Hey there,
For this one we simply need OP to list the other accounts that they have on Rollbit.
On our side, we see very obviously linked accounts to the one they listed here, accounts that have been previously limited on our sportsbook.
For whatever reason, OP has failed to list them so far.
Thanks,
Razer
Nonsense. So then, IF you are right, and he lists those accounts, then what? Then you would pay him, yeah right.  If he says there are any, you would say "violated our terms" and still don't pay, 100%. Rollbit has a solid reputation now for doing this, not only in our forum there are reports about these tactics. Still a reminder, rollbit bought the stolen data from the stake.com hack last year to promote their own site, this has been mentioned and proved before. A site doing shady things like this also comes up with excuses to not pay honest customers. From what I have read seen on different forums and the alike...when it comes to multi accounting, 75% of the time these casino's are never wrong to flag accounts based on multi accounting as they have the flagging techniques in place to find such users because this is their business to stop any possible promo abuse and the alike...just hope your docs haven't been stolen and used for KYC here..
Btw, use of a VPN can get your account flagged as IPs show up on other accounts hence this hurdle..but if nothing in these lines was committed then I trust Rollbit will sort this out asap! Good luck.
Have we ever seen any proof of those claims? I have actually never seen them. They always say there are multi accounts "but we can't tell you how we found out, for security reasons" . Sites like rollbit are happy to take deposits, but when it comes to pay there are suddenly problems. If there are multiple accounts you knew when he opened it, you should close it immediately, not after depositing over 10000$. Umm... aren't most, if not all, of the accusation topics raised against rollbit currently solved, and those that can't be solved here for security reason, e.g.: sportsbook abuse or invalid bet, were redirected to their licensor where they're fully cooperating and participating on the investigation? |
|
|
|
Instead, I'm talking about a valid suspicion (to the best of my knowledge) that someone might scam, even before the actual act of scam occurs. I suspect that anyone can scam at some point, just like anyone can commit a murder. But we shouldn't tag everyone, just like we don't jail everyone "to prevent crimes". We can warn people, but that's where it stops. Negative feedback loses it's "power" if everyone has it. I agree with that. We shouldn't tag everyone, that's why I said "with valid suspicion." I think it's important to strike a balance between warning others about potential scams and avoiding hasty judgments. Negative feedback indeed loses its impact if it becomes too widespread and indiscriminate. But, things are hardly ever just black and white, and there are a whole range of shades of gray in between. Let me break it down with an example: Just the other day, me and some other DT members gave a negative tag to the account OldCat over this topic. As far as I know, the scam hasn't actually happened. But based on what we can see, there's a legit reason to be suspicious about a possible scam. So, in this case, is my judgment flawed, and is the negative tag unwarranted? I don't believe so. Waiting for an actual scam would basically make the whole reputation system useless as an early warning signal. If I may give my two cents, I personally think the trust system of this forum is not preventive in sense of a posteriori. Some things and some users are indeed tagged after an incident happens, but it's not necessarily means every case are handled and the DTs taking action only after something occured. As repetitively pointed out by many members, this forum [or if I may narrow it down, this board] runs on evidences, i.e.: give strong evidences to back up your claim and/or accusation, and DTs will take action. We don't need to wait for the incident to occur as long as someone has substantial proof about it, or as stated by PP [so he's partially correct about this], evidences to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. But DT will not works on hearsay. Just because someone said [for example] I scammed them, should DT run and tag me? Instances that action are taken before the scam happens are plenty. You raised a nice one. The others are projects with questionable traits; plagiarized whitepaper, fake team members, fake testimonials, phising platforms. Do DTs wait for these projects to scam people before tagging them? No. DTs took action and paint them red the instance evidences are brought that they indeed are very likely to scam. Thus, a priori. |
|
|
|
How about all of the users who don't know how to speak English fluently like anonymousxm, and all of the users who don't have the emotional patience or thought to make a thread here on bitcointalk? How many more consumers and value of BTC are locked because of ridiculous/impossible KYC restrictions/conditions?
I've investigated many complaints and I say that you are lucky so many users are in your pocket, or else you and your business would not exist here.
That is a serious allegation, that they're so lucky because they have so many users in their pocket. I've been overseeing a lot of SB's cases, and last I check, I am sure as hell I am not on their pocket. All the cases served to them are solved nicely. On one notorious case of multi-acc [I won't give the link here, but if you did what you said you did, investigated many complaints, you'll know which one I am talking about] they even give strong evidences of connected accounts that serve as a basis of beyond reasonable doubt. So where is this allegation of yours coming from, again? Please point me out to those cases. As for complainants that doesn't have emotional patience, that depends. Do their emotional patience runs out because SB's representative talking in circle? If so, please point me out to such cases, I don't think I've encountered any. They addressed a concern, pointed out the situation and their side of story, and they leave. Straight answer. Do their emotional patience runs out because they're on short fuse, let's say because they know they accuses SB on wrong basis? If so, should this question of yours really be answered? |
|
|
|
[...] Also, regarding this link, it appears that both me, icalical, and tjtonmoy have submitted multiple entries for selection. I've observed that the votes are being counted per participant and not per designs entry. I assume Royse will let participants choose their own final avatar from the winner with multiple entries, for instance, suppose icalical's design is the winner, the available avatar valid for use will be both of his entries and the participants are free to choose which of his two design, much like there are previously two design for avatar that participants are free to choose which fit them the most.
FWIW, I really liked your hat design and will absolutely choose yours suppose the pirate hats are available for votes.
Sorry @Royse777 late for an opinion, Almost everyone did well. Thanks to everyone for participating.
But most like is this and updated.
I understand correctly that your choices are PX-Z and icalical? |
|
|
|
This could be a phishing scam of sorts as well. Users connects their wallets and the site empties them. Heard about that happening a couple times in the last few months.
If it is, it called a drainware or a drainer, I caught one being offered back then. |
|
|
|
As I said earlier, words about multiaccounting are just funny for me, because that was my first and last duckdice.io account. Transaction was really approved, which was surprising for me. Here is screenshot. https://ibb.co/C951JXxBut they decided to send funds not to the wallet that was specified in the withdrawal form, but to the one which I used last time. That seemed strange to me, but in general I have the money and I'm glad that my issue is closed. Sending fund to the deposit address instead of another address that's been specified as recipient for withdrawal is a known practice to fight against AML/ATF for accounts that's raises suspicion. As you still have control over this wallet, and given your account's situation, it's an understandable measure taken by duckdice and shouldn't be a problem. In regards to the accusation, there is a difficulty to check whose said the truth if case being involved is a multi-acc. The platform will not provide their findings in concern of their security and privacy, and the accuser's statements themselves can not be taken as the whole truth. We're in a moot here, and given that the case is solved with all the funds successfully withdrawn, I suggest you both to go separate ways [that is, OP, you never play on DuckDice anymore]. Meanwhile, I'll take my note of the situation surrounding this case and use it for future reference in case other accusations ever raised. |
|
|
|
May I ask your opinion if I counter hilariousandco's opinion for red tag with the one given by theymos, [I stole it from nutildah's on previous page] - Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
if we consider that as it's been five years since both account exchange merits, then it's probably safe to assume that the mistake happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Thus, red tagging them will pose as a mark-of-shame instead of a warning for others. What's your thought on this? I'm very much in favor of forgivenness. For example to give people a second chance after they admit their mistake, even for plagiarizing under certain circumstances and that's also why I'm not in favor of our current "ban evasion" rule, because such a rule is exactly the opposite of forgivenness. Everyone needs a fair chance to admit his mistakes and a fair chance to improve. But I'm also in favor of drawing a clear line to prevent abuse from getting more common. Every member should know that certain practices here are frowned upon and it's important to avoid such abuses, like Haunebu and his Alt did. If these members are really valuable for our comunity, they will admit their mistake, accept the consequences about the involved accounts getting tagged and then, they can start from scratch building a new Account, where such abuses are avoided. That's a fair second chance in my opinion. As a DT member, consistency is very important for me. When Merit was introduced, the consensus was pretty clear that sending of Merit to our own Alt Accounts will almost certainly lead to red trust. If Haunebu and his alts are getting out of this untagged, we are at risk, that someone else will come here, setting up a bunch of own Alt Accounts and sending them Merit from his main account. In case he's getting a negative tag (which would be deserved in my opinion) he could point at Haunebu and his Alt, where no negative tag was issued. And DT would be in trouble to explain it properly because it would be a very inconsistent story. That's why I'm in favor of tagging the abusers because DT needs to be consistent about our Merit guidelines and issue a fair punishment for the abusing accounts because it's important to prevent abuse in the future. I took it to my sleep and mulled over it the entire day after, I have to say I'm still inclined more to the idea that as Haunebu did not scam any forum members [at least none proven or being pointed out so far], a negative tag is not warranted [in spite of what hilariousandco said]. In attempt to gain a deeper insight on how to face this matter and what DTs did on such cases, I ventured through the reputation board and from a quick glance that I did, I found that what case of merit abuse warranted is a neutral tag with mention to the said violation, unless there is another violation being involved [account sold, hacked, the merit is being sold/bought, and the likes]. For example, ltcrstrbrt, or the older one, HunnyFinance. Nonetheless, I have to agree that there should be a consistency in DT on what warrant a tag and what doesn't [though, if I'm not mistaken, the general consensus is cases should be taken on case-by-case basis], and that if this case is not cleared, one might use this case in the future to argue their negative tag. Thus, unfortunately, the best way I can see from my position right now is to bow down from this thread until there are more DTs giving their opinion on what to do with Haunebu, and I will adhere to the consensus once it is reached. I will respect whatever tag you're leaving to Haunebu and 3kpk3, though. |
|
|
|
Anyway, my account was unbanned and withdrawal approved.
Are you talking about your recent withdrawal of 792 USDT? It is quite surprising if you have received it. You should change the subject title by adding "resolved" if you have received all the funds. BTW, Duckdice support agent has said above that he was also under suspicion of using multiple accounts on the platform thus he was not allowed to withdraw any additional profits from that suspected abuse. But to be clear his initial funds were successfully withdrawn.
It means both arbitrage and multi accounting claim was untrue against you as they have approved your recent withdrawal. Yeah, I will also really appreciate if there is any clarification on these matter, for my future reference and notes [and by it, I mean I wrote them in my notebook, not in feedback] for future cases. The situation regarding this case is very... unclear. First OP's withdrawal was said to be rejected because he's yet to complete KYC, though he's already passed it. And then there's an added info that OP is suspected to do arbitrage betting and multi-accounting, yet his withdrawal is processed? Can we straighten the facts here? Are the approved withdrawals a good gesture or was the accusation against OP got clarified internally and proven to be wrong? |
|
|
|
Yea, I missed part of this voting. As I taught, we are just entitled to any amount of vote. I could have just edited my entry and added my second choice, but the counting has already been done, so I doubt if it will be counted as a valid vote again.
Do it, my tally is not the closing mark of the competition, it's just there simply because Royse asked for help and I happen to have a bit free time during my morning coffee. I am sure it's still open until Royse said so. I'll refect this edit as well as other entries that's posted after my recap through my own edit [I'll sweep through the votes once more after Royse officially close it]. |
|
|
|
We will make a conclusion soon before we do, we can use some help. Cam someone count who got how many recommendation from members on this thread?
[...]
So far, ignoring the ones that's voted outside the limitations [e.g.: user X's entry number 1 though what's asked is number 2 and 3 and taking the first two being mentioned for the case of someone who voted more than two], the votes go like this: holydarkness: icalical, PX-Z Trofo: PX-Z xLays: xLays [well... kinda] Pmalek: cafter, xLays joker_josue: xLays Latviand: cafter, SamReomo, PX-Zyudi09: bitmover, xLays Z-tight: PX-Z, icalical bitmover: SamReomo's first entrytjtonmoy: cafter, PX-Z, tjtonmoy Nwada001: PX-Z, icalical bullrun2020bro: cafter, SamReomo bhadz: PX-Z [though he technically voted the "blue design"], tjtonmoy's second entryWoodie: SamReomo, icalical Fiatless: SamReomo, cafter examplens: PX-Z, icalical Renampun: icalical, PX-Z CryptoHeadlineNews: icalical, SamReomo, cafterCompromise me: icalical Wind_FURY: PX-Z Smartprofit: tjtonmoy Robelneo: tjtonmoy Negotiation: PX-Z, icalical Asuspawer09: icalical, PX-Z Thus, the tally goes: icalical : 10 [holydarkness, Z-tight, Woodie, examplens, Nwada001, Renampun, CryptoHeadlineNews, Compromise me, Negotiation, Asuspawer09] PX-Z : 11 [holydarkness, Trofo, Z-tight, tjtonmoy, Nwada001, bhadz, examplens, Renampun, Wind_FURY, Negotiation, Asuspawer09] xLays : 4 [xLays, Pmalek, joker_josue, yudi09] tjtonmoy : 3 [tjtonmoy, Smartprofit, Robelneo] cafter : 4 [Pmalek, Latviand, bullrun2020bro, Fiatless] SamReomo : 5 [Latviand, bullrun2020bro, Woodie, Fiatless, CryptoHeadlineNews]
Edit: [changes that happened after this post] Log: Adding examplens' vote Adding Nwada001's 2nd entry Adding Renampun's vote Adding CryptoHeadlineNews' vote Adding Compromise me's vote Adding Wind_FURY's vote Adding Smartprofit's vote Adding Robelneo's vote Adding Negotiation's vote [pending clarification] Adding Asuspawer09's vote |
|
|
|
Reported them under fake roulette, fake parent company, and a possible attempt to phish gullible users. Let's see if it got handled and moved to trash.
Moving that thread to the altcoin is the best that we can get since no one here can prove that website is scam by trying by themselves the casino. I report many of this scam attempt but none of them move to trash can especially if the thread is properly constructed as announcement thread. The only result I can get aside from moving the thread on altcoin board is my report record added with a bad report count. I think moving the thread on Altcoin board can be considered as trash too since only few or close to no user interact to that board due to flooded ANN thread from shitcoins. Hmm... I think we actually have some basis to think that the roulette itself is scam, if we may connect it with the evidences found on my investigation of their "parent company", BitCase. What we're yet to figure is how, will they ask for private key? Use a drainer malware? Or will they ask for certain deposit to unlock withdrawal. If I may quote myself about the quick investigaton of BitCase [there are still lots of materials about BitCase that can be pointed out from their website, but I think these points are enough to cover the nature of the website] as well as to safe-keep the research result in case the first thread moved to trash, [...] Challenge accepted. How about these for a reason for doubt? This is what your website said [ archived]   Copyright 2019-2023, Bitcase Group, Ltd., Cyprus, where the event itself is to commemorate 15 million cases. 1. Your page is copyrighted from 2019, while it's just six months old. BitCase, the "parent company" of yours, who held the event for 15 million cases, are created even more recent  2. Bitcase Group, Ltd. is the name of the registered company. Depends on which website people accessed, it's either registered in Cyprus [for those who access it from markeeter[dot]com] or in UK if seen from bitcase[dot]org [ archived]. They're both came negative, though.    3. The header of markeeter is clickable and linking to bitcase [as it should be, given it's the subsidiary of bitcase group]. [Edit: proof-reading it prior to hitting the post button and I found that it's no longer redirecting me to bitcase page? I can swear to any holy being that I was redirected from clicking the header, though] On bitcase, we'll be able to see testimonials from Portia Villa who apparently also has a twin named Lexie Cuevas who happen to write the review and uhh...   Catrine Galvan and Kellis Humphries?    Polly Rush?   Thought? |
|
|
|
The 2nd thread is still sitting in the gambling section, so looks like noone has reported that 1. Maybe use different reasoning and see if moderators move it or trash it.
Reported them under fake roulette, fake parent company, and a possible attempt to phish gullible users. Let's see if it got handled and moved to trash. [...]
Can moderators do this?
Nuke an account? Yes. With sufficient reason, moderators has the power to send an account into oblivion. |
|
|
|
[...]
The abuse happened until late 2018, where everyone was well aware how Merit should be used, how important it was for ranking up.
[...]
Hmm... I stand corrected on the merit cluelessness. I admit that I didn't check the log [I assume the log didn't cover that far back to 2018, just like the archiver by loyce and ninjastic] and thus didn't aware the full depth of the merit distribution. I assumed that both accounts sent a huge amount of merit once, realized or being warned about it [or got educated by himself] and stopped doing it. If the distribution was spread evenly throughout the year, then yes, I think Haunebu should be, at one point, aware of the implication of his action and continued on doing so before stopped altogether. I am now torn for the negative, though. I initially inclined to think that even the merit abuse is proven, then the tag should be a neutral one, given the negative dictate,  and on this case, there were no risk [at least according to my opinion, but I am open for discussion] of trading with Haunebu, i.e., he's not scamming anyone. But your reference of what hilariousandco said moved me an inch or two from my stance. I am now not sure what to do. May I ask your opinion if I counter hilariousandco's opinion for red tag with the one given by theymos, [I stole it from nutildah's on previous page] - Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
if we consider that as it's been five years since both account exchange merits, then it's probably safe to assume that the mistake happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Thus, red tagging them will pose as a mark-of-shame instead of a warning for others. What's your thought on this? |
|
|
|
In the avatar contest we were able to shortlisted 6 participants. We need to filter out and need to keep only two participants / two set of entries. We may consider your feedback in it too to filter it to two. Please let us know.
The shortlisted entries we are considering:
[...]
We will read carefully your opinion before picking up the final two.
Cheers,
So, two participants with two avatars for each of them? I am liking: icalical's pirate flag and treasure map entry, and cafter's pirate hat from first and third image of entry number 1 PX-Z's flag for the reason that I shared with examplens, I liked and always think avatar without background [i.e. not square] is neat. Edit: Sorry, I understand correctly that our votes are limited to the ones you mark in red square? Thus, cafter's avatar will be from his third entry? On that case, I am revising my vote to PX-Z's set number 1. Though if I may give my two cents without disrespecting your choice, cafter's hat is also nice |
|
|
|
[...]
The reason the withdrawals were cancelled (except the 290 $ one) was simply because KYC was required.
[...]
Regardless, will get back once I have more info on your case.
Kirito89,
Duckdice Support.
If I may add more about this case and what you inquire to your security team, wasn't the OP already passed the 3rd level KYC and thus they've fulfilled the KYC requirement? [...] but administration asked me to complete 3 lvls of verification, which I've successfully passed. After it they confiscated my winnings, without real reasons.
[...]
(11:18:13) Sukh
This is because you haven't completed kyc for level 3 before but now I can see it's completed for level 3 as well so Just try to make a withdrawal again and I will leave a message for admins
[...]
|
|
|
|
[...] I've re-read everything and especially the quote of theymos about Merit selling got a bit misinterpreted here in my opinion. He said: If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.
In his statement, he's leaving lots of space for speculation. Because who defines, what's similarly bad like Merit selling (theymos: "probably anything less than selling merit")? In my opinion, sending Merit to my Alt Account is such a case. We can still argue if it needs to be deliberate, repeated sending to our Alt Account. In his quote, I believe theymos only wanted to express to be very lenient how someone spends his sMerit, as long it's not directly involving Merit sales (x Merit for x BTC) or sending Merit to our own Alt Account. For example even if I send 50 Merit to this post from holydarkness and do it 2x again for similar posts, it's not abuse because - it's not selling - holydarkness is not my Alt Account - the quality provided is enough be be a meritable post (yes, can be argued if it's deserving 50 Merit) Conclusion: In my opinion, a tag to Haunebu Account for Merit abuse would not violate the quote from theymos. Opinions? Sadly, I have to disagree. In my opinion, [negative] tagging Haunebu [and 3kpk3] account for merit abuse would violate the quote from theymos. The post quoted, as you've very nicely laid out, is about leniency [though I think that case is for Merit Source and about how they exhaust their merit quota]. Combine that with what yahoo said here on #22 that the merit exchange happened close to when the merit system is being introduced and everybody is still fumbling with sending and receiving merit, and that he has never exchanged any between both ever since, there's a huge chance that Haunebu didn't know what he may or may not do with his merit. So, it's a case of merit cluelessness rather than a merit abuse, which warrant even more less [negative] tag. Tagging him for such would step into the realm of "something stupid involving merit". If a tag should be given, at best, it'll be a neutral tag to indicate the alt-connection to give pointer to campaign manager if he's ever enrolling both of his account on the same campaign, but not for the merit abuse cluelessness. |
|
|
|
I went through their "parent company", BitCase, who held this free raffle to celebrate their 15 million cases [whatever that is]. The link to bitcase[dot]org can initially be accessed by clicking the logo on their header, but it's no longer clickable. Anyway, the parent company itself shows so many red flags, and I think it's enough to tell us the truth about this "raffle" and warrant a tag. I'm leaving one as well. |
|
|
|
It's funny, but can you tell me a mirror of the official site?
I am sending a mirror because the casino is banned in many countries.
Err...? The official site of the roulette platform that give free raffle to comemmorate an achievement of 15 million cases by bitcase[dot]org, which... has characteristics as I mentioned above? How will this make a difference? |
|
|
|
[...] [...]
Here's my theory. I don't know if you have seen a Black Mirror episode, "Smithereens", but what's happening here with Betnomi might be similar to the events in that episode, [...]
If I am not mistaken, the crisis in that episode ended in less than one day, if not mere hours, and definitely not weeks. And if we take a second to suppose that's what happened, Sorsis took a month-off, it still doesn't explain the other situation where the entire website slowly dissipates into void, admins of tg goes frenzy, social medias followed the website into the void, etc. You are not mistaken, that's right. But then you remember that someone's life was in danger, not someone's money. Umm... point? If you're proposing that in the fictional scenario, the situation is more dire than what happened here [life v. money] and thus their staffs are more motivated to reach the founder to solve the situation, I'd like to remind you that the founder of this platform knows what happened before he disappeared. If he's in an emergency [that's what inferred from one of his last communication with icopress, not traveling] and intended to keep the integrity of his platform, given he's aware of the situation, he can point one or two of his staffs to be the acting director. |
|
|
|
[...]
I personally think it doesn't sound good [me and my own opinion, of course]. If a session needs a manual termination button, there's a chance someone forgot to click the button, and thus, one step backward from privacy [as explained by examplens and bhadz]. If dev wants to venture into an option to manually terminate a session, I think it'll be better to reverse the proposed idea; instead of having the manual termination button by default, dev add a check mark to allow people to keep the session longer or until they pressed the termination button. Otherwise, the sessions will end like always.
Not sure about the implications behind this, though. Wouldn't it mean sinbad has to keep a log [albeit selectively] to cater this idea? I can imagine some people will not welcome this idea.
Yes, that's a good idea by having that feature and it's just like an expiration if ever the user forgots to do that and the devs don't have anything to do with it. The session can be ended on an instant based on the user's discretion and if not, it is automatically gone based on the set period of time. I'll use this chance to re-emphasize that I personally think it's not a good idea. Having a possibility to manually terminate a session by preference implies that Sinbad keep a log of user's transaction. Be it due to the user's request and preference or not, it's a step back from the anonimity that supposed to be offered by a mixer. It'll be a very great assurance to anyone that the platform --any mixer platform-- does not keep a log longer than it needed to be [that is, until the transaction is finished]. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
