What? No it doesn't. Opposing the flag means I oppose the flag. I've opposed dozens of flags since the introduction of the flag system. Am I a hypocrite for all of those as well? You need to follow suchmoon's advice and read up a little bit on what the flag system is all about.

How does opposing the flag make me a hypocrite?

I would be a hypocrite if I said "I think Sportsbet is cheating neymarjr12" and then I opposed the flag.

What it boils down to is, as things currently stand, I take their word over neymarjr12's. However, if more evidence were to manifest itself in favor of the accuser or against Sportsbet, then I could withdraw my opposition or potentially even support the flag. This seems highly unlikely, partially based on what the wording of the flag entails, but I remain open minded on the subject.

He already dropped out of the race a couple of weeks ago, how shocking.

I don't think he was very happy about this project back in the day. His lawyers put a stop to its development. Maybe if they had chosen a different logo. Lol.

Most likely this is who was trying to scam this person by posing as casino support in Telegram:



Going to need a bit more evidence to solidify the connection before taking any action.

This person has created at least a dozen different accounts which they use to talk back and forth to themselves in threads for CRW and BSV, several of which are already banned.

Please help me report these accounts for plagiarism.

#1: CookyCook72

Copy:

[/quote] <---- weirdly enough I have to put this here or it runs on with the below quote

Original:


You can see the only significant change they made was changing the coin name from "0xcert" to "Crown CRW". The entire rest of the post is plagiarized directly from the Cointelegraph article, I just included this last section for brevity.

#2: Do_zzze

Copy:


Original:


He changed around a few basic words but it is still 90% plagiarized. I know that the Coinmarketcap description was written before the Bitcointalk post because Google shows it as having been written on or before June 11, 2018.

Here's another other one for this user; this one is a bit more tricky so I've bolded the parts copy/pasted verbatim (or nearly verbatim):

Copy:


Original (images and most text removed for brevity):


Unfortunately, the original text is no longer available from the source website.

I think what he usually does is use Google translate to convert articles from Spanish to English, and then paste the English version in his posts, but its difficult to find the original Spanish sources as it's not easy to reverse-translate the words (I tried).


If somebody wants to take a stab at locating the original Spanish version of the post about Google and quantum computers and can do it, please by all means give it a go.

Thanks.

With all due respect I really don't see any indications that you are. It's quite easy to envision a scenario where they don't want to reveal exactly how they determined the player was multi-accounting, because if they did then scammers would realize "Oh, they look for those kind of things, I'll have to find a way around this."

The KYC ID process is likely tied into this, but there's a small chance that its not. I think it would be great if Sportsbet wanted to expand on their findings and clarify the situation here, but even if they don't, I'm not going to be supporting any flags against them based on this issue.


They do hundreds of millions of dollars of business every year and have been at it for four years -- they are as "real world" as they come. Their business isn't exactly hurting, either.


Of course, and they did. In my very first post on this issue I mentioned that perhaps it was a false positive and that no sportsbook is perfect in that regard. However, what it boils down to is we don't really know one way or the other, and if you want to take a newbie account's word over theirs on the issue, well, that's up to you. Just don't expect others to follow suit. If suddenly a bunch of similar complaints started appearing in the future, perhaps I'd be more inclined to think otherwise.

But really, the "non verifiable excuses from the accused" are a big part of why I can't support the flag.

- You have the OP who claims he submitted proper KYC and has no other accounts.

- You have Sportsbet who claims he didn't submit proper KYC, and he does have other accounts.

Sportsbet doesn't want to give away the recipe of their secret sauce for how they detect multi-accounting, not because they are shady a-holes but because if they did it would be all the easier for future cheaters to avoid getting caught.

Now, some people may just think that's an excuse to not have to pay out the BTC in question, but I think that if they had any doubt in their mind they could be wrong about what happened, they would just pay it out as its a trivial amount for them.

Then you have people coming in left and right trying to stir up a big drama for whatever reason among the DT, which isn't cool. Accusations of vote manipulation and so forth won't lead to a resolution, as our feeble system of democracy is the only thing we've got..

Just don't play at Sportsbet if you don't trust them: problem solved. Fighting hard to activate what could very well be an unjust flag (given Sportbet's longstanding reputation) isn't a viable solution. What the vocal proponents of the flag think they are doing "for the greater good" might not necessarily be so, and not everybody has to share their opinion.

Not much more to say on the situation until new info comes to light.

He's not only a very stable genius but also a tremendous athlete. Nobody knows sports like he does.

To be fair, the Type 3 flag does trigger this language in the warning that hangs over the user's threads:


With the implied scam being that referenced in the flag's reference thread.

Don't mean to get all TS on you.

I just checked, that was the Type 2 flag, a "casual or implied agreement".

There are indeed some similarities between that situation and this one.

^^^
lol that chart's like a million years old brah

Jurassic Era, even.

What's sad is the price went significantly lower after that point, decapitating the dinosaur in the lower neck region.

It's no dinosaur, but its more recent:

I don't follow what you're saying here. The rule isn't for the would-be launderers. The rule is for the casino.

A couple years back I asked one particular casino about why they had that rule and they said it was one of the requirements according to the terms of their license, which was a Curacao license. I looked for the correspondence but must have deleted it long ago.


Such as...? Or you mean they didn't in the past and don't exist anymore...

Anyway, we're pretty off-topic now.


Meh, just looks like people trying to continue conversation that is normal for that thread. They probably put the accusers on ignore.

Even casinos that don't require KYC do this... For casinos its usually a 2-3x rollover requirement and for sportsbooks its usually 1x. The only anonymous betting sites that don't are dice sites like Bustadice, etc.. It might be lame but its pretty standard. If they didn't do that, people could just use casinos as a mixer and there's nothing in it for them.

I'd actually be curious to know which sportsbooks don't have this requirement and will let you withdraw without wagering and without KYC.

Thanks for your constructive commentary, Mr. Sock.

OP specifically requested recommendations for casinos several times.

I don't see the problem with people recommending casinos in this instance even if they are wearing their sig.

*puts on V8s hat*

rude

*respectfully takes hat back off and places gingerly on hat rack*

He asked you for your login information?

This person definitely doesn't work for Jetwin.

If they did, why would they ask for login information -- of course they would already have it.

After reading through various complaints on the internet, it doesn't look good. But still, just wait to see what happens on Monday.

Even though the email screenshot you gave us sure makes it look like it came from the official Jetwin support email, there's a chance it might not have.

I dunno. Its weird that someone from the casino would redirect her to Telegram. Potentially she received a spoofed email that only looks like it actually came from Jetwin. The way the person is talking on Telegram makes it seem like some lowlife scammer and not an official representative of any company; certainly not one that has been in business since 2013.

A big giveaway that its a scam Telegram account is the way that they spell the casino name. Casinos never misspell their own names:



Notice their name is Jet Win and not "Jetwin," which is the actual spelling of the casino name. Likely somebody just saw this thread with her email address in it and sent her an email trying to trick her into sending them BTC on Telegram.


Well, its Saturday. I would give them until Monday evening to get back to you. Try not to be too coarse with them -- that's not going to help your situation. Just keep in contact with them and hold out hope that your situation might still get resolved.

As far as other casinos go, I have to be honest with you: you really struck a once-in-a-lifetime win here and the chances that you will see these winnings on slots ever again are pretty small. There are other decent casinos out there but if I were you I would hold off on sending any more money to them until you know for sure the outcome of this scenario. You opened this thread 3 days ago -- the issue could take up to a week to actually resolve.

Let us know what else you hear back from the official Jetwin people via email.

BTW: if you get any other fishy emails with the company supposedly asking for your password or something, definitely ignore them.

Hmm... reminds me a lot of someone I used to know...


The moderators have nothing to do with this. Flags and their statuses are completely user-driven. The flags still exist but are currently inactive.

Bro. This really isn't necessary and you should be very careful who you give this info to. You might even have people pop up out of nowhere asking you for this now. The last person in your list is a bought account that is being used to stir up drama among different casinos (not just sportsbet) and probably doesn't have the best intentions in mind.

I don't understand how this is going to help. Maybe somebody is an expert at digital forensics and can verify if a document is legit or not, but then what? That doesn't necessarily disprove multi-accounting.

It's better to wait for additional clarification from Steve or another official Sportsbet rep on this situation.

I don't think Sportsbet would risk sullying their reputation on the forum for 0.3 BTC unless they strongly believed they were in the right.

Negative feedback: not appropriate.
Trust exclusion: sure, if you feel that way.

I'm not of the opinion that people should be neg trusted for opposing or supporting flags, especially if they are as murky as these ones.


That's why I oppose the type 1 flag... I am more ambivalent on the type 3 flag. Its his word vs. their word. Who are you going to believe? I am inclined to believe the long-standing, multi-million dollar operation.

Of course they are not perfect. This may even be a case of them generating a false positive, but they don't seem to think so, and we really don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise (other than reports from the user).