What happened: Plagiarizing whitepaper and no team member
Suspect's Profile Link: N/A [They don't have an official account here, far as I know. However, we have...]
BM's Profile Link: ahmim
Suspect's Website: https://epnoc.io/ | archived
Suspect's ANN thread: N/A
Suspect's Bounty thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5436868.0 | archived
Suspect's Documents: https://epnoc.io/static/media/EPNOC%20Whitepaper.b42fe325.pdf | archived
Plagiarized Source: https://degrain.gitbook.io/docs/ | archived

Additional Notes:
They do provide a bibliography, though not exactly on the academic format, nor that I found these sources being cited on their WP --I'm not really looking into them, though-- but this one that's cleverly slightly adjusted, is not on their list of sources.



Some screenshot for easy view:

As I am currently wearing their signature, I will perceive myself as automatically biased, and thus will exclude myself from overseeing this matter. However, I'd like to think that straightening one matter that was asked to be clarified as something that fall on the realm of acceptable.

I've been waiting for someone else --which not on their campaign, and thus shared the same situation as me-- to clarify this, but as there were none...

First, allow me to reupload your image with ibb --I don't know the correct coding to make the image from imgur shown-- with reference to original image source below it, sans the second image, which a lengthy email summarized as "CoinPlay is not registered on curacao-egaming.com."


Source: https://imgur.com/a/uJXPv2p


Source: https://imgur.com/a/SWkzSTU

Second, I'd like to invite you to read this article.

To summarize, for anyone too lazy to read them, there are several license providers in Curacao. Each gambling site --which registered on the said license provider-- are mandated to put the seal of the said licensor on their website, which shall redirect players to the verification page of the licensor, and thus enable players to prove if the claim made by the betting platform that they're licensed under the X provider is true or false.

Third, I'd like to point out that the customer service whom in contact with you explained something in harmony with the summary of the article I wrote above, that you can easily prove their registration by clicking the seal at the bottom of their page.

The simple problem here is, you misunderstood and think they said that they're licensed under "curacao egaming" as in the literal name of the license provider, while their license --as shown on the bottom of their page-- is under antillephone




And the result will be,



That said and clarified, I'll go back as a mere reader following this case.

2 hours because your posts are made in between discussion about the platform and some bets --which, the main topic of their ANN-- and I have to at least glanced at every single posts to be sure which posts addressed your issue and which one can be ignored because it engages om the platform's feature or recent bets, and then going back and forth to see the consistency between statements to make sure I got a good foot on both sides of the story, even for the slightest footing.

If you want me to spend 1 minute reading the first post I found upon trying to track down your case, it'll be this one. Yes, it'll be 1 minute, surely even less. And yes, it'll "dispel" most of other contradicting and intersecting posts, but I don't think that'll be in your interest if I did so.

Just to comment on your remark, I can't see how people clarifying that one known issue was fixed instantly made them "the friends".

Lucky for us, me having been reading the 20 pages of their thread, was instantly familiarized with the topic. It's already fixed, as vouched by three users, which replied on the page after it.

That post/issue was discussed a few post above the post made by betnomi explaining to OP whats his problem is.

Hi, I hope it's just a simple case of oversight and you didn't see my post, thus not replying me, or realized that your flagship is far from ready, yet you've conduct a token sale, because it's started to looks not good. I checked again today, your presale has begun and your "flagship" still stuck on the same state as how it was last week.

I've been watching this thread for days and to be honest was actually quite reluctant to dive into this hole as OP's case was from the 31st of October, cluttered between 20 pages of betnomi's ANN thread --before OP decided to publish an scam accusation-- which make it quite challenging to get familiarized with the case and crosscheck all the statements made by both parties.

But I wanted to comment on your post here about how --IMO-- betnomi has tried their best to attend the cases you mentioned as well as your question here I quoted above and thought it'll be better to reply here altogether as I'll be able to give explanation related to the case the way I perceived it --of course, stretched that long across that many pages, I might missed one or two key points.

And, there goes two hours of trying to understand the curious case of this... cicada. I want to make it a very academic-looking post with links referencing to statements wherever possible, but for that I'll have to re-dig the 20 pages again, and I'm not that... fond of a mini brain stroke, so here it goes:

Simplified, OP made bets, rejected by the betting provider, complained to betnomi, betnomi tried to persuade the bookie to give an exception and make it a winning bet instead of voided the bet. Meanwhile, their security team found suspicious behavior on OP's account which prompt them to ask for the basic KYC --or maybe intermediate, not sure which-- that OP also failed, which according to OP's defense is due to a typo, which escalate betnomi to ask for advance level of KYC, that, according to their explanation, is not the usual thing they do


Meanwhile, OP also made the case even more interesting by simultaneously reaching to several gambling authorities that kinda made betnomi had to answer to those several different platforms as well.

So, in layman's term, the required documents and "inflexibility" from betnomi was because OP got flagged and failed to perform the easier level of KYC.

---

Edit: and then I think, "ahh hell, why not spare two more minutes to dig one post that's became the basis of my post, so here it is,

I think this is the first time I joined such event, and I joined simply for the sake of curiosity, so I just choose a number, right?

66 - holydarkness

Thanks.

This is quite a curious thing, they're quite attentive on the other scam accusation thread raised against them, and they've been informed about this thread twice; by me and by by BitcoinGirl.Club.



I wondered if they thought we are referring to the aforementioned case, not realizing we are talking about a different one. Let me try to PM them again, this time with something clearer.

If they're online after I sent the PM and still not appearing here, I'll support the flag, but not because I believe one side is correct and sure which side cheated who, it's to persuade them to give a better explanation with concrete evidences against your case.

---

Edit: 2nd PM sent,

---

Edit 2: I've got a reply, as mentioned below by Poika5, Betnomi had given their answer for this issue in reply to examplens on their ANN, stating as screenshoted.

---

Edit 3: as well as mentioned by examplens right below Poika5's. LOL, suddenly we move at a very quick pace.

If I may add what examplens said, OP, once successful, please provide the proof that you've successfully withdrawn your fund so this case can be marked as solved.

I don't think they're a representative or involved at any official degree with the project, their posts on both threads are:

On the ANN thread,
https://ninjastic.space/post/61783407
https://ninjastic.space/post/61784145
https://ninjastic.space/post/61805007
https://ninjastic.space/post/61814823 [same as what's posted on bounty]

On the bounty thread,
https://ninjastic.space/post/61784205
https://ninjastic.space/post/61809607
https://ninjastic.space/post/61814815 [same as what's posted on ANN]

Which, IMO, if not yet another of their random posts, is one of their attempt to participate on this contest


I just glanced at their ANN, though, so I'm not sure what's the contest is about, but I think it's safe to assume they're not part of the team, because them selling the account would be illogical, given the campaign --and thus, the project-- were only on a hiatus and will come back at one point,

---

Agreed on this, I think the best approach here is to mark the account so that any buyer [a bit curious, who want to buy a newbie account, anyway?] wouldn't be interested to bid.

Edit: oh, it was a copper with one merit, so it's a junior copper instead of newbie

If anyone speaks Russian, might want to check this user as well, guron143, I noticed he opposed 4 of the 7 flags raised against the 12 users connected to farlack. I think there's a possibility they're one of the alt too, I don't speak Russian though, and most of their posts are in Russian, so I can't dig anything myself.

BPIP: https://bpip.org/flaglog.aspx?opposer=guron143

This kinda seals the main point of the case, that Amph wanted to sell his account, disregarding who messaged who first, or why, or any other questions. I'll leave a neutral feedback as well, so future users would know the possibility of this account had moving hand.

I don't have anything against philipma1957, and I said this simply to give you a better assessment of the situation.

Though Philip would love to help, and most likely he'll more than willing to do it on pro bono basis so that no one need to send anything to his address, what he said above and what BitcoinGirl.Club said two posts ahead are things worth considering.

If any, you will burden him with a task of verifying and ensuring that the data from both ends are authentic and unfabricated, not to mention that if his verdict didn't works in your favor, you might feels cheated etc., I am not saying he'll take side --I'm sure he won't-- but it'll be best that if you really willing to ask a third party arbitrator and gave your data, to go with platforms out there who overseeing disputes and providing such mediation, whose decision are generally seen as more neutral and authoritative, and whose moee equipped with necessary tools and knowledge to verify the evidences submitted.

If I may repeat my suggestion, CasinoGuru might be a good option that you want to consider. Of course, we all understand correctly that since both party agreed to seek a third party mediation, once the third party is chosen and agreed by both sides, both has to comply with whatever verdict given by the arbitrator?

Very good job, OP. I take a look after their whitepaper and found another snippet that they copied from another project called "Captain Glory"^[1].


 

I also ran a check through their team and found something interesting, that they dared to use the real names of the people they use as their team, but the backgrounds described on the suspect's website and their real job history clearly shows they're not connected to this project at all and their name is being used without them being aware of it.

The three that I found:

---

As for the BM, they currently have a questionable project before that's raised against them --initially built on a wrong basis, but it developed into a possible scam with the newfound foundation-- it's quite unfortunate that Mr. Mattei is yet to reply me on TG to seal the case.

I've been wanting to take a deeper look at the BM, as a quick glance at their projects gave an impression to me that they just blindly accepting poor quality and borderline questionable projects, but my weeks has been quite crazy these days. I hope I can do a thorough scan trough the project they promoted in a near future.

Have you notified the BM for this case?

---

^[1]I'd like to mention that the name is somewhat familiar to my brain, it kept tugging a thread that I cant grasp that I think I've read the name somewhere on this forum, but a quick search with Ninjastic brought no result, so maybe it's just my imagination and it's just another project that never stepped their foot on this forum.

Congratulation for the very long achievement, I believe we can consider 32 years of staying away from something entitled you as someone who no longer bound by it.

For the rest of the post that I snipped, which talks about self exclusion procedure, I tried to look if betcoin has a direct and clear instructions on the steps needed for anyone who want to be self-excluded. Unfortunately, there were none, they help self exclusion through request made by email or live chat, though I am sure they'll told us the steps we need to do upon reaching them through the aforementioned line.

However, if I may consider that they basically runs the same steps and requirements by other casino, which I learned when I studied past cases and resolution in an attempt to overseeing a dispute raised by someone against that casino --not gonna mention who, what, or when for the sake of keeping everyone's reputation intact-- the self exclusion procedure provides/required a quite detailed and well documented actions that needs to be done by the requestee, which is why I think Betcoin side is very sure they just did their responsible gambling duty, as they have the documents proving the request.

Betcoin.AG, it'll be nice if you could inform us and clarifies if the self exclusion procedure you have required a good and proper identification to ensure the data matched the KYC of the requestee did.

Or, the simpler solution, as betcoin's representative has mentioned before, as both side are sure they're the right one and ready to prove it, OP can escalate it to an arbitrator, where they'll review the evidences given by both sides without the risk of doxxing the OP as the evidences are reviewed in private.

OP, may I suggest this platform if you'd want to clear this issue and sure that it's a misunderstanding? Just scroll down until you find an orange "submit a complaint" button.

Within 24 hours after their post, as stated below,



No, BetcoinAG username Jset21 will not be reactivated, or the third account suspected to be yours too. Or any future account created. Only the original one which asked for 60d self exclusion that'll be restored. This had also been answered,

I assume you're talking about this kind of warning flag?



Which there weren't any since no one raise any type of flag against him, as recorded by BPIP, nor do I find any red box on his old thread on altcoin marketplace, be it seeing from a guest account or a member account. So I am not really sure what you're talking about.




As for someone with positive feedback could easily scam people, I have to agree at certain degree. Yes, some people could and would likely more trusting toward someone with positive feedback, that's why exercising logic and DD prior to dealing with anyone is advisable.

But, at the same time, that doesn't necessarily translate into someone with one trusted feedback could "scam away at ease". Given your rank, I am sure you're well aware that all you need is to report such attempt to the scam accusation board, and that user would be investigated. If found guilty, they'll got some negative feedback which would --I strongly assume-- made anyone dealing with them to further weight in their option in spite of the presence of that nice looking green number.

Ahh... yes, I stand corrected. I read your post with few remaing brain cells that still awake and misunderstood your context of "now" as well as automatically assume --again, with half brain already asleep-- a "DT" refers to the forum's default trust instead of the custom trust list. Kindly forgive the miscommunication happened from my side.

Umm... I think you read the data wrongly. micaxel has been trusting mr.relax since the earliest time Loyce's record begin to scrape data, and MinoRaiola by data published on 03 Dec 2022, and none of them are currently on DT... well, MinoRaiola used to be, but not anymore. I even checked with BPIP to see if the result shown on my page is correct or was it affected by my trust list who distrusted them:

MinoRaiola
micaxel

Speaking from experience, and if I may add personal opinion within, i think it's quite safe to say it's decentralized. I learned the hard way --actually, it's more to "confused way" than "hard" as LoyceV helped me-- that when you tweak your trust list, the result could change your forum experience quite significantly.

If the person you trust distrusted someone, you also distrusted them [on the next depth level]. So, apparently, if I put someone --not sure if it applied to any user disregarding their DT level, but my case was a DT1-- on my trust list, and they have someone they distrust [~username], even if that person is DT2, their feedback will no longer shown on my "trusted feedback" table, and thus when that person [~username] left a negative feedback [~username left a negative trust to "username2"], the said feedback will not shown on my screen. Their feedback instead appeared on that "untrusted feedback. These ratings are from people [...]" table.

--pheww... even writing this made my head spinning--

So yeah, in a quite complex, complicated, and confusing way, I think we can argue that the trust system is really decentralized, in a way that no one has exact and absolute control on who can leave a visible score on someone else's feedback, since DT1s are handpicked --isn't it?-- by theymos through parameter which outcomes are dictated by every user on this forum [by setting their trust list], and DT2 are "handpicked" by DT1, yet DT2 can be kicked with a right amount of vote from DT1 --apparently, DT1 can also be kicked with enough votes too-- and anyone can ask for a DT2 to be revoked --this thread is a case on point-- by plausible reason and enough support.

In one perspective, this brings "trust" into a whole new level of literally trusting someone, because who we put in our list would greatly --as well as instantly, based on my confusing narrative above-- affect our forum experience and collectively affect the whole forum system.

I have to agree, though, that the rising amount of credible DT2 has reached a point where it should be a concern. Loyce has addressed the same concern on his weekly updated thread,


And jumping through his posts through links and threads --which, an interesting activity if I may say, as he has so many interesting posts-- he had also proposed an idea that crossed my mind when I typed this post,

Hmm... I thought I saw that this thread was already locked yesterday?

Anyway, since you come back here OP, or... OP v.2.0, I actually wanted to suggest something to you before your account got banned. Though I'm not an expert on this, but you might want to try risperidone or olanzapine, it might be able to greatly help you.

And I also want you to know that there's nothing to be ashamed of. A lot of people cared about such situation like this. Here, familiarize yourself, this article might come in handy.


Ackk... if only we made this bet happened, it'll be a very interesting bet. I was rooting for two days. Anyone guessed correctly? It's... four days, I think.