It's a 50/50 fight for me. I either think Fury will get a KO or Usyk will win on points, but I've got a feeling it could be a boring match it both fighters are just trying to win it on points, especially as they will both know there's a two-sided rematch clause so either fighter can just learn from their mistakes from the first match. Sometimes the fights that are supposed to be blockbusters end up being the complete opposite. If they both fight to cautious extremes it could end up being a boring fight but I guess we will have to wait for it to take place before coming to any conclusion. It is after all the first heavyweight unification fight since 1999. I wonder when they're gonna start ramping up the promo for this because it's become quiet again. No press conferences or undercard announced yet. Both fighters have also been silent on the promo. Lack of hype and promotion really does not help but that is secondary to the fact an historic moment is about to happen. Stake had it 1.85 for Fury and 1.89 for Usyk. In all honesty, the fight really is far too close to call. On the day and any given day, either of these two boxers can tip the balance in their favour and win. |
|
|
|
|
The OP has skipped past my post where I asked what he will do next after being made aware BC Game will not release this $90,000 he is claiming. They have disputed the identity of the account holder (and expressed other concerns) which made them arrive at that conclusion. As the OP is not willing to engage with me, I will unwatch this thread and no longer participate in discussion.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the lawsuit claim should never have been made unless he was really willing to do it. Clearly, he was calling their bluff and it did not work. I can only state from experience that I do get very disappointed when reading claim about how the alleged victim of a current scam has wagered x$million on various casino/gaming sites yet they do not prove anything. Having said that, just because it could be proved someone has wagered $13 million it does not mean it provides evidence they are or are not telling the truth on this occasion. The OP has the option to complain to the Curacao licence authority (if he has not already done it) but what I would like the OP is this now he is aware BC Game will not give him the $90,000 he is claiming, apart from posting here with his complaint what exactly will he do next? Can I at least ask them to show evidences accordingly to their terms of service, of any failure from my side? We are talking about over $90.000 claim, so I'm not asking too much. More than "interpretations", physical evidences supported by their terms.
[CC: JollyGood] It's actually explained by them in between-lines, and been explained to you by me [in form of educated theory] throughout the entire thread, sealed by BC.Game Support's report of the video call. Initially, they suspected that your "mom" is performing KYC under duress, of which our suspicion gets stronger and stronger as the case and posts on this thread gets further and you show questionable traits, like the cluelessness of what "under duress" is about, that you basically has zero knowledge of your situation and surroundings when you took that KYC picture. But, to be short, from BC side, and about what violation you did, they suspected you trying to circumvent a restriction they put on you [the son], be it account limitation, self exclusion, account ban, falsifying ID, and the likes, that your mom shows duress because she performed that KYC against her will, i.e. you forced her. Bottom line, What violation you did: a possible attempt to circumvent account limitation and providing fake KYC. Physical evidence: the video call, where the "real player" [the mom] basically clueless about the game she's been playing for a while. What terms in the ToS related to it: I have them safely stored for you in my gallery, but I believe it'll be best to start make that lawyer of yours useful. Here's the link to their ToS, I believe he can ventured a very-well-educated guess of what violation you did. |
|
|
|
Well, the "borovichok" account is another one that was called out by me a very long time ago. I left the first neutral tag on his account in February 2022 therefore it took just over two years for his account to unravel but it still remains unknown what his connections are to the "Jasad" "CryptocurencyKing" accounts. It also remains unknown exactly how many accounts are in the farm operated by this super-spammer and compulsive liar. He probably thought if being a compulsive liar would bring him merits and with it a higher rank, he will do it. I can only imagine how much of a boost those 95 merits given to him a year ago when he fabricated the whole story about participating in charity events for Hal Finney: Hal Finney RUNNING BITCOIN- What was Bitcointalk contribution? $65k raised!. I also wonder how many members noticed his previous posting history as well as the neutral tag before giving him those merits as he chased the 500 merit mark. |
|
|
|
What happened to all of your posts from the time your account was created on 12th December 2017 and 24th January 2024? Your post history starts on 25th January 2024 and your are still a Member rank in all those years. Why did you delete your post history? Do you realise this will raise many question for any member that will start looking in to your account activity and start wondering why you took those steps? Back on topic, if you have BTC and your are going to hold it is your decision. A rational choice for other people could a different decision. Good for you. I hope you keep hold of your Bitcoin for a very long time and do not sell even when you get tempted to do so. So, your account was created in 2017 yet your posts start on 24th January 2024 and you have made 120 post since then. What happened to all your other posts. Furthermore, such as the effort you out in to creating the OP yet you returned to make just one post as a follow-up. It does look suspiciously like many other accounts out there that are trying to increase their rank by creating threads inviting members to respond yet when they do not receive merits they give up on the thread. Any comments? For me, holding BTC is not a coincidence, it is a rational choice! |
|
|
|
Thank you for the advice. One of things I do not do is take things too seriously. There was a time when I was searching for scams and posting about them almost 100% of my activity was in that board and during that time in 2017 I took things personally and used large fonts with aggressive words, I have been very calm over a number of years now no matter how the drama unfolds in the forum  You were spot on, he had ample chance I removed the negative trust but he did not change his ways. The second chance certainly failed in that instance but I am glad eventually his own behaviour led to his downfall. That very strange combination of what seems to be using AI and also allowing others to login and post on his account is something I cannot recall seeing before. Having said that, there is a serious matter about what the threshold is (or should be) for giving negative tags for those spamming with or without using AI. That is something that probably theymos needs to clarify if forum members cannot find consensus. The borovichok account even celebrated when three members excluded me stating: I'm glad my most recent instance provided him - 3 Votes.What will the members that either had reservations or opposition to the one negative tag I left on the borovichok account in January 2024 say now to the two members that left negative tags on the borovichok account in March 2024 for the same conduct? Don't take everything too personally, see it as it is. You gave him a red tag, many thought it was too harsh a punishment. That's why you gave him a second chance and removed the red tag, unfortunately, he didn't understand it and continued with his old habits. If he had arguments in his favour the first time, he certainly doesn't have them now. If out of ten similar cases, one user accepts his mistakes and adapts, then it is worth deleting the negative feedback and giving him a second chance. |
|
|
|
It does not matter if the amount in question is $3 or $300 or $3000, it is a matter of principle that you be paid if the work was completed as per the requirements. One of the most obvious questions to mind here. Why was a mutually agreed escrow not used when it would have been the safest way to ensure payment? This is a blatant scam. |
|
|
|
The powers that control financial channels and transactions will want to trace every transaction that does not involve a cash payments and they will find ways to do it. It has given every government (including the EU) a headache as they are trying to find ways to control crypto. The US has been busy with XRP, Binance, FTX, BTC ETF and now Ethereum. The EU is getting busy with their own agenda and I think it is clear they will regulate it. Good luck if it's true (it is true, just precisely how they want to regulate that will be anyone's guess). |
|
|
|
I have decided to unlock this thread because I noticed a new thread about the borovichok account using AI and subsequently discovered two members of the forum have given the borovichok account negative trust. When I gave him negative trust for the same thing albeit it was 10 weeks ago, it created an issue where the borovichok account began using every opportunity effectively citing the negative tag was unfair on the basis spamming and/or AI did not constitute a negative tag. Many forum members agreed in principle that AI use and spamming did not constitute a negative tag. The borovichok account even celebrated when three members excluded me stating: I'm glad my most recent instance provided him - 3 Votes.What will the members that either had reservations or opposition to the one negative tag I left on the borovichok account in January 2024 say now to the two members that left negative tags on the borovichok account in March 2024 for the same conduct? What is the message the same members now want to send out to those signature spamming, using AI and using others to login to their account and post on their behalf? |
|
|
|
You always ask me to prove and prove and prove. Why didn't you ever ask the owner/developer of Blackjack.fun to prove his accusations against me that I used the exploit to cheat him out of a large portion of the 24USDT I won? WHY didn't you ask him?
The owner/developer of Blackjack.fun could easily prove it with game logs and show all the forum members that I am a cheater and exploiter for peanuts! Why didn't he do it and why didn't you ask him? Isn't that strange and very questionable? They have already stated they will not elaborate on the fix probably because they do not want to give ideas to would-be hackers trying to find similar exploits in similar places. Still, I will relay your request in a post in this thread and ask them to prove they fixed the bug but I will only do it on the condition you first post here to explicitly state you have exploited the bug again and can prove them as liars. It would be so easy for him and I repeat myself as I have already explained it and since it is so easy and will tell everyone that I am telling the truth he just does not do it as he would look very bad with his blatant false accusation against me.
I used this exploit only once in the last tournament I participated in and the owner/developer of BJ fun banned me with letting me see the KYC page so I could not play anymore. he only needs to show the logs of my last tournament to prove how I used the exploit. I have already explained this a few times, so I will spare you and me from doing it again. And keeping all of what you have stated, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from attempting to exploit the bug again (if it exists). To be honest and neutral in this situation, I am more concerned about you not being able to prove the exploit still exists. Chronologically, first you stated there was an exploit and second they stated they fixed it. Any rational person that did not believe their reply about the exploit being fixed would not ask them to prove it, rather they would exploit the bug again (if it still existed) and then call them a liar with evidence. This is not specific to Blackjack.fun but to any casino/gaming website: Had the exploit not been patched, anybody in your position probably should have used their initiative to show the casino/gaming website as untrustworthy by proving the exploit was not fixed and in the process it would have ended their reputation in the forum. Do you realise you can effectively destroy their reputation as they will receive multiple red tags IF you can prove they are liars. I do not know about the exact process to execute in order to exploit the bug, nor does anybody else in this forum except you. The fact you are unable to prove they are liars yet maintain a line that they should prove to you they are telling the truth does not stack up. Still, I will relay your request in a post and ask them to prove they fixed the bug on the condition you explicitly state you will exploit the bug again and prove them as liars before I proceed. Please provide evidence of your claim too. @JollyGood for me personally you are a big disappointment and I am sure you do not care. same for me as I do not care about your postings and you are welcome as you mentioned my text color usage in my postings to give me a red trust rating for using too much red color.[/b][/color] No problem, if you see me as a big disappointment I am not concerned at your opinion of me because we do not know each other as we have not really interacted (beyond a few exchanges) in the years I have been using the forum. Though not necessary to state, I do care about the opinions of a very small number of members have about me and clearly you are not part of them. If you cannot post here to categorically state you have again exploited the bug and provide evidence to back it up, I will be unable to engage with you any further. @JollyGood
Just drop it. It makes no sense trying to communicate with this individual in a normal way. Actually, it makes no sense trying to communicate with him in any other way either. I definitely understand your point. I think I have tried to fair and neutral in this matter but the ball is in his court for the last time. If he does not provide evidence the exploit still exists I will stop responding to him and will have to use the ignore button. Let us see what happens when he posts next time. |
|
|
|
If a situation in real life allows the investor to hold for longer then it will be a good thing for the long term but I think we all know the plain fact is that no two situations are the same. Also, after the ATH it stands to reasons the price will fall therefore what will happen at that stage when people have to make difficult decisions? I wouldn't have said this but I am much more concerned about the fact that we have been hearing so many people talking about holding Bitcoin for the long term and never selling. I find it so confusing that after investing so much in Bitcoin for years we won't want to sell our bitcoin till we die.
I've been buying Bitcoin since last year when it dipped in December i know it's not long. Since then I have held my bitcoin firmly regardless of the price increase this year I still decided to sit on it. Although I do not have enough Bitcoin because I have little money then if I were to sell my holdings now I would have 3 times of I invested.
Also, I have the belief that Bitcoin will keep breaking new ATH forever. Should I leave my Bitcoin forever without selling it or set a goal that I have in mind and when it reaches that goal I sell and take my profits?
What do you do?
On what principles guide your actions in the realm of Bitcoin (BTC)?
|
|
|
|
They have stated the exploit is fixed but you want them to prove it is fixed. I am asking you to exploit the bug and prove it is not fixed. Why should they do as you ask when you do not do what I ask? If there is anything else that concerns you, I think the best way to get an understanding of what is going on here is by getting to the crux of the issue. What exactly are your issues or concerns with/about Blackjack.fun and can you list them one at a time like this: 1) 2) 3) Once we have a comprehensive understanding of your concerns, I am sure they will be addressed. Whether they have already been answered and accepted or not, or whether the answers will satisfy you or not is a different matter altogether but in order to get started you should list your queries/concerns in a legible format without using walls of text and multiple colours in bold font. JackpotRacer, you made an allegation of the exploit against Blackjack.fun and they have responded with a claim the exploit you mentioned was fixed. It will be near impossible for them for a variety of reasons to prove their claim to be true but there is nothing stopping you from exploiting the bug and thus proving they are liars. The problem with that is scenario is that you must use the exploit and you are not doing it.
sorry the answer is now longer as I thought.
@JollyGood, To be honest, I am not sure if I understood this paragraph of yours. Please be so kind as to explain what you mean. Nevertheless, I will try to answer according to my understanding.
The fact that Blackjack.fun said that they fixed the exploit does not mean that it is fixed. I can say this from my point of view and their past behavior.
If they really fixed it they can prove it. That they went private with the Tourneys and only for invites raises a red flag for me. They also did not in any form published if they started already those private tourneys and how many are interested and participating. Why should someone be able to check for this exploit if they do not know the exploit? I was the one who discovered it and I could easily check if it is fixed. But IMHO they are not interested in proving it. Sure, people will say they can do whatever they want and that is fine by me. |
|
|
|
This is a theory I never thought of before but it fits in with the bigger picture that they have many super spammers and low quality posters on their signature campaign and not only that, they have many members that have received multiple neutral and negative tags. Having said that, I would be more inclined to think that in this sort of scenario the campaign manager is the one that would be controlling the selection process therefore the company might be completely innocent and the whole problem was created as a smokescreen by the campaign manager as he runs the multiple accounts and takes the money for himself. Is that more probable in this case considering Stake is a massive enterprise and are not exactly short on cash for running campaigns? ~snip~
Another explanation may be that multiple people use the same account, or multiple accounts, which is why you can notice differences in his posts, in terms of writing style, grammar and AI usage. It's extremely evident in posts that he's expressing his opinion and in others that actually require some knowledge to answer, in terms of definitions, technical specifications etc.
I would be inclined to exactly that theory, considering that the manager wholeheartedly defends exactly such shitposters who could actually be part of the alt network that the company bought to promote itself on the forum. I wouldn't be surprised if they then hired one or more people to manage that network, and of course they use AI and paraphrasing to do their job. It is obvious that such a way of promoting pays off, because the investment in buying alt accounts is returned in the way that they do not actually pay unique members to advertise them. Unfortunately, apart from the persistent report such post and the hope that some of the global mods will react with a ban, red tags or flags are quite ineffective for such things. |
|
|
|
|
Just for a quick recap, if all the names of the associated accounts are compiled then this is what the complete list should appear as:
akbarharyadi8
asrinur
coklat gurih
cyberdg
Hagz
havi agasa
komisariatku
Maftukh
nyupangcoin
pentol86
PytagoraZ
razor92
tu_kang
Personally, I would not limit the total to the names mentioned above because once the can of worms is opened, it usually leads to surprises.
|
|
|
|
If they did have scam allegations they would probably lose the remaining customers. Unfortunately for Rocketpot, they never really had a huge pool of customers therefore how they survived for this long is a complete mystery. It does not seem as though they are losing customers rapidly, it seems a regular group of customers has stayed the course and they will stay with Rocketpot, the problem for the Rocketpot owners is the amount they are spending. What are the chances Rocketpot owe their customers any outstanding money? I doubt they are in debt otherwise scam accusations would have been made them on a regular basis. Agreed. It doesn't seem like they scammed anyone, but I don't think they will survive for much longer since it seems like they are losing customers rapidly. |
|
|
|
We are in agreement here, that is what he seems to be doing however he also voiced his opposition to icopress becoming merit source and that is where the two do not equate. No doubt he has been very generous with his merits to icopress but icopress did not ask for them. The question if asked in a general sense, would any merit source applicant be happy to receive merits from those opposing his application because they like work or would they prefer to read a post to indicate they are (or are not) supporting his application? Without doubt philipma1957 is being generous with his merits but from what I can see there is a huge contradiction in actions, that was why I stated that for me the two simply do not equate. I have read his post and cannot work out why you seem to have concluded anything from his comments equating to you giving merits to icopress (or anyone else) in order to support him. If I'm not wrong then it's a generous act by philipma1957 to support Icopress with merits so he may get some sMerits that he could send to the deserving posts. That's what came in my mind, I could be wrong but it's an act of generosity and support from philipma1957 I believe. If I'm not wrong then philipma1957 also believes that Icopress is doing great job for the forum and that could be another reason why he's sending those merits to Icopress. |
|
|
|
I cannot speak for others but as far as my own personal opinion is concerned, you can ask them (or any casino/gaming website) for any information related to your account but by now you should have been told the specific reasons BC Game have taken the view that they have. You are right, $90,000 is a lot of money but you have failed their verification process as posts today about them concluding the person in the video call was not the account holder, that also was a reason. From what can be seen, I think the video call demonstrated to BC Game there is something wrong with the account therefore they will not release the funds but you can ask them for evidence of where you breached the terms and conditions. Will you try to debunk each of their conclusions? Can I at least ask them to show evidences accordingly to their terms of service, of any failure from my side? We are talking about over $90.000 claim, so I'm not asking too much. More than "interpretations", physical evidences supported by their terms. |
|
|
|
Well, what you state is true in multiple ways. All the signs that are being sent out seem to amount them wanting to have a hold or control over citizens financial transactions as it helps monitor their activities. I find those restrictions counterproductive and would view them as taking steps backwards rather than embrace evolving (crypto) technology. The sad part about the legislation is that is will be covering the whole of the EU therefore the number of countries affected will be 27 with a combined population (as of 2020) of 450 million. Was it necessary for them to implement this law? I would say it was not. Gov want to know and control everything, as usual. World is becoming worse place
|
|
|
|
How long was the alleged battle? You created this thread on 15th March 2024 and claimed the issue was settled on 16th March 2024. In the original allegation you made various claims but you did not provide any proof. After that you claimed the issue was resolved in your favour yet again you did not provide any proof. How can anybody take you or your allegations seriously? After a long battle, everything is solved and got my money back. Went through a hell of verification and details! |
|
|
|
One of the striking things about the ban (which is scheduled to be enforced after three years) is that they are banning self custody wallets. How can they even enforce a ban on any citizen of the EU if they wish to download a wallet on their computer or phone? It will not even be practical. It seems to be another unnecessary obstacle put in the way of the crypto community which is designed to stifle the way it is growing: https://beincrypto.com/eu-bans-unidentified-self-hosted-crypto/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
