I have read your feedback and can say I am not surprised at your request to promote known scammers such as 1xbit. To be fair to them they should consider hiring forum members with your reputation because you have the credentials they are seeking.

Having said that, I think it is safe to say your account will not be considered by any reputable campaign manager to promote any professional business.

The next round of ticket sales is on 5th July 2022 but last week FIFA announced they have sold 1.8 million tickets for Qatar World Cup.

The sport is massive on a global stage and having the world cup tournament in November will be a first but it did not dent international demand and expectations: https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup/story/4692241/qatar-world-cup-fifa-sells-18-million-tickets-for-2022-tournament

Do you have evidence to back up your claim? I have never heard any member connecting these two exchanges as being operated by the same team. It seems highly unlikely you have anything of substance therefore I would not mention that again as it would only detract from any other comments you might be making.

Making wild accusations does not help the situation.

Well surely that same principle could be applied to many different financial models.... Sell it to make a profit or keep it. What is new in that?

You are wrong.... bitcoin does have as much intrinsic value as you would like to put on it. For example, what would you do with your $10, £10 or €10 notes if you could never sell them? By you alluding to bitcoin being some sort of ponzi scheme clearly indicates you have a very limited understanding of what bitcoin is.

Here are the main transfers in the summer transfer window:

ARSENAL
Matt Turner - New England - £5.7m
Marquinhos - Sao Paulo   - £3m
Fabio Vieira   - Porto - £31.5m


ASTON VILLA
Philippe Coutinho - Barcelona - £18m
Boubacar Kamara - Marseille - Free
Diego Carlos - Sevilla - £27.9m
Robin Olsen   - Roma - 3.1m


LEEDS UNITED
Brenden Aaronson - RB Salzburg - £29.5m
Rasmus Kristensen - RB Salzburg - £10.8m
Marc Roca - Bayern Munich - £10.8m


LIVERPOOL
Darwin Nunez - Benfica - £86m
Fabio Carvalho - Fulham - £5.3m
Calvin Ramsay - Aberdeen - £4.4m


MANCHESTER CITY
Erling Haaland - Borussia Dortmund - £51.3m
Stefan Ortega - Arminia Bielefeld - Free


NEWCASTLE UNITED
Sven Botman - Newcastle - £33.3m
Nick Pope - Burnley - £10.3m
Matt Targett - Aston Villa - £15.75m


NOTTINGHAM FOREST
Taiwo Awoniyi - Union Berlin - £18.5m
Giulian Biancone - Troyes - £9m
Dean Henderson - Manchester United - loan


SOUTHAMPTON
Gavin Bazunu - Manchester City - £12.6m
Armel Bella-Kotchap - Bochum - £9m
Mateusz Lis - Altay - Free


TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR
Yves Bissouma - Brighton - £25m
Richarlison - Everton - £60m
Ivan Perisic - Inter Milan - Free
Fraser Forster - Southampton - Free
Josh Keeley - St Pat's - Undisclosed


WEST HAM UNITED
Nayef Aguerd - Rennes - £31.5m
Alphonse Areola - PSG - £8.4m


WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS
Hee-chan Hwang - RB Leipzig - £15m
Adama Traore - Barcelona - loan deal ended

I was not been a big fan of  Best Change when they first came to this forum with their signature campaign, it took a very long time for me to give them credit on that front. Their very long standing signature campaign (which is still running) with virtually no complaints against their forum representative for delayed payments etc should not be conflated with the actual business Best Change are conducting.

They are listing entities on their website and receiving remuneration for referrals therefore have a responsibility towards all customers that are arriving on the Best Change website only to be directed away when affiliate links are clicked. The danger was always going to be in the event any of those affiliated exchanges were to enforce a KYC/AML scenario on customers and if customers lost out financially who would actually be at fault.

Best Change have had accusation of their conduct raised in the past and I would still advise caution when using their website because once a customer has moved from the Best Change website to an affiliate exchange, it is the exchange that decides how to treat the customer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217470.msg53617135#msg53617135

Ultimately, I think Best Change are partly responsible for any financial loss customers incur as a result of directing users to their affiliate websites. Those customers would not have been diverted to (and maybe never would have found) the affiliate exchanges had they not been listed on the Best Change website. As for the exchanges themselves, the very low rates of scam allegations against them (via Best Change) means thankfully this is still at very low levels. In the case you mentioned, why was the exchange not removed for their listing?

By them writing "Reliable and Trusted" on their website it does not relieve them of moral and ethical responsibilities towards customers. I wonder if any of those that are part of the Best Change signature campaign will look in to this and ask Best Change for an explanation.

The poll is much closer than I would have imagined. Right now 66.7% are going for a Usyk win whereas 33.3% are going for a Joshua win and that confuses me because there seems to a belief that Joshua just might be able to overcome Usyk.

I see Joshua having zero chance against Usyk but the poll shows 20 votes in favour of Usyk and 10 votes for Joshua. I hope there more participants in the vote in the coming days.

Usyk looks like a man on a mission with the support of the world behind him:

As the image link you posted was not showing the image I have posted it here in order for others to see it with ease.

The question arises, why would you play at the 1xbit scammers website when they have such a torrid reputation?

It is easy to post here after they have scammed or attempted to scam you but you should have avoided their website from the very beginning.

He has not logged in to the forum since 4th June 2022 and that really says it all. When people create accounts only to make scam allegations but cannot be bothered to even log back in to reply or to acknowledge those that replied in the thread, then it shows there is no point in any member looking in to the allegation.

Others have posted about scam allegations and stayed the full course until some sort of resolution was found but the OP decided otherwise.

It had been quite some time since I last posted in this thread. I found an image that I intended to post to but never got round to doing it. It just so happened I was on the website back months ago and waited around for a few minutes to see what was happening... then this happened:

572x winning on Crash does not happen every day.... or does it?

This whole incident has brought you nothing but a lot of stress and unhappiness while at the same time it has destroyed the reputation of a little known crypto exchange that had potential to remain a tiny but important player for a European customer base. Thanks to the conduct by their chief operators they are never going to recover.

Eventually when they return the funds to you, there will be no winners here. The number of years you have waited and are still waiting for your funds in unacceptable. Likewise the number of years Rock Trading has seen the brand name being dragged through the dirt has been damaging too.

I cannot fault you for any of this and am laying all the blame at the Rock Trading CFO (eliale). He could have cleared up this mess a long time ago but seems to have been out to carrying out his vendetta against you. He can still fix this situation fast but is refusing to.

What you said is correct if it is based on them being scammers. Right now, I have not seen anything concrete to suggest Rocketpot are scammers. I think regarding the previous issues they had when a forum member was trying to withdraw her bankroll but was facing difficultly but eventually did do it - even that time I think there could have been more to the situation on part of Rocketpot. Maybe there have been financial issues for a long time because they are not exactly a big website with huge wagers being placed and huge traffic coming their way.

I hope Rocketpot do not eventually scam the OP.

Unfortunately for the 1xbit scammers, their reputation is in tatters. Every time a user on their website loses he has the option to claim it was as scam and this is directly as a result of the way the 1xbit have conducted themselves here. There have been moments where Adkinsbet and Betking were among those receiving a lot of news for scamming their users but the longest consistency for negative news has to be with the 1xbit/1xbet/kawbet scammers.

Sending any funds to them equates to losing them, it is that simple that is why they carry the reputation they have.

This is an excellent move by you to show the same courtesy that LTC Casino have shown you. After you withdraw all your funds it will be the perfect times for both you and LTC Casino to move on from this issue.

That would be the ideal thing to do but to really only do that after he has received all his claimed funds from LTC Casino. If those that left negative tags and supported the flags did so because the OP asked for support, then they should also revise/remove the negative trust and withdraw support for the flag if the OP asks them to.

I also would recommend for all interested parties to do the same, they should only withdraw their support for the flags and remove/revise negative trust on the basis the OP has received all 1496 LTC.

It was great to see the community get together to take an interest in this case and it was equally great to see the way LTC Casino conducted themselves while a mutually acceptable solution was sought out.

From what I recall, their representative was their owner/operator and he was fairly active in the initial stages of the Rocketpot website going live but then posted more and more intermittently. Then there was the issue of bankroll investors being delayed for unacceptable periods while trying to withdraw and even then he posted here very irregularly.

I think the Rocketpot owner probably concluded that he is not really getting traffic to his website as a result of this forum and decided to focus less of his time here.

If the OP does not have any news to update within the next couple of days I would definitely support a flag and would leave Rocketpot negative trust but for now he should afford them time and be patient especially after they have stated they are in the process of allowing him to withdraw his funds with daily limits based on their Terms and Conditions.

I have always advocated caution when dealing with Rocketpot because of the manner in which the owner/operator was conducting himself. It was not that long ago when

I am not not saying Rocketpot is an out-and-out scam or has even scammed in the past but I have to say all the foundations are in place (as are with almost every other similar websites) for them to exit scam is they so chose to. I mentioned before a long time ago in one of my posts that Rocketpot has the potential to be a mainstream website in the crypto community because the layout is easy on the eye, it is user friendly and has a variety to choose from. None of these things make it better than competitors by default but the owner/operator worked hard on the layout and deserves credit.

I do not know why the crash game was removed, maybe he simply wanted to remove the bankroll because it was not as successful as he had hoped and did not want the responsibility and opted to concentrate on the affiliate/3rd party games instead but if he carries out a strategic marketing campaign there is so much potential there to exploit.

I hope Rocketpot resolves the situation as mentioned in the $170,000 scam allegation and then tries to maximise the benefits that the Rocketpot website can bring him. There is always more than a chance that Rocketpot is effectively insolvent therefore cannot pay the winnings. We will see how this plays out in the coming days.

What would I say and what impact would my say-so have on the current situation?

To be honest with you eddie, there is an unhelpful movement within the forum where some members who find themselves in certain situations decide to use the PM route for their own particular agenda. I am unsure what Royse777 would gain from showing PMs to certain members in order to demonstrate (using an unknown barometer), that she was not a scammer amongst other things. For example, if several forum members registered to play at a website that I was promoting and things went completely pear-shaped, what good would it do to the community if you and several others stated you had seen various PMs from me and were advocating I was not a scammer? Likewise, what good would it do to the community if after receiving the PMs you and several other members decided to not comment at all or to state the PMs were doctored?

Royse777 would probably not even consider sending me the PMs probably because I am one to extensively analyse various bits of information and maybe because I am known to have very little sympathy towards those who should know better. Keeping that aside, we have not always seen eye to eye and have had issues in the past. I recently removed her from my exclusion list only to re-add her a short time later because of the Bitlucy drama.

Even now to this point there is some degree of sympathy for her because of the situation she finds herself in but after reading the scam allegation thread and the come clean thread, has everything really been said and done? It seems as though several facts and vital bits of information are not being put in the public domain by Royse777.

Returning to what you said about me being sent the PMs... I doubt I will be sent any of the private correspondence (between Bitlucy and Royse777) to peruse.

I think we should agree to disagree on the issue of you saying not having evidence can suffice in almost every case. In general, some evidence is needed before a serious conclusion can be made but I am inclined to partly agree with you when you say that Royse777 did know users were likely to get scammed and nothing for a period of time. In my own opinion that period of time (the interim of being aware users would most probably lose financially and her actually saying so and taking action) cannot be mitigated at all...  but others disagree with my view and they have just as much right to their opinion as I have a right to mine.

As for the trade-risk comment you made, I broadly agree with it but with my own perspective added for consideration that is why I left the negative tag. In my opinion the flag should have stayed, I supported it along with others yet on the other hand others opposed it. The one who created the flag decided to withdraw it (as he was well within his rights to do so) but each member has their opinion how to conduct themselves in this highly unusual set of circumstances: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632;page=iflags

Your final comment about PMs should not be specific to Royse777 but could be applied generally to any form of issue where evidence or communication was presented. From what I understand the situation to be (based on what I have read), I am fairly certain you are wrong because Royse777 was not sending PMs to herself using multiple accounts in order to use as a defence if/when a scam was to ever take place. On the contrary, it seems fairly clear she was duped in to participating in the Bitlucy facade but questions about the full extent of her involvement in the business and the extent of the relationship between her and the Bitlucy owner - are open to debate because she has not made all the details public.

Out of curiosity, how much of the decision to pull the plug on the project was down to there being dwindling finances?

Well, I have to say from what I recall you seem very talented in your code related tips, advice, comments and contributions in the forum therefore how much of the project not proceeding was simply a side effect because you were no longer a part of it? I would not be surprised if you were carrying the bulk of the workload which resulted in you being the main catalyst therefore that probably played a massive part.

I hope in the near future your skills will be put to good use in a different project where your talents will be showcased to their maximum potential.

I think what you said is particularly effective when the word reputation comes in to play as it does in this case: Royse777 reputation

If any member of the forum was in a situation such as this, they should try to post as much evidence as possible to show they were innocent (or post enough evidence to demonstrate they were at the very least culpable by minimal involvement because they were not involved in the technical, financial decision making and business side of running the website).

What breach of what code takes place when a scam is involved? Once a scam has taken place there is no need for anybody to withhold PMs unless there is sensitive information stated within them but still can be redacted before making it public. If I was scammed by someone in this forum which resulted in losses to third parties that put their trust in me, I would do exactly what you just stated FatFork, I would publish the PMs trying to explain to the wider forum what happened because it would not be unethical to post them in those circumstances.

Regarding other comments here about PMs, I do not know why Royse777 or any other member in her situation would release PMs to a select few members and not the whole forum after such a big debacle but there might be important factors behind it. Having said that, when it comes to things such as these, personally I am highly sceptical by nature and am not easily convinced nor impressed. As I said, maybe there were important thing Royse77 wanted to keep away from a wider audience but why show it to a select few and what was to gain from hiding it from the rest of the community?

I can see several members here that have been highly critical of Royse777 and have very little sympathy for her because of the manner in which she conducted herself in this Bitlucy drama therefore what was the reason she decided to not send identical PMs to those members? Or better still, why not post identical information openly in the forum?

As for those that seem to be claiming the Royse777 and Bitlucy relationship was far more than has been stated, I would say that I still have seen zero evidence to suggest that Royse777 intended to scam therefore I disagree with the conspiracy theorists who probably have their own agenda to make those claims against her... but by making certain members privy to certain information is something that makes this drama look even more of a mess than it already is and that sort of behaviour something I would never advocate.

Ah Welsh, you made a point that I overlooked entirely. If posts get deleted in self-moderated threads then yes the root issue is not known to moderators therefore having them reported have their own benefits for the forum admin and moderators to look at the wider problem.

The downside is that on many occasions actions by moderators have taken days to either merge posts or remove them. Self-moderated thread creators can get twitchy in the interim  

I think I will try to do that, instead of just deleting spammers I will report them and wait for moderators to take action unless the posts are from users that are promoting scams or alike. (Those are really related to the sports threads I created in the gambling section).

Ruiz definitely has lightening fast hands and that caused Joshua problems when he was knocked out by Ruiz. In the rematch, Ruiz was not in his best shape because of the partying and late nights, he stated later his weight was not ideal and he was training half-heartedly. In all honesty, how many of us can say a fully fit and focused Ruiz would have lost to a fully fit and focused Joshua in the rematch?

Have to agree, Usyk is on a completely different level that is why Joshua is not being given much hope of winning.

I commented the same. Ever since Ruiz knocked him out, Joshua seems to be making a different fight where he avoids going for the knockout punches. He avoids brawls instead trying to keep some distance - that is strange to see. If Joshua does come out swinging trying to disrupt Usyk then yes definitely it will make it an interesting fight otherwise Usyk will dominate the fight and Usyk will retain the belts he won in the first fight.

I mentioned before, I think Usyk will win by knockout within 4-5 rounds. Usyk looks in absolutely stunning shape when he was filmed practising in the ring with his trainer. He is completely focused on the fight showing nothing at all in fear and has a complete desire to win. I feel sorry for Joshua because Usyk looks far more dangerous than he did when they met last year.