I think the entire point is you can't. You are missing proof of access to the account's 2fa email address. Wait the 2 weeks for it to be reset. If you're telling the truth and it's your account, you'll have no issue.

I'm really not sure what else you think you can gain by arguing here. You could probably have had a more productive conversation by proposing rule changes to the reset 2fa email system, but now you've effectively forced Daniels hand. If he makes a special exemption for you, he'll establish precedent that if you t that will be used by every social engineer'er out there to bypass the standard security procedure by trying to create drama and level baseless accusations.

Your other option, of course, is the legal system. You could speak to a lawyer about compelling Apis N.V. with specific action. I am skeptical you can get anything to happen within 2 weeks, but the option for recourse is there if you feel wronged. Might want to add-in damages too, see if the legal system agrees with you or not 

Maybe just google it?



It's quite common for people to ask for a payment to be done by sending it to their bustabit account. Just because you can prove you did the payment, doesn't necessarily prove you own the account. For example, I could send money to your deposit address and sign a message proving I made the deposit (after all, I know how to do that). But that wouldn't make me the owner of your account.


No, a closer analogy would be "Just because you fucked a wife, doesn't mean she is your wife"

Heh. Why would the time matter? The policies exist for a reason.

Reminds me of when I used to run the site, I once bent the rules for someone because it was "obviously" them (same computer, same ip address, minutes after creating the account, etc.) and as soon as I did that, they emailed me on another email address claiming that they were hacked by their brother using the same shared computer. Since I was the idiot for bending the rules, and had no way to know if it really was a "brother" hacking them on the "shared computer" or not, I gave them the full account balance as compensation (1 btc at the time).

A good reminder of why we can't have nice things, and why rules are not broken.


There's no established standard for proofing it's your wallet like that. First of all, you'd need to sign a message from the funding address(es), not send another transaction. Secondly, just because you funded the account doesn't mean it's your account.

I would assume your scam allergy would make you appreciate account security taken seriously. But either way, I don't see how it matters.


Yeah, that's totally it.  



I am pretty sure it does, doesn't it?

Me too. I divested most of my investment (in BaB at least, increased BaD a little) and it's been interesting tracking the bankroll. Like March 24 and June 27 you saw some pretty large investments ( 154 and 131 btc, respectively).  I guess it shows that one mans poor returns are another mans good returns.

It also makes me kind of think that privately funded bankrolls are almost silly. If you can get your whole bankroll paid for, and be paying only like ~15% commission .... almost seems silly to not do that.

I guess Daniel should do a better job at explaining why he's making you wait the 2 weeks. Over the years people have never-endingly being trying to hack each others accounts. Sometimes it's even successful, as one one hand you want to do something simple like "all correct password attempts result in a login" but on the other hand, you have people constantly giving out their passwords (?!), downloading malware, sharing their physical computers with scammers, etc.

The email 2fa system is nice, because most email providers have their own advanced security and its much harder to trick someone to giving access to their email than their gambling account. It's obviously not perfect, and there's some edge cases. Like forgetting the email address you used and not being able to click the verification link. To accommodate them, I think Daniel is being very reasonable by forcing a two-week wait, which would give the real owner a chance to stop the account take over if that was the case.

I guess the part people don't see, is the whole account security is designed around a number of theoretical and actual attacks (e.g. malware, account sharing, computer sharing...). As soon as you use "common sense" to reset passwords/emails, you invalidate a lot of the design decisions. And not to mention granting exemptions just creates a whole niche for social-engineers to try abuse or use public-pressure to abuse.

So I'd recommend for your own sanity, you just forget about it and set a reminder for 2 weeks.  If you don't have your money then, you'll have some grounds to actually cry foul. If it's any consolation, I bet there's well over a hundred million dollars being stored on bustabit accounts.  If Daniel wasn't taking account security so seriously, it'd be a lot more concerning to me.



I don't see why the amount is relevant. If it was 6 euro, or 6 million euro  ... you'd expect the same level of security procedures to be followed?

I never claimed to be a coding master, so I'm not sure why Bustafish thinks it's a point against me.

Regardless, it's kind of funny as I coded large parts of the very source code he's using (including the entire provably fair system). Because it was open source, there were lots of contributions (by people following the actual AGPLv3 license). I was the person who screened all those PRs and analyzed them carefully for bugs (catching several critical security vulnerabilities before it got live), which frankly can be harder than writing code.

But, to be fair, the code is pretty low-quality, written like 6 years ago, and was written as fast as possible to see if bustabit-as-a-concept had legs. When it proved to be the case, I did a from-the-ground-up rewrite of literally every single component (and it's easily x10 as good) with all the lessons I learnt and sold that as bustabit v2 (which is currently live). And full credit to Daniel for doing an excellent job at fixing some tricky bugs I couldn't solve, maintaining it and adding new features since that.

I'm no coding wizard, I just neglected a lot of my own personal life in order to pump out a lot of functioning code. At one point I was literally spent months without a break coding 10h/day on top a few extra hours of support/community management for another few hours a day, 7 days a week

---

Anyway, I think it's clear that Bustafish is violating the AGPLv3 license. I'm not sure it even matters, he literally hasn't even got a single person to deposit onto the site. lol.

The /stats page normally would show how many deposits the site has:
https://github.com/kungfuant/webserver/blob/master/server/database.js#L895

but he removed that, because it would show 0. Unfortunately he wasn't smart enough to remove the "net", so we can easily see:





lmao

Glad someone picked up on that 

Oh wow, I think that conclusively proves Dean hasn't changed his ways.   I almost wonder if he's just trolling, as surely he knows it's pretty hard to scam people multiple times, he might be a scammer but he's not an idiot

I've gone through the process of getting a couple gaming licenses, and I agree with your premise. They're all bullshit and most are just a way for the regulator to make some money, and often the whole gaming regulation is prop'd up by the established gaming companies as a way to increase the barrier to entry. And even the rare jurisdiction that cares about the "fairness" of your game never actually audits to have any level of assurances that are doing what you claim you're doing.

FWIW Costa Rica isn't a license, rather their laws don't prohibit you operating an online casino (as long as you're not serving Costa Ricans).


The only good thing, I'd say, is they prove the entity spent a fair bit of money on the process, so they're probably not a fly-by-night operation. And if they ever did scam you, you'd have some level of recourse through the legal system to try get their identity and take them to court.

---

That said, the vast majority of casinos aren't in the business of screwing their customers. The odds are already in the houses' favor. My advice is to find an online casino with a good reputation, and just totally ignore any gaming license nonsense. And be your own auditor. Play at provably fair casinos, and actually make an effort to check the results.

Are you trying to say that because you've made absolutely zero changes to the bustabit source, so you don't need to follow the clause of the AGPLv3 to make your changes available?

This is clearly not the case, because at the very least you've made some minor changes (homepage change, background color change, you've changed "bustabit" to "bustafish"). It doesn't matter how minor your changes are, the AGPLv3 requires you to follow the license.

And I'm also going to quote you on this:

So you've obviously made changes to the script, and the AGPLv3 requires you must prominently offer all users the new source code.

I was, like 3 (?) years ago. Now I have nothing to do with it


Ok. Look at the license of that:

https://github.com/Dexon95/Bustabit/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Notice how it says:



You are not doing that. That is why you are in violation of the license

I know most people are going to stay away from betking.io because it's run by a scammer, but perhaps, for the right person it's not an interesting proposition. Some gamblers know they're going to play until they lose all their money, so for those people it could add a bit of spice and extra-dimensionality of how exactly you're going to lose all your money on betking.


But in all seriousness, I think Dean Nolan is too smart to think he can create a successful casino after using the last one to scam people. I think this whole thing is just to whitewash his reputation by creating a more confusing story and a faux attempt to pay back people

The license says:


Are you doing that? FWIW, I couldn't find a copy of the modified source code via a "simple google search". Perhaps you could directly link me, and prominently offer all users a link to it as well?  

You said you're using the `AGPLv3` licensed copy of bustabit source code. One of the requirements of AGPLv3 is that you make all your changes part of the same license and available to download. So, may I ask, where can I get a copy of the bustafish.com source code?

To add to what GamblingSiteFinder wrote, I'd also point out that in the ol' days public stats were the norm, while these days they're the exception. Also you might want to weight the bet by the USD price at the time, a lot of the old stats were when bitcoin price was a fraction of what it is now. And thirdly, I'd completely ignore the raw "bet count" as 99.999% of all bets are just dust bets by bots and often is uncorrelated with actual activity.

tldr; Dean systematically scammed everyone who trusted him. First tried ripping off Daniel by not paying the software license fee (and then after called out, pretended he rewrote the software in like a week, lol). Then he scammed his ICO investors by refusing the honor his "buy back price" scheme which was part of the deal and repeatedly promised (which made the tokens worth pennies on the dollar). And then that basically killed off his casino and he had almost zero volume, and then suddenly "whoops, we got hacked" and finally bankroll investors and players lost their money too.

I'm not sure what Dean is trying to do now. It's not clear to me what if he's just trying to "clear" his name by making it look like he's paying people back and it was all an accident. Or he actually is delusional enough to think people will trust him again? My guess is the former, he must know. His casino operated with pretty much zero volume for a long time due to his terrible reputation until the "hack". I suspect he's just sick of when people google "Dean Nolan" they see his history and he wants to muddy the waters.

There's always going to be incentives to do something wrong, I think what matters is if you act upon them or not.



I don't think user votes are particularly useful, as most users aren't familiar with the industry to give informed votes. And you'll just get some dodgy casino that incentivizes users to vote on your site, and skew things for ever.  But it could definitely be nice to have as a "editors rating" and "players rating" perhaps.

According to their webpage, it's more or less in exchange for a backlink. But even if it was for cash, I don't really think that's problematic as long as they're not changing the reviews/score based on it. (Of course we don't know that for certain... )



It actually kind  of shocks me that you don't see that is hugely problematic.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me. Go on their site, click "AML policy", type "ctrl+f" and search "KYC". You'll see 29 results talking about the different levels of KYC they can/might/will do ><




I will admit I do have some money in their bankroll and some sentimental attachment to bustabit, but really I have no interest in trying to promoting them. If I did, I'd just do it directly. Anyway, just the reason I brought it up is because they're a good site with no affiliate program, so it's a way for me to guess how the review sites operate as I'm no longer actually in the industry (for a couple years now?!) so I no longer get the subtle emails asking me for money to "review" my site or boost the score  etc.

....





...

So let me get this straight, it's really a 2.5/5 in your mind .. . but you're giving it a 4/5 rating right now just to ... make it look like you've reviewed more casinos?

I would strongly suggest you just give every casino an honest review/rating regardless of how much you get paid and regardless of how it'll look on your site. But anyway, it's your site, run it however you like. I'll leave you be, as I don't have anything useful to add