Woah, hold on there! Are you saying that if someone thinks your viewpoint is nonsense, you take it offensive and as an insult? How else do you expect them to express their disagreement? Or are you suggesting that people should be silenced just because their opinion doesn't align with yours?

Besides, I took a closer look at the thread, and I couldn't find a single instance where SOKO-DEKE used offensive language. Are you sure you didn't mix something up?
(And hey, don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to offend you or anything. )

You can. But as I said before, it doesn't make much sense.

Allow me to reiterate a crucial point that I mentioned earlier. Despite your claims of actively using Binance to "trade with your locals," the blockchain data clearly shows that there is not a single transaction from your publicly known wallet address to Binance, except for a couple of transactions to naim027's deposit address.

It's even more baffling that you would choose to send your payouts from the Whirlwind mixer to someone else's Binance deposit address, claiming that it's to save on fees. This doesn't quite add up, considering that internal transactions on the Binance platform are free of charge. So, why go through the hassle and potential risks of involving another person's deposit address when you could easily make the transfer within the Binance platform itself without incurring any fees? It's a puzzling choice, to say the least.

I'm sorry, but I remain unconvinced by your statements thus far. You haven't presented any substantial evidence to support your story. Additionally, the fact that you also work as a casino representative and support staff, just like naim027, only further fuels the suspicion that you could be one and the same person. As LoyceV rightly pointed out, the odds of this coincidence are quite remarkable.

Exactly. His explanation is just pure nonsense.

Pay close attention now:

John Abraham (address: bc1q3652jcryqgy0l38unay7tx69h56a865z6t8ndx) is sending coins to naim027's address: bc1q9t788wr0adc4v3t3k8yv02dapn8942qxagrsaa, which belongs to a Binance wallet (Binance exchange deposit address unique to each user), claiming that he was selling his BTC for USD. Using the same explanation, he withdraws coins from the Whirlwind mixer to the same Binance deposit address.

Now, let's consider his previous statements:





So, he's all about using Binance exchange "to trade with his locals" and claims he's "forced to use their platform." Alright, fair enough. But here's the head-scratcher: instead of using his own Binance deposit address like a normal person, he decides to send coins to naim027's address. Where is the logic in that? Why would he use someone else's deposit address when he claims to use Binance exchange and has his own account?

Ah, but of course! There's a perfectly logical explanation for all this madness. You see, Binance doesn't allow users to change their assigned deposit address. So, poor John here is "forced" to use the same address as his long-forgotten alter ego, naim027. It's one of those classic cases where circumstances just don't leave you with much choice. Mystery solved!

First off, it's just not right to toss some closed-source software into the same category with trustworthy open-source wallets that have a solid track record without major issues. We can't really know what kind of vulnerabilities might have been lurking in the Atomic wallet, and who knows if they'll ever come clean about it publicly? Open-source software, on the other hand, gives transparency by allowing users and the community to thoroughly examine and identify potential weaknesses. If you think about it, a closed-source non-custodial wallet isn't all that different from a custodial wallet or an exchange. You're basically putting your trust in the company and developers to keep your coins safe, without being able to double-check it independently.

No system is immune to hacking. Hacks, by definition, involve exploiting vulnerabilities or weaknesses in security measures to bypass or break into digital systems. However, it doesn't mean that all wallets are inherently unsafe. There are still many reputable non-custodial wallet providers who prioritize security and take measures to protect user funds.


That is simply not true. In fact, cold wallets, such as hardware wallets or paper wallets, offer a high level of security by keeping private keys offline and out of reach from potential hackers.

When you're reporting something like this, it would be greatly appreciated if you could provide a bit more context and personal insights instead of simply directing me to a random webpage with a press release.

Anyway, I've seen similar press releases pop up over the years, and they always turn out to be scams. One example is BitWats (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitwats-release-most-profitable-asic-195600764.html). Their offers always seem too good to be true. So it's important to be cautious and not fall for such schemes.


EDIT:

Here's something worth noting: the photo they provide as evidence of their alleged miner appears to be nothing more than a generic rack mount server case, readily available on platforms like Alibaba or eBay, with a clearly photoshopped screen and logo added to the side.


[image source]

No, that's not what the trust feedback on your profile states. Allow me to quote it for you:


So, to clarify, he didn't accuse YOU of personally engaging in trading with hacked accounts, abusing bounties with alt accounts, engaging in trust abuse or farming, evading bans, or any other questionable activities. He simply stated that you are associated with a group of accounts that partake in such shady activities. Whether you were directly involved or it was the actions of others within your little gang is irrelevant. The bottom line is that you cannot be trusted. Now, the important question is, do you deny the evidence linking your account to that group?


So, you're suggesting that we should solely focus on the posts from the account you're currently using and completely disregard any posts from other linked accounts? I'm curious, what's the reasoning behind this request? Why should we ignore the actions from those other accounts?

How does that make the situation any better? And why did you initially state that KYC is not necessary for smaller withdrawal amounts? Unless, of course, you consider $200 to be a "large sum," or perhaps you view depositing, playing, and trying to withdraw winnings from a casino as suspicious behavior?

Many of us here place a great deal of trust in malboroza's feedback, which is why he still remains on the DT member list, despite his inactivity on the forum. The feedback you mentioned on his profile, including the one you left in retaliation, falls under the category of Untrusted feedback and does not contribute to his overall trust score.

So, what exactly did marlboroza lie about regarding the feedback they left on your profile? From what I can see, the feedback appears to be factually accurate and supported by evidence.

This reminds me of my grandma, who used to meticulously write down all the numbers that were drawn in each round of the lottery. Then she filled out the slips and chose those numbers that were "cold", i.e. they had not been drawn for a very long time, in the hope that in this way she would increase her chances of winning. Ah, Grandma, always armed with her trusty pen and a determination to outsmart probability itself. We used to joke that she had become the unofficial lottery historian, preserving the sacred records of numbers like ancient relics. Well, she may not have won the lottery, but she definitely won the title for the most dedicated number tracker in the family!  

I think that the same can be applied in this case as well.

Oh, you're absolutely right! This topic is completely irrelevant. But hey, since we're on the subject, your site is about as relevant as a rubber duck in a marathon!  

Let's be realistic here, you've built a website using the free WordPress CMS platform, incorporating a bunch of free or customized plugins, and a cheap template from the Envato market.

Let me make it abundantly clear just how dangerous it is to embark on this deceitful journey without a clue about what you're doing.

First and foremost, by relying on a free WordPress CMS and using various plugins, you expose yourself to significant security vulnerabilities. These freebies often come with lax security measures, making your website an easy target for hackers and malicious actors. Ignorantly flaunting your lack of concern for security is an open invitation for cybercriminals to exploit your site, potentially wreaking havoc on your unsuspecting visitors and their money.

Just for reference, a dozen serious security vulnerabilities were detected in WP core in the last year alone.
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-2337/product_id-4096/Wordpress-Wordpress.html

Oh, and I see that you're using the oh-so-cheap Visual Composer (WPBakery Page Builder) plugin also from the Envato market. Well, guess what? Multiple vulnerabilities have been found in almost every single version of that plugin. Yep, you heard it right. So good luck trying to run any sort of serious website with that ticking time bomb. Just a friendly heads-up!
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/07/warning-for-wordpress-admins-uninstall-the-modern-wpbakery-plugin-immediately

But the horror doesn't end there! Custom plugins, especially when developed by an inexperienced individual, are a breeding ground for coding errors and vulnerabilities. These hastily cobbled together add-ons could act as gateways for malicious attacks, compromising user accounts, and leaving their funds ripe for the picking.

And let's not forget the cherry on top: a cheap template from the Envato market. Do you really think such a template undergoes rigorous security assessments? Think again! It's like placing a flimsy lock on a bank vault and hoping nobody notices. This lackadaisical approach to website design screams incompetence and negligence, leaving users exposed to a multitude of risks.


So, let me be brutally honest with you: You're misguided kid, lost in his own delusions of grandeur, and sailing into treacherous waters without a compass or even a basic understanding of security. The real problem here is that you're putting innocent people's money at serious risk.

It is indeed misleading for a casino to publicly claim that they don't require KYC procedures for small withdrawal amounts when, in reality, they do. Such tactics can be seen as a deliberate ploy to entice new players, only to surprise them later with the demand for identity verification even for insignificant withdrawals. Can you provide some evidence and screenshots of their messages? I'm curious to see what they said and if they gave any reasons for why they're asking for KYC.


After going through all the messages from their representative on the forum, let me drop some quotes here for the reference:





So, yeah, it seems like they were pretty clear in their statements about not needing KYC for small withdrawals. It's as if they deliberately tried to mislead players and lure them in with false promises.

Let me set the record straight here. I'm not just talking about some superficial similarities in design among different gambling platforms. This goes much deeper. The fact is, both platforms are powered and managed by the same BetB2b platform, which we all know is owned by 1xBET (1xCorp). It's not just a coincidence or a minor detail; it's a significant connection.

You can try to create the illusion of uniqueness by offering your own promotions, bonus programs, and even your own separate customer support. You may claim that you're different and that "you can do better". But let's face it, all of that becomes irrelevant when we realize that all the bets placed on your platform are ultimately handled by the same shady parent company operating behind the scenes.

1xBit, 22bet, Betwinner, Melbet, and all the other clones claiming to be separate entities – they are nothing more than white-label versions of 1XBET. You can deny it all you want, but the truth remains.

When it comes to my bets, I don't stick to a fixed percentage. I like to keep things flexible. It all depends on the specific bet, and how confident I'm feeling. If I'm really sure about a match, I might go for a higher stake. Now, when it comes to managing my bankroll, I don't throw all my money into the pot at once. I'll usually only deposit an amount that I'm comfortable with risking. I mean, who wants to put it all on the line, right? That's just asking for trouble. I do agree that playing with minimum stakes or a low percentage of your bankroll can be a bit boring. But I think we should all try to find a balance between enjoying the game and managing the risks in our own way.

I can't help but feel a mix of disgust and pity every time I read such bullshit stories. Seriously, where's the proof, man? All I see are empty claims and some fake bet slips that can be easily manipulated (we all know how easy it is to fake screenshots). So, you're such a big-shot gambler? Then why the hell do you need other people's money? You claim to have raked in $555,000 in just a month? Bravo! Just keep doing that a few more times, and voila, you're a freaking millionaire! Easy peasy.

But here's the kicker. Every few months, you pop up on the forum with the same old story. Are you that desperate for attention and validation from strangers? Or are you just trying to lure in gullible suckers to fall for your scam? Come on, we're not buying into your little game. Maybe one day you'll wake up and realize how pathetic you look. And who knows, maybe you'll actually do something worthwhile with your time instead of trying to deceive people. But I won't hold my breath.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't recommend buying a Ledger device to anyone, especially after the major data leak from their ecommerce database last year and this latest fiasco with the Ledger recover service. However, if he's comfortable with his current hardware device and doesn't plan on getting a new one, there doesn't seem to be any immediate danger (at least as far as we know) that would require him to stop from continuing to use it.

Does the problem only occur on the registration page or does it affect the entire site?
You can try accessing the registration directly using this URL: https://megapari.com/registration.

Anyway, I didn't notice any errors, it's possible that the issue has already been resolved. Also, since you're using Linux, it's possible that the certificate issue only impact Linux machines.

But be careful with this site. It appears that they are affiliated with the 1xBET parent company, which has a bit of a reputation in the gambling community for being involved in some pretty shady practices and selective scamming. If you ever face any issues and the casino decides to confiscate your funds, don't expect much help or an explanation from their customer support or security department. So, be cautious if you decide to engage with them.

Well, if someone gains remote access to your computer without your knowledge, anything is possible, including changing your local DNS settings that can lead you to a phishing scam without you even realizing it. However, statistically speaking, the likelihood of this happening is much lower compared to the risks associated with clicking on links in email messages or performing Google searches that lead to phishing site. Typing the exact URL into the browser's address bar is considered the safest way to access websites, although it can be time-consuming for many users.

Paranoia can cloud your judgment. It's good to be cautious, though.


There is no direct threat to your Ledger Nano S at this time. Nevertheless, if you feel uneasy or don't feel safe with your current storage solution, it's always a good idea to explore other options.

---

If he keeps using the Ledger Nano with Electrum software, he won't need to upgrade the firmware unless he chooses to do so. Firmware updates are exclusively carried out via Ledger Live.

Well, maybe you have a point there. It wouldn't be the first time I've put my faith in people and ended up feeling let down, and I have a sneaky suspicion it won't be the last either...

Nevertheless, I must admit, even though he can be stubborn at times, I do believe his heart is generally in the right place (well, most of the time, at least). But hey, we all have our stubborn moments, right?

I agree. I was trying to explain to tenant48 that his idea about each Ledger device having a unique key pair doesn't hold up because it would render the decryption of shreds on a new device impossible. It just doesn't make logical sense in that context.


Absolutely! The whole idea behind a hardware wallet is to eliminate as many potential attack points as you can, not to introduce new ones, no matter how insignificant they might seem. Safety first, no compromises!