. Then you move to the fourth bookmaker and so on and so on.

Now imagine, you can do that with a dozen of identities, this piles up to quite some "free of risk" amount of money and, depending on where you reside, some good income/wealth. And when you are able to make lets say 1,000,- with one identity, then people are willing to provide you with their identity, if you offer them 100,- for it. They can feed their kids with that money and don't care about possible consequences then.

And all this is the reason why KYC can only do so much to prevent multi-accounting.


There are other circumstances (limitations for example), where you would be inclined to do multi-accounting. In these cases, you would use multiple accounts at one bookmaker only one after the other and not at the same time though. But I would think, that 98% of multi-accounting is done to abuse promotions/bonuses.


Nowadays it's very hard to get some market share, if you are not doing promotions. There is casinos and bookmakers everywhere and you have to lure people to come and play at your site. The easiest way to do that, is via promotions/bonuses. You will get a lot of abusers, but also lots of "honest" players. There will be talks about you on betting forums, you will be featured on some affiliate sites and in general get way more exposure.
It's an insanely contested market, just look around in this forum, that is not even a betting forum, and see how many gambling companies are advertising here and having signature campaigns.

I completely agree with this statement in the current climate. However, if we are talking about Thekool1s's proposal about reaching some kind of widespread "industry standard" regarding KYC, then it becomes another matter. If you have 99 casinos all offering 100% sign up/first deposit bonuses, provided you send them copies of all your documents, and 1 offering no promotions and but with no KYC, then I'm picking the single no KYC one every time.

Having no KYC requirements would be a major advertising boost and talking point in and of itself. This would only become more attractive over time as we know that more and more governments are starting to put the pressure on exchanges and other crypto services to hand over the KYC details of their users so they can be hounded for tax reasons.

First off, this is a great, well-thought out post, with original content -- that is a rarity. I think most crypto casinos would rather not do a KYC first policy as that would detract a lot of potential customers. They pretty much depend on their reputation for doing the right thing, which as discussed above, isn't all that of a great indicator that things will go well in every circumstance, but in a non-mandated KYC environment, its all we have.

Big casinos like FJ, mBit Casino and Cloudbet get to set their own definitions as to what constitutes multi-accounting, trying to stride the line between saving money and continuing to enjoy a good reputation among the community.

An annoying example that comes to mind is I know someone who won quite a bit by using free bonus money, only to have their winnings confiscated because their family member had also created an account unbeknownst to them. Even though the family member never registered for a bonus or made a single deposit, the casino still considered it to be multi-accounting, which was strictly forbidden, thus the bonus money was lost. The casino was gracious enough to let them withdrawal their initial deposit before closing their account.

In this situation, was a rule violated as defined by the casino? Absolutely. Was the person _actually_ multi-accounting in an attempt to cheat the casino? Absolutely not (or at least I believe their version of the events). In such an instance, to me, its still not worth giving the casino 2 sets of personally-identifiable information. Even if the casino is a straight-shooter, they still run the risk of mishandling the information, such as getting hacked, or it stolen by a vindictive employee, etc.

Long answer short: KYC-first probably isn't a beneficial policy.

We would have to distinguish between casinos and bookmakers here, because casinos always win (longterm), but bookmakers might not. For casinos I agree with your statement, for bookmakers maybe not.

That one no-promotions, no-KYC bookmaker might be/stay a very small and not very liquid one. He will struggle with getting lots of customers, because it's really the promotions that get you the people that make you money - the recreational and addicted players. I would suspect that this one bookmaker will attract lots of sharks and thus a very unhealthy customer base. As a consequence of that, everyones money is at risk. And with a no KYC policy, these sharks will always come back. A KYC bookmaker can make your life hard way more easy; they can just filter out the, for them, unprofitable players by limiting or kicking them.

First of all, thank you all for participating in this discussion. I have really enjoyed reading what you guys have shared so far. I pretty much agree with what @tyKiwanuka said so far, the only point I will contest tho is the following...


TBH this is kinda stretching it... Most online FIAT casino's don't accept clients from developing economies so even if you get their Identity for let's say 100 bucks or so, it will be useless as it won't help you in your verification process. I did some googling and found on average it will cost you around 50 bucks to get your hands on a fake Utility bill. Given if you aren't handy with something like adobe illustrator it will cost you more to create multiple identities. A fake passport can cost anywhere from $250-$500 at least this is what I found via google, I'm sure there are many blackhat forums where you might be able to get your hands on a bit less, I still put the figure around the $200 mark for a single fake identity along with a utility bill.

I kinda agree with what @o_e_l_e_o has said regarding dropping the promotions/Bonuses. We have to keep in mind Cryptocurrienies aren't FIAT. They can't be printed out of thin air like FIAT nor they can be borrowed from an entity by pressing a few buttons. Dropping promotions/Bonuses seems to be the real solution here. It respects the values driving the cryptocurrencies and basically takes the power away from the casinos to screw over their clients... I see no reason why would a casino require a KYC, if they had no promotions or Bonuses. The users also need to respect these values, you can't expect 100% deposit bonuses for the reasons I have stated above...

It should be either you give up your privacy for these 'fake' bonuses on the FIAT casinos which you will most likely end up losing anyway or have your privacy by not expecting some crazy bonuses or promotions and these crypto casinos should try to adhere to these values. They should either foot the bill by offering these bonuses and promotions or drop them all together... We as a community need to stand together, we need to frown upon these 'crypto' casinos/bookmakers which require users to perform a KYC. Having to go through a KYC verification defeats the very purpose of using Cryptocurrencies in the first place... I dunno why as a community we have kind of submitted ourself to these requirements when actually we don't even have to give out the smallest detail like which browser we are using let alone perform a full KYC.

Thoughts?

I'm not exactly up to date with the prices for fake documents, but I believe that is the price you would pay for a physical fake passport. Receiving a scanned .jpg or .pdf of somebody else's passport would be much cheaper, and would be more than enough to verify on the vast majority of online platforms.

Well, until the government of whatever jurisdiction they are based in decides they want to start coming after their customers and forces them to enact KYC or close/move. As we've seen time and time again with exchanges, when such an event takes place, the exchange in question almost always sells out their customers and locks their accounts without warning pending mandatory KYC.

I couldn't agree more. I have not, and will never, complete KYC at any crypto-related service. It is entirely possible to buy, sell, trade, withdraw, hold, gamble, mix, use, anything you want, without ever having to complete KYC, but too many users seem happy to trade their privacy and security for convenience.

I can only talk about bookmakers here, since I never registered with a casino-only site and have no experience what is the standard there.

You are right, that some countries are excluded as I wrote yesterday, but from my experience it is more eastern european countries (Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic etc.). I have just gone through a few bookmakers and checked their T&C for first deposit bonuses and couldn't find poor-ish african/asian countries being excluded. It could still be the case though, since I only used german/english/nigerian IP to check.

The bookmakers are a bit ambivalent themselves with their promotions imo. On the one hand, they want to get as many (losing) customers as possible and otoh they don't want to get abused. And they steered a middle course for that. Apart from the exclusion of certain countries, Skrill/Neteller not qualifying, hard rollover requirements, they also introduced minimum odds to be played to fullfil the rollover requirements. Often times these minimum odds are 2.00+ nowadays (no multis allowed). What does that mean and where is the benefit ? That way they make sure, that even if there are abusers, they are likely to lose their deposit+bonus at their site (and win with the other site, that does not have these minimum odds requirement in place). So you attract "honest" recreational/addicted gamblers and those promotion-hunters mentioned in the example will lose their money with you.


Problem is, there is no such thing like a gambling community - or lets say no community big and powerful enough to put some pressure on certain cryptobooks/-casinos. Most people are lonesome wolves when it comes to gambling. They might engage in betting forums or forums like this one, there are Facebook/Whatsapp groups and little private networks, but there is no labor union or things like that.
As mentioned earlier by o_e_l_e_o, there are really very few people, that care a lot about KYC. The majority just wants to gamble a bit and/or feed their addiction. If they have to do KYC for that, so be it. And have a look at Sportsbet, which imo is the frontrunner from the crypto-bookmakers. KYC is not mandatory there, but they might KYC you, if there is something suspicious. 99% will never have to do KYC there. If you are a longterm loser, you don't need to do KYC. You will only get KYC'ed, if you win (big) longterm or because of suspicious activities regarding multi-accounting with their promotions.

Most people are just "happy" with the way it is and/or don't bother.


Yes, correct. Most bookmakers/casinos are afraid of being bullied by governments; not only from their own jurisdiction. They either comply or put geo-restrictions for certain countries in place. But most of the time they comply, since with geo-restrictions, they lose their whole customers base of a certain country and by f.e. implementing KYC, they will only lose parts of them.

I wrote a bit about that here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221092.msg53791339#msg53791339):

If this is the case isn't there a gap in the market for 'decentralized' bookmakers and casinos to exploit? I mean if the only reason they have KYC requirements is due to 'regulation' pressure than going the decentralized route should be the way... I mean there are already a few dice websites I have seen working with Smart Contracts on ethereum, I'm sure something can be developed for the bookies and other games... Makes me wonder how many TOR based casinos are out there or if any... I might make a list of sorts if I find some later down the line...

Also about people not caring about their privacy, one of the major reasons is they aren't educated about it and let's be honest here it's not their fault. No one gets taught in the school about how you should protect your privacy on the internet. I always sympathize with these people. I believe people can change and 'adapt' if they become aware of what they are putting on the line. Although I agree with you that there isn't a "gambling community" which can pressure these casinos, I still believe Bitcointalk can play its part. IMO we have got a pretty strong community here, many of shady casinos were exposed and tagged in the past if we want to spread awareness about privacy then certain steps can be taken. E.G free advertisement on the banner ad for 3 months for the casinos which teach their customers about how to protect their privacy and stuff. I'm sure we as a community can come up with plenty of ideas which are executable in the real world. It's a win-win scenario...

People get to learn about what they put on the line when they perform a KYC verification and Casinos/Bookmakers get free promotion in the biggest crypto community. First Casino/Bookmaker to drop the KYC requirement gets a whole year of free promotion or maybe a pinned post in the Gambling board... There are so many ideas popping up in my head right now... It's about time people start caring about their privacy...

First of all thank you very much for this very interesting discussion.

In my opinion the switch to KYC is mandatory if a casino wants to continue its business in the near future. Regulations are becoming tighter and tighter in the crypto space, for example take a look at the USDoJ statement regarding mixers (discussed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5227233.msg53876905#msg53876905).
Under the mentioned cloak of "money laundering" online casinos are definitly the next target, simply because of the fact that there is an huge amount of money on the table.

Isn't this essentially what Augur is? I've never used it, so I may be way off base here, but I thought it was essentially a decentralized bookmaker which allows users to bet on any market they choose, provided there is another user willing to bet against them.

That's part of the problem, sure, but another part is that many have little desire to learn. Most of the people on this forum who blindly complete KYC with anyone who asks are here only to earn. They have no desire to contribute to the forum, they have no desire to learn about cryptocurrency, and they have no desire to learn about privacy. They only want to spam for some bounty campaign, and if sending their KYC documents to a stranger is needed to let them do that, then so be it.

People may not have been educated about protecting their privacy on the internet, but nobody would hand their passport to a random stranger on the street. KYC is no different.

I have to say that the TOS of FJ is rather rigid at best or unfair at worst. [1] The case of using the IP address as the sole basis for determining whether a user is guilty of multi-accounting or not has already been thoroughly presented as unfair by the OP. And I fully agree. It cannot be made as the sole and ultimate arbiter to determine cases of multi-accounting. [2] The site's definition of multi-account is exaggerated or even tantamount to a ploy in case certain cases similar to what has been mentioned in the OP occur. It is a definition that would pave the way for them for a smooth exit from such potential cases. To potentially consider any account(s) made by family members, relatives, and friends as a user's another account(s) is simply too much. If a gambling site provides excellent services and experience, would you not recommend it to your gambler friend or relative or even family member? I think I would. In this case, not knowing that it could unfairly become a ground for me not receive my prize in the future.


I don't think the options are only limited to implementing a KYC or possibly getting screwed. In fact, even with a KYC, cheating users would still be able to create multiple accounts if they are really determined to. On the part of the site, they could still create a fake case despite the KYC.

Isn't there a regulating body that reviews and approves TOS of gambling sites before they are implemented?

I think that multi accounting can’t be proved only with different IP addresses as a user can work in a big company which besides having their IGB interior gateway protocols is connected to multi homed environment with Bgp border gateway protocol to different Isp-s for example it may have three different Isps.Sorry for the tech terms but are needed to explain the concept.Where I work right now Internet is so cheap that I have 6 different Public Ips from six different providers and by using these Ips I own no one can accuse me of multi accounting.I think casinos should come up with stronger evidences.

Thank you everyone for the feedback it is always interesting for me to read.

My take on the industry standard is that, if it is not regulated properly, then there is no standard!

Most casinos, even crypto ones that request KYC are terrible at making sure they keep to their rules consistently. I think for me, I like casinos that only do KYC if needed,,, but on the other hand, a player does not like getting red flagged and suddenly being asked to KYC if it is a lot of money.

But if all wanted to do KYC, then we would all be going to fiat casinos right?

There definitely is ! The problem is, you will struggle a lot to get customers (for now). There really isn't a lot of people world-wide that know of cryptocurrencies, let alone use them. They might have heard of "Bitcoin", but have no idea what this is all about.

Most people have their main bookie, where they play, where they are already KYCed and where they are happy. They are losing players and for them it doesn't really matter, where they lose their money. They like the design, are used to the navigation and just feel at home there. They don't even care about the (bad) odds. These people are extremely hard to drag away from "their" bookie and they represent like 80% maybe. There is no reason for them to look for other options.

What would very well work, but needs a lot of time and stamina to build up, is a decentralized betting exchange imo. On these exchanges, you have a lot of pro and ambitious bettors, who are more willing to go new paths. And most of them are already involved in crypto from my experience. There is a handful of companies, that got their feet wet and tried to build some competition to the worlds leading (centralized) betting exchange, but all failed. Betfair has a monopoly and they use their power to bully customers. Lots of users at Betfair are unhappy with their business practices, but they have no choice.

A decentralized betting exchange would attract lots of the people, but I think it's still too early, crypto needs more (mainstream) adoption first.


Yes, Augur is doing this and Wagerr (https://www.wagerr.com/) (not invested there, so no shilling) too. Wagerr does a pretty good job imo, the user experience is nice and they have super competitive odds, but they struggle to get customers/volume because of the above mentioned reason(s).

A recreational FIAT punter doesn't bother to download a wallet, sync it for hours, deal with private keys and all those other things, just to get good odds and not being KYCed. He will just keep on playing at his main bookie. More convenient.

Nope. Nope. Nope. KYC is definitely not the solution here both for the customers and casinos. I agree that it helps to a certain degree, but there is no difference between crypto and FIAT casinos if it is a necessity making crypto casinos less alluring.

As for the customers getting screwed for reasons like multi-accounting or what not, it is a necessary sacrifice. Nothing is perfect basically. Legit gamblers rarely get screwed over by these terms(When they play in legit sites).

^ The people who would only try to avoid KYC are the ones who are trying to hide their identity because they did something. People with good intentions are most likely to provide their information to any platform without any hesitation and threat against it. KYC would actually be able to avoid promo abuser people. It's just that, people also find ways to abuse something. The best thing to solve it is to only provide a promotion to the users who were able to complete their KYC. Crypto casinos must be made for the people who only wanted to play casinos for fun, not to make a crime. I am in favor of this but only in a trusted gambling site.

You're definitely wrong on this, KYC documents can easily be doctored or bought on the internet, not everyone trying to at all cost avoid KYC have something to hide, rather they'd prefer to keep their anonymity since that's the major reason for betting using cryptocurrency to begin with.


In addition to what the OP and other people have pointed out so far, In my candid opinions IP address should never be the sole determining factor for multi accounting, I remember when I joined this forum over a year ago, I was told to pay an evil fee simply because my IP has been used to commit atrocities on the forum, meanwhile I've never heard of the forum prior to that and I was only here to fulfill an airdrop requirement, I'm sure a lot of users would have encountered the same thing then wonder how come.

Another user line in their TOS usually is one account per household, so a better with large family and a few gamblers would always have to be worried about where others are gambling so as to not get flagged for multi accounting ? Or would have to ensure that no one uses the home wifi router to access gambling sites inorder not to get flagged  ? More often than not these terms are too extreme and always unfair mostly to the users.

Some countries in the EU are forcing a requirement to wear your clear name on the Internet. They argue exactly like you do: "Someone who has nothing to hide can easily post under his real name". I think that's very dangerous, with this line of reasoning, it is very easy to separate "good" from "bad". The only question here is who decides what is good and what is bad. Would you like to post here with your real name? I don't think so ;)

People want to play online anonymously for various reasons. Some are addicted and not allowed to enter casinos anymore, some just don't want to know anyone else that they gamble, some value their privacy as much as possible and don't want to be tracked etc.

That would be very nice ;D

They can basically write anything in their ToS - but they don't do it. All ToS from bookmakers/casinos are more or less the same; industry standard so to say ;) And I think those ToS are fine. The bookmaker/casino deserves the right to protect himself against malicious people.

The problem is, that they sometimes use their ToS to their advantage and there is not a lot you can do then. There is no "central gambling instance" and sueing the bookmaker is often not worth it. You would have to deal with some offshore jurisdiction and I have the strong feeling, there is a lot of nepotism. These little countries make a lot of money with giving out gambling licenses, but it's just a paper/certificate that means nothing in the end. 

I once contacted the Malta Gaming Authority, because I had an issue with a bookmaker that operated under maltese license. Never heard anything back from them, gazillions of emails remained unanswered (and probabaly unread^^). And I suppose it's the same when you try to get in contact with authorities form Curacao, Belize, BVI etc. There some online communities (SBR or Arbusers forums) where you have way better chances to get your case solved somehow.

It is more than a little concerning how widely the "I have nothing to hide, therefore I have nothing to fear" argument is believed, when it is utterly nonsensical. There are a hundred reasons why I might want to keep my identity private, despite not doing anything illegal whatsoever. There are a hundred more reasons why I will never hand over my KYC to any crypto exchange, service, wallet, casino, whatever, regardless of how "reputable" or "trustworthy" they are. Having a basic concern for your own privacy and not wanting to have your life ruined from someone stealing your identity does not mean you are inherently doing something illegal or shouldn't be trusted. Governments and three letter agencies push this lie to justify mass surveillance and spying on their citizens. You shouldn't believe it.

If you think that only people with bad intentions want to withhold their information, then please post your full name, links to all your social media profiles, email addresses, browser history, and all your passwords here. I want to go through your emails, social media, and history and publicly publish anything I find for all your friends and family to see. If you don't want to do that (definitely don't do that!), then you accept that there are legitimate reasons people might want to hide their identity. Please read my post here for why you should no longer believe this argument: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214200.msg53499357#msg53499357

For me even I have nothing to hide or I'm not doing something illegal it doesnt mean I'm qualify to KYC, but still Im not going to give my all my information because for me we cant trust no one particularly in our holiding crypto. Sometimes its better to be in private because nothing good ever comes from too many people knowing your business, being a private and low key is the best way to be.

The way I see it, they don't see cases of stolen identity on the media for that reason alone they might not have the desire to learn about this subject. Let's be honest people only care about things which they have seen on the media or if they hear about it from someone who they 'trust'... When is the last time you heard about a case of stolen identity on media or from a person you trust? The reason why they are spamming for bounties is that they have heard that there is an easy to make money... No one wakes up and gets a revelation about an internet forum where they can make easy money by simply posting on their social media handles... The information is passed on to them and this is what is lacking I believe for the subject of privacy. E.G I had never heard about the case of Anastasia (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215128.0)... I haven't even heard about a single case of stolen identity in my entire life so far...

So yeah I still believe, we need to play a part in educating these people... Theymos's course idea comes to my mind when I think about it... There should be a whole board dedicated privacy IMO... how to handle your privacy both online and offline and why it is important... I remember reading an article about Jameson Lopp how he basically created a new identity from scratch... Basically what I am trying to say is we need to talk about it more so more and more people become aware about this subject and I believe bitcointalk can play an essential role in doing that...

Many people believed that kind of perception even me. Due to country laws, some gambling sites are required to collect KYC from their players and most of the players are dealing hard with this, choosing not to give up their identity and abandon the gambling site. I'm also concerned with my privacy and giving it up just to play is I considered not worth it. Privacy is one of the factors why I used Bitcoin in the first place and this kind of rule defeats the purpose of bitcoin.

I am really glad someone came up with the point because people are worried that if they speak against the casino they will be treated with harsh statements and if you honestly ask me, any casino that wants to ask ID documents should ask as soon as the gambler registers because if the gambler does loose the money that money should also be count, I mean OP made a valid point as of how the casino can just swallow the money and ask no KYC if the gambler looses or wins small, but if they win big they will be passing through tough KYC process.

This does not make sense to me, either you verify all your gamblers or none. I was reading the thread in scam accusation and actually felt the gambler was robbed but that is just my personal opinion. Some reputed members were on the side of Fortunejack too so we all have different opinions.

Don't want to take your thread too off topic here, but I agree. There are a lot of great posts regarding general online privacy and security in the Beginner's board, which isn't really the correct place for them. Some get relegated to Off Topic where they aren't seen by anyone other than spammers. Part of bitcoin's appeal is to stop third parties having control of your money. It is logical that we should also help people to stop third parties have control of their data.

I completely agree. Completing KYC on exchanges is one thing, but completing it on casinos is something more. Gambling is still viewed in many cultures as somewhat taboo, and even in cultures it is widely accepted, many people wouldn't want their gambling behaviors linked to their real name and details. KYC for gambling seems completely counter intuitive. I also don't think it would particularly solve the issues raised here, for the points I've made above.

For the sake of completeness ... Offline casinos here in Central Europe usually require ID verification before you can enter them. You eg. have to show your passport before you are allowed to turn your money into chips to play. This is should protect addicts from playing  ::)
This measure leads to the fact that your expenses and losses/profits are tied to you as a person. Additionally, casinos use the collected data to protect themselves from fraudsters ... or from people who are considered fraudsters due to lucky streaks  ;)

This case with Sportsbet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263445.0) is another example that fits quite well into this discussion. And it shows, what a powerful tool KYC can be and how gambling sites can use it to their advantage (not claiming that Sportsbet did it here).

There is multi-accounting and multi-accounting, this is the bottom line. If you are multi-accounting, but always lose all your money, then you are allowed to multi-account. If you are multi-accounting and winning, then you will be a victim of T&C's.
I am 100% sure that every casino/bookmaker knows about a lot of players doing multi-accounting at their sites - and they are fine with it, as long as it's giving them profits. If these players start to win, hit a bigger parlay or request a withdrawal, they can always user their power-tool, so this is a worthwhile, nearly risk-free, business, where you can never prove the operators being guilty.

Even if you choose to voluntarily do KYC once you opened your account, you are not safe from running into trouble in the future.

This paragraphs really caught my attention because it really tackles the importance of having a KYC on most websites that is really usable. Creating Gambling accounts needs to require its users to have some credentials since having gambling accounts means you are playing it by yourself and no one else. Being in a Casino does not mean that you are poor person since you want to GAMBLE and gambling requires money which is why its impossible that you do not have some credentials on yourself. Having multiple accounts is like messing up the system since some websites gives away bonus when you create an account. It also feels much safer playing with users that accomplished KYC requirements since you know that you are playing with actual people since every account is unique.

Personally, I don't see any great harm to an online casino if someone uses multiple accounts. If they are afraid to spend money on additional welcome bonuses, then let them stop giving them out at all.
All these rules and prohibitions often complicate the life of honest players. It will not be difficult for cheaters to connect a VPN or buy someone else's documents in the darknet to pass the KYC.
Therefore, when the casino leaves the rules that they have the right to ban multi accounts, it leaves itself a loophole to ban the player it does not like. Not all casinos use it, but players should be aware of it.

KYC verification will merely add just one extra step to this lucrative type of behaviour from providers. It is a preventative method but it isn't 100% bulletproof.
Casinos can screw its members if they don't want to pay out large amounts and users can always be accused of running multiple accounts, and some can actually do so.

In my opinion there needs to be a different kind of policy in place to prevent this from reoccurring, KYC might not be the best option but perhaps instead some other sort of policy that can protect both parties - I'm not sure what will be the best though!

I agree that's the problem, a lot of gambling casino only uses their ToS/T&C when they are going to benefit from using them. reading all that you said crypto gambling casino is sounding more like of a gambling trap where you are only allowed to break rules if you are losing money. in the end, it is a win-win scenario for the gambling site. I just wish gambling sites would use their NO multi-accounting rule and other rules even it won't benefit them.

I understand that we all appreciate our privacy but KYC is not a threath to it, it's actually for our protection too.
For some reason many think they have the right to stay completely anonimous in virtual world although that is not possible in real world. Some want to hide something and some are hiding behind illegal activities.
I think there is a lack of education and culture how to behave online, in virtual world.
Many people will not argue ar all when they have to show their ID in physical casino, bank or whatever place else but they are very angry when online casino asks the same. To be honest, I can't understand that.

That's the issue with the alt account issue as far as I can glean from OP's post.  Not being a gambler, I had to read it several times before I figured out what the problem is.

I also completely agree with your stance on KYC and the dangers of handing over your personal information to crypto casinos.  I don't care how good a reputation a casino has, I think it's way too much of a risk to do the KYC procedure.

Yeah I'd say there's definitely a risk of this happening.  If an IPs can't be used to identify the user associated with that IP because many different people could have the same IP address, that's obviously not a legitimate way to link accounts (and I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to computer knowledge, so I'll take you at your word that what you say is true).

And you're always at the mercy of the casino's level of integrity.  You're absolutely right: a casino with a solid reputation could pull off scams like this once in a while and there probably wouldn't be much of a fuss.  One would hope that these crypto casinos follow the rules, but like everything else in this crazy world of cryptocurrency, you just never know.

There are other reasons. I know people who bet on set matches and they have these "patrons" who make money out of it.

The way the system works is they hire people to manage multiple accounts for them, get them all register, bet around for a bit, los a bit of money to make the accounts look legit. Then when the tip comes they are given a lot of money to be distributed among all those fake accounts so that it doesn't look suspicious.

Of course Ip is not enough to decide who is evading a ban or not but KYC doesn't stop multi accounting.

I think it is interesting and quite interesting content.
 
If I want to state my own opinion about this issue, I would like to say that many businesses that provide gambling services with cryptocurrencies generally say that they attach importance to user anonymity, but they have to use an authentication system to prevent such situations. Instead of refuting their own claims in this way, I think that such services detect multiple memberships using different methods. I also think that although we think we are gambling anonymously, these services actually have a lot of information and data about us.
 
In short, I think that such services create obstacles to multiple memberships with their own methods, and with these measures they minimize the probability of having more than one membership.

1) Open a Crypto Casino.
2) Make unreasonable TOS, (nobody reads them anyway)
3) Pump money into a signature campaign
4) Give all payouts in the first year.
5) Borrow from banks if you go bust.
6) Once you have made a name for yourself, Use those TOS to Profit for life. Why settle for the house edge? When you can fuck with the players and scam them with TOS which they have happily agreed to? At this point anyone who will try to accuse you, nobody will believe them. Since you have already paid out in millions, Scamming a few thousand dollars which will cover your cost of hosting for a year would be "peanuts" for your loyal signature army who will standby to defend you. I mean why pay from your profits when you can fuck someone over?
7) Send some those shiny BTCs my way: bc1qzl3rnls6zfzsqnm7wwrg0y0ruuz6ge9cc6r3pv

_{This was sarcasm incase someone doesn't gets it.}

---

At this point it is beyond obvious, I gave the Sportsbet.io thread a read @tyKiwanuka. It's just a mess. If they aren't willing to share how they identify multi-accounts that means their method isn't fool proof and can raise false positives. I just don't like the whole "Trust me" thing. People need to be aware of this stuff before they on goto gamble on these "trusted" books/casions. In the world of cryptos if you can't verify something then it's not something to be trusted, i just don't get why people dont get this...

There are possibilities that some casinos are really doing the same, that if they don't want to pay the winning of the gambler, they can make accusations to suspend all of the accounts and give out nothing. But if that is the case, they should also watch all other players to be fair, basically strengthening their surveillance to their database to already prohibit players to play with multi accounts even before they lose a lot or win huge amount.

In addition, KYC will not solve the problem, if they will perform countless KYC and they still have TOS relating to multiaccounts detection that relies in IP address, I can say, these countless KYC will be disregarded.