Show me a chat where we said we don't have USDT and I will send you your account balance within 24 hours

why you would take a screenshot of your deposit options on 11 Mar.

Perhaps you are lying again. Or maybe it's just one of life's mysteries. Like why you would take a screenshot of your deposit options on 11 Mar.

There are multiple transactions on the blockchain to our hot wallet on that day. Is the blockchain lying too?

Also, are we going from 1 week

To an exact moment

Also, no one ever told you we don't have USDT because we have always had it. That was the deal. I said if you can show us that we said we didn't have USDT, then you will get the balance back. Obviously I said that knowing you were lying, so there would be no chance of you receiving it.

You are one of the worst pathological liars I have ever come across. You just continue to change your story every time you get caught. Seek help. You have much bigger issues than 14 LTC.

Betcoin has had USDT for years.

Agreed. We have never accepted BUSD, though it is coming soon for people who aren't banned!



I see you asked about BUSD on 12 Mar. Looks like USDT was working just fine that day, and every other day
https://etherscan.io/address/0x7C1e0c73acc8EF0cfF40992b1fbF63A9aF5c1A5F#tokentxns

I do see you asking about BUSD

I do see you asking about BUSD. That is not relevant at all to what we are talking about (USDT). Betcoin has had USDT for years. This is quite a hole you are digging for yourself.

Show me a chat where we said we don't have USDT and I will send you your account balance within 24 hours

More lies. What an embarrassment

Do you realize that we said address, not wallet. I just want everyone to see that even though this guy has been caught lying multiple times in this thread, he is still going to waste ours and an mediator's time and money by taking this to arbitration. An arbitration which he has 0 chance of winning.

So when people ask why our improvements are coming along slowly or why we are doing more KYC on people, it is because people like this ruin the fun for everyone. Why would we put ourselves through this over a nominal amount of money (which we are giving away anyhow) if there was any chance we would lose?

We've already spent too much time on this cheater. We will gladly show proof to an arbitrator or our licensor when needed. @murkyz, choose a good one, because once you lose the first one, we are done.

Oh wow, what a lucky coincidence, is it not? Do you mind to show us the email sent by CEG saying that? It's quite an interesting mistake, given you said that you reached their licensor because that info is available on their page, so you should see GC, mostly on their footer, the seal of validation one, as shown below,



I wonder what make you lost so far on CEG's complaint site, they have a very different logo.

What an interesting lie, because I just looked up your crypto address and got this

What dumb reasoning is this to remove the suspicion of having a multiple account? Making another deposit again means you are successful on what you are doing and you want to try more to get more profit while the casino still doesn’t caught you.

This is my first time to see a scam accusation against Betcoin after their previous long time scam accusation that got resolved after few years of debate.

There’s a lot of multiple account scam accusations lately here in the forum. It seems like these users is using some betting method to take advantage to the casino.  

While you are there, read the part about multi-accounting and syndicate play. I notice you conveniently didn't name any Bitcoin books from this forum when you listed where you had played. I wonder why. Don't want people to be able to connect your previous dispute? Don't want to call attention to yourself among the other Bitcoin books who read this page? Not to worry, everyone is well aware of your team and what you are doing. Have fun finding a new career.

Should you ask, you will be provided. But yeah, it happened anyway, so there's no point in discussing it any further.

Which casinos are these? And I assume you reached them through live support? Because this should be the first correspondence you have with a casino representative on the forum?

Betcoin's representative whose been in touch with you, Emma, is actually polite, if we may infer from a snippet shown on your screenshot.

All things considered, yes, David is still easily reachable. There are other casino representative on this forum who will blatantly ignore a scam accusation. One even specifically asked me to stop reaching them to ask them to resolve a case...which rather piled up [of which I obliged].

Oo...kay, you certainly know how to escalate things. I was thinking about a mediation by an arbitrator, like AG, before going that far, but as you've raised it to their licensor, betcoin --like other casinos-- will usually focus their resources on that resolution method and refrained from commenting further on any other media, given the decision made by the licensors are final.

As such, they'll usually --and justifiedly-- will not address anything further on this thread.

I hope you can update us with their final decision once it's made, though I am somewhat sure Betcoin.AG will update us if you don't, or --at the very least-- PM me with the result so I can update it on my list and the forum members will eventually learn about it.

I'd like to inform you that resolution time on a licensor is considerably longer than an arbitrator, like weeks. So if you don't get a reply within days, it's completely normal.

Umm... just to clarify, betcoin actually have one of the cleanest reputation when it comes to dispute. On this forum only, not one even left unattended, and they managed to mark every cases against them as "resolved", which rather impressive. Personally, if I ever want to scam a casino, I will not go with betcoin. They're... scary.


Nope, no idea who Davis is. But, David? Yeah, he's the representative.

And despite his outburst that he showed here, I have to agree with yahoo62278, he's actually easy to deal with. My communication with him on every cases I attended were satisfactory, he gave facts. Plain and simple, yet still friendly.

Well, statistically speaking, I think almost every casino representative here are very well mannered. I guess he [and them] just have a short fuse for people who they're sure abusing their platform, or perhaps some severe allergies.

They have already stated they will not comment further on this matter.

I personally have never faced an issue on betcoin. All the support people have answered any question I may have and David has been easy to deal with. I have never tried circumventing limits and made multiple accounts though. Likely the case with you, you got limited or something and thought you would make a new account and be good to go.

It doesn't interest me because I find it quite logical and explainable. They got suspicious with your account between the first withdrawal and the second. Hence, the KYC was only requested by the second withdrawal. Even if it's not the second withdrawal, it's something inevitable. Suppose that they ask for KYC during your 11th withdrawal, the question then will be "why do they ask me on my 11th and not the first ten?" Or if they asked for it right from your first one, the question will be, "they asked KYC for 700 USD withdrawal?"

There is no end to this, don't you agree?

Betcoin.AG, I will have to agree with this one, to avoid the suspicion of selective scamming, can you please be a bit more precise and add 1,900 to the pool instead of 1,400?

While for OP, I believe betcoin's representative has offered you a solution to get things more binding? Aren't you going to consider to pursue this path?

You do know that they different entities right? How do you propose they compare the KYC in Binance and in Betcoin? I'm pretty sure those type of documents are not just out in the open to be shared. It's between the user and the entity. No one should be comparing with another entity.

OR

Possibly your documents were used on Betcoin already. That just explains why you were tagged as multi-user.

[I am quoting the post in whole to give audience a better understanding of what I mean]

This... these are interesting.

Let me start with the thread you read as a guide, I initially suspected that you read that one, but I wanted to be sure. An interesting point worth to mention is that the guide actually only instructed you to copy and paste the link generated by imgbb, the OP failed to mention that he added extra code on his guide, namely,




As you can see, on step three he wrote that all you need is copy, go to your page and paste, and on step four he actually added "center" code, but he didn't write that on his instruction. Yet, you're so clearly managed to copy that exact instruction, as shown by the full code of your original image,


One may assume and argue that you're simply a careful reader, that you look closely to the image provided and realized the missing code. Yet at the same time, if we follow the assumption that you're a careful reader, how could you missed four posts below the one you linked [the one that explains newbie needs to pay], that suggest images to be uploaded through a website that's built by our community member?

This is rather contradictive with the trait of a careful reader. But let's keep that for a moment and go on with the next point.

As posted in full above, you fluently utilize horizontal line and snipping quotes, breaking my post into points to address the points I raised. You learned those format... from my post? Quite a brilliant newbie who is very clueless about the forum's feature that he needs to [thoroughly] read a guide about posting image, isn't it?

Now, if we consider that all of those knowledge are from your other, much older account... well, multi-acc itself is not prohibited by the forum, many users utilize alt-account from time to time when they want to make controversial posts but concerned that it'll backfired and ruined their reputation.

But, for someone who's being accused by a casino for multi-acc, if he's not the wrong party here, that he does not abuse the casino's rule, I think --and most logic dictate-- he'll very much prefer to complaint with his older account, which arguably hold better credibility than a newly created account. Unless... he can't post with his older account for some reason? Say, like, he already have a bad reputation with that older account?

Food for thought.

There was already a $25,000 prize pool, which people are highly interested in. The extra $1400 is just the icing on the cake. It will be distributed by random drawing among the players who who already receiving leaderboard prizes and we will post the payouts on our thread for transparency.

Hmm... quite interesting answer. Which guide is it that you read? If you don't mind me ask further.

Umm... why would they selectively scammed you if the same amount that's being denied from you were generously given back to their gamblers?

In a sense, they're making a point. They can't provide their findings here due to security and privacy concern. Thus, they take a long way around this by making a statement, as above.