Electrum is not synonymous for cold wallet, but the software can be used both as a cold or a hot storage solution. It's never a cold wallet if used on an everyday computer that is connected to the internet. But it works on an airgapped and cleanly formatted system that can't connect to the internet any longer. 

FTX wasn't the first exchange that created major drama for its users and it will certainly not be the last one. People didn't learn before, and I don't think they will learn now. There are plenty of folks going: I am so glad I kept my coins on KuCoin, Binance, etc., and not on FTX. And that's the problem. If it doesn't affect them personally, they don't consider it too big of an issue and see no reason to change their behavior. 

Some don't consider hardware wallets as cold wallets. Then again, they don't consider them as hot wallets either. They are somewhere in the middle. Unless airgapped, they rely on an internet connection for normal functioning, but some are equipped with chips that provide a safe enclosure for your keys and sensitive information.     

I am glad you are still thinking of new ways to engage the community and having them play interesting games. At the same time, I am severely disappointed not to see my name in the mix yet. Shame on you.
But when that time comes, I expect my name to pop up in big golden colors with diamonds and lambos in the background. 

Ask them a direct and precise question about what is troubling them about bitcoin the currency or Bitcoin the network. Then listen for their answers. If you recognize misinformation, correct it and explain why the opinion they have is wrong. Offer examples and supporting arguments to show them the truth. You are going to have to be prepared well. If you think you can do that, good. If you don't believe you have the needed knowledge, you could just make things worse and distance them further away from Bitcoin if they win those oral arguments.   

Having fun with it is one thing. But I don't think OP had a practical joke on his mind when he created his second account.

Gambling is flawed and winners are undesirable.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/mma/ufc-president-dana-white-explains-27741324

I can say the same thing. If you consider using multiple accounts as a workaround to betting limits, then there is something wrong with you and your interpretation of what is fair and what isn't. I am not protecting them. I just don't agree with you and your way of understanding fair usage. I think you knew exactly what you wanted to do but it didn't work. Or maybe it worked for a while until they figured it out. This last part is again speculation based on the support admins answer where he thanked you for giving back a part of the money you allegedly took from the casino.

That's again your interpretation of events. Mine is different and that's why we don't see eye to eye. You think your multi-accounting was cute and innocent fun, I think it was a well thought out move to get greater betting limits, wager more than allowed, and win more.

That we agree on. No matter what decision was taken, they should explain what they think happened and why they did what they did.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Show me where you asked their support if you are allowed to use multiple accounts to circumvent set betting restrictions and they said it's fine to do that!

The reasons and purposes for the multi-accounting is the question, not if it is or it isn't allowed. You didn't ask them the right questions, so they couldn't have given you the correct answers that apply to the way you wanted to use your betting accounts. That screenshot from your friend has nothing to do with your case.

I don't think fair has anything to do with it. Life isn't fair. Limiting and restricting winning players is something that traditional fiat bookies do as well simply because they like taking your money, not giving it to you. That's not fair, I don't like it, and I don't agree with it. It's still happening though. It's their business and their rules sadly.

Maybe OP isn't telling us the whole story. Remember the Razer admin (or whatever his name is) saying something like thanks for depositing part of the money back to us. OP could have been doing this for longer than he cares to admit. I am just speculating of course.

It would be clearer, sure. I still see it as an abusive way to try to get around betting restrictions the provider set on your account and you as a person. The first account got limited. The reasons why don't matter. Just that it did. OP noticed it, so he created a new account to bet more than he could with his first account. How is that not abuse or attempted abuse? Imagine there is a raffle on the forum. It's available for everyone except legendary members and their alts. So to participate in that raffle, you enroll your Loyce mobile account. Didn't you try to cheat and abuse the system by doing that?

I am not sure what you mean. If you both have limited accounts that you are aware of and you registered new accounts to circumvent those restrictions, you have both attempted to cheat and use your accounts in "nefarious" ways. If you didn't have a previous limited account or attempted to wager above a maximum allowed betting amount, then you are good to go.

An altcoin or possibly a shitcoin can prove to be an expensive lesson for you long-term. But if that is what you want, be ready to suffer any consequences as well. You can always use sites like CoinGecko or CoinMarketCap to check what other exchanges that asset is trading on. Maybe you will have more luck there than on Kucoin.

Yeah, that's one way to do it. Bitcoin would be the obvious choice, but you will lose out on withdrawal fees when you make the transaction from Coinbase/Binance to Kucoin. Maybe something like USDT on Tron is better and cheaper to move. Also pay attention to the trading pair that is available on KuCoin for the coin you want to purchase. Each trade requires paying maker/taker fees as well, so you will lose a bit on that as well.

Proof of Reserve, Proof of Liquidity, or whatever nonsense they end up inventing shouldn't change the fact that people are using exchanges in the wrong way. Their use case is self-explanatory, just look at the name - exchange. If you insist on using a CEX then deposit to it, perform your exchange, and withdraw your coins from it and into a well-known non-custodial wallet. It's that simple and yet people fail to do it. 

These platforms that have started providing "proof" are vultures taking advantage of the current situation and looking to eat up as much as they can while the streets are still filled with meat and blood. They have seen a chance to increase their customer base with those left unsatisfied by other centralized platforms and now they are showing off.   

There is no announcement on the landing page, but if you click on "Exchange", it will take you to https://ftx.us/home. And on the top, there is a big warning in red saying that trading could be stopped in a few days. Anyone with active buy/sell orders should close their positions. They also state that withdrawals are and will remain open. If someone wants to take their word for it, that's their choice. I know I wouldn't at this stage.

I know exactly what being limited means and that was my point this whole time. Your first account got limited to restrict you to bet no more than X on sports, so you created a second one to get greater limits and bet XXX. That is the reason for account closure. The first account wouldn't allow you to wager $10.000 because of the limits, and you wanted to do it through the second one. Whether or not you succeeded, I don't know. You say you didn't, but the intention was clearly there.

I don't think it was fine to do it. It could surely be considered a nefarious use of their services.

Thanks for the suggestions. I definitely need to take some time and go through the Gambling and Gambling Discussion boards to look for new threads that can be added to the tables. I liked your first suggestion and added "The History Of Gambling" to the OP. Good work!

I don't understand. You wrote that you saw a chance to gamble with bigger amounts even if you got limited. Why did you need a second account, and why couldn't the wagers be placed from only one account? 
Why the second account? What was wrong with your primary account? I personally find it suspicious that you express a willingness to gamble with bigger amounts (than you should) and you state that having multiple accounts would allow you to do that in case you got limited, and then you got limited for some abuse (apparently) but you claim you never did anything wrong.

These bets must have been placed with the first account you had on the casino because you state that you got limited as soon as you opened and deposited the $10.000 on your second account. Same question as previously, if everything was OK with your first account, why the need to bet with a new one?

So you admit there were issues with your first account? It got limited, you cashed out your winnings, and after that you created a second account. Is that the sequence of events?

Uskoro počinje nova signature i avatar kampanja za Betnomi pa evo i par informacija i o njoj.

Menadžer je dobro-poznati icopress.
Kampanja je otvorena za Senior, Hero i Legendary članove.
Može se prijaviti za signature+avatar ili samo za avatar kampanju.

U signature kampanji se plaća 0.0001 BTC po postu.
Avatar kampanja je fiksna na 0.001 BTC tjedno.

- Betnomi plaća za maksimalno 25 postova tjedno. Nema minimalnog broja postova kojeg se mora napisati.
- Prihvataju se postovi u lokalnim forumima.
- Postovi moraju biti najmanje 160 znakova ili duži.

Početak kampanje bi trebao biti 14 Novembar.

No, not needed. 90% of those should just be wiped from existence. We have reached a point where it needs to become harder for douchebags to create scam projects supported by fake shittokens whose only use case is to take Bitcoin and other established alts out of your pockets and put them in the pockets of said douchebags. A bit of regulation for altcoins is definitely coming. 

I am applying only for the avatar campaign.

Username: Pmalek
BTC SegWit Address: bc1qctu8vc2jlffxy62jz3m8h5ynex9jqwen8e985q (will be changed to a new address if accepted).

Edit: I would like to reserve this avatar:

You want to know where their parents and siblings live as well?

You can get information about the company on their About page. LocalBitcoins is a company registered in Finland. The Finnish Financial Supervisory is the regulator. The link on LocalBitcoins leads to the regulator's official website, which is https://www.finanssivalvonta.fi/en/. Get in touch with them if you believe your rights were violated.   

Whenever you see terms that can be interpreted in two different ways, where one way favors the casino and the other favors the player, and it's a 50/50 kind of a situation, be sure that they are going to use those terms against you if they can. Just forget about it and go elsewhere.

No matter what the FAQs say, no matter what the support says, no matter what other players or the community says, I believe the player should never have created multiple accounts to increase their betting limits. 

Oh, ok. I didn't know that.

I didn't mean disappear with your money and take it from the users. They said that their scheme and implementation isn't compatible with anything else. So if you set up a social recovery option on AirGap, Airgap is the only software that works with that system. Electrum is open-source, but you can no longer connect old versions to Electrum servers. It's for your own security, but I am just making a point.

My question is what is going to happen with a scheme that is incompatible with any software/hardware wallet we know today if tomorrow everybody at AirGap abandons ship and the wallet simply dies? I got the answer that someone would have to create their own software supporting the social recovery feature and hope it works. That's what I expected to hear as well. 

That's what private and non-custodial wallets are for. Not a primary or secondary account on a centralized service such as an online casino or an exchange where the "vaulted" money can be taken away from you at any time.

That was a member of their support team. I am talking about the person representing them on Bitcointalk. The account you linked to under "Scammers Profile Link". Rollbitcom should be made aware of this accusation.

Update:
- Information about Neodice has been added to the table in the OP.

Well, that's the thing. Anyway they want to. It's up to them to decide if what the player does is nefarious. Accepting the terms means agreeing to all of them. And one of the points is that they can close an account for any reason they want. It's bullshit, it's wrong, but hey, gamblers decided that traditional fiat casinos weren't good enough. In that case, enjoy the "safe wild wild west" of crypto gambling. Since OP's account got locked, it's safe to assume that his use of multiple accounts was considered as nefarious.

There aren't many valid reasons to be honest. One I can think of is if you lose access to your 1st account or you get it hacked and you can no longer gamble from it. If the associated email is gone as well, you will have no way to recover it. Maybe the support can help, but who knows? Creating a new account in this case would be a justified reason.


No, I don't think that's what it means. I don't think that second part cancels out the previous one. They go into more details regarding the reasons why accounts can be locked, and that's where they mention bonus abuse and those other examples. But the restriction for creating accounts for "nefarious purposes" is still there. 

That's got nothing to do with your case. That's about things like match fixing, wrong odds, open markets for betting when they should be closed, etc. Let's say you are watching a football match and a team scores a goal, but the betting provider fails to close the markets in time due to human error, and that allows you to still submit bets in a situation where the result has changed and all betting should be disabled. If that happened, the casino would have the right to cancel and void such bets.

I don't think you should have used your accounts in this way. Btw, have you reached out to Rollbit's forum account and informed them to comment in this thread? I think you should do that. I am also going to tag LoyceV in this post. I like the way he thinks and how he analyzed some other situations in the past involving scams and abuses. @LoyceV, whenever you get a chance...