Watching you post in the thread on a regular basis knowing you will not receive any jobs ( odd or otherwise) makes me question your state of mind. Does it not take a toll on your mental capacity posting using different accounts that will never join a signature campaign therefore will not be monetised? How long do you intend to keep up this charade when it serves no purpose. Let's do another odd job today.
|
|
|
|
self-moderated to keep this thread clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammersParker
vs
Zhang Joseph Parker beat Zhilei Zhang on a points decision. The scorecards were: 113-113
113-112
115-111Even though Parker was knocked down in the 3rd and 8th round, Zhang did not capitalise on the chance to end the fight. Full credit to Parker for getting back his composure back to win the fight. I think he deserves a title fight. If Joshua is being lined up to face the winner of the Fury vs Usyk fight which could run in to a trilogy, then where does Parker fit in to the puzzle?    
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and if it's the post I'm thinking of (which I responded to earlier), the argument was basically that merit sources shouldn't be managing sig campaigns. Sure, there could potentially be problems with that dual role depending on who the person is but I haven't seen any evidence presented that icopress in particular would take advantage of his position as merit source in some way, and a hypothetical argument like that just doesn't hold any water as far as this application is concerned. That is correct, no evidence was presented to show a correlation exists between being a campaign manager and merit source simultaneously equates to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, exactly what that conflict of interest would be has not been elaborated on. While we're all debating this crap, none of us know what's on Theymos's mind with respect to the merit system, how it's functioning nowadays, and whether new merit sources are needed. I don't even know when the last merit source was added, but it was probably a long time ago--and if it was recent it was probably to replace one or more sources that dropped out. It'd be so nice if Big Boss Man would descend from the mountaintop with his tablets and, if not drop some commandments on us, at least give the community a state-of-the-merit-system address. Curious minds like mine would love to know what's happening. I guess we could ask the whereabouts of theymos but at the same time we could also ask why the main protagonists that did not support the application by icopress has stopped frequenting in this thread. |
|
|
|
Yes this is completely normal. All casinos can demand/request KYC as per their terms and conditions and not only that, there is no guarantee they will release funds or unfreeze an account if they blocked their customer from accessing it. The number of times they have cited IP violations such as connected accounts being used for cheating or forbidden use of VPNs etc would mean even sending documents would not suffice. Casinos getting revenge on customers that complain about their experiences is common practice. There are instances of casinos withholding funds simply because (as you stated) they have all the power because of the policies customers accept when they register on their websites. As a non-gambler I took a quick look at their TOS. It basically says they can demand any information from you at any time, or withhold your coin, or cancel your account.
Is this normal in crypto gambling websites? It gives all the power to the website with a threat of extortion if you complain. :/
|
|
|
|
That exchange is being used by a lot of Indians because (I believe) their laws were recently updated to ensure their citizens had to use Indian crypto exchanges that were based/registered in India and were not allowed to trade with those based outside of India. That exchange does seem to have a lot of negativity surrounding it. It is a far distance from when it was doing well and had a great reputation which was why Binance invested in it before their relationship turned sour. That was years ago and now it seems they will not be able to regain their reputation. Your topic did not add any details about WAZIRX or how they scammed you, but a fast search on Google shows that this service is not trustworthy, as they have low ratings on trustpilot [1]. Even positive reviews appear to be fake or paid, generally I tend to think they are scams and adding more details would be helpful. [1] https://www.trustpilot.com/review/wazirx.com |
|
|
|
No replies from Bitcasino, they are scammer! They have replied and they have countered your claim with a claim of their own. If you have anything to state in response you have every opportunity to make your views known. Hello All,
Thank you for your patience in this matter
I spoke to the guys at Bitcasino and they informed me of the basis around the decision. Ill do bullet points here and then if the Bitcasino rep wants to add anything further, they can (but i think they honestly consider this case to be closed)
>> Due do the generous ZERO confirmations BC offer this enables people to come in, deposit, and start playing immediately without waiting for a confirmation. Unfortunately, some customers, if they lose the bet, double spend the deposit back to their own address.
>> In this case many accounts were linked to this customer. The BC team are confident in their investigation and as for this case, will not reverse the decision.
>> It seems to be normal practice for old scam accusations to rise back up at every Bitcoin ATH, and this is no exception.
Thanks for your time here guys. Im replying on behalf of BC as a gesture of good will to a few customers who reached out personally to me to get a response up for people to see.
regards,
Steve.
(on behalf of Bitcasino.io) Thank you Steve. I presumed there was more to the scam allegation but as we only had a one-sided story had to wait for a reply from Bitcasino before understanding what was going on. The OP has not been online for over a week, there is a chance he would have read the reply without logging in and decided to move on. |
|
|
|
Has any reputable member actually made any comment to state or suggest icopress should not be a merit source because they alleged he is incompetent? I read a post from a long time member stating a possible conflict of interest but he did not provide a factual reason icopress should not be considered for merit source. Other than that, I believe there are a couple of posts from attention seekers (one of whom clearly has ulterior motives to oppose icopress becoming merit source, probably on the basis of being overlooked/rejected when he applied to join campaigns managed by icopress) who have opposed therefore the vast majority of members that have posted in the thread are in favour of his application. I believe Icopress can do both jobs brilliantly without any issue. We all know how much contribution he's doing on this forum and as a merit source he'll be able to contribute even more by sending merits to the posts that need those merits. I believe Icopress can be one of the best merit sources of this forum and that's why I think Theymos should definitely assigned him as a merit source. |
|
|
|
The word vouch has been used many times in the forum and real life and the meaning remains inconsistent because the word has to be taken within the context of the situation and conversation. You can vouch for someone on the basis you will become a guarantor if they default on a loan whilst it is also to vouch for someone that you will not become a guarantor if they default on a loan. I have seen members vouch for campaign managers when companies have created threads looking for someone to handle their forum signature campaigns but none of those members would volunteer to pay even $1 from their own pocket if the campaign manager ran off with the escrowed funds. When they made the vouch they knew they would not cover any potential losses from their own pocket but it still did not stop them from vouching. The word has been used a lot without but it can only be used correctly if the one vouching states explicitly what he is going to do/not do in the event his vouching of another person leads to a problem. Throughout my whole life I have always thought that if you "vouch" for someone, then you are telling people that you trust that person. You also agree to take responsibility for that persons actions.
Now to my question. If you "vouch" for someone that they are trustworthy and they take a loan, is the person who vouched putting their reputation on the line? If you didn't trust a person to repay, why would you "vouch" for them?
Curious to see what others say about this.
|
|
|
|
If a single puppeteer is pulling the strings on all four accounts, then he is the sole recipient of associated income. They are all enrolled on signature campaigns and are all enjoying the benefits of earning while posting. By looking at the statistics for the four accounts mentioned in the thread as connected, even with some neutral tags given it seems to have made no difference to them at all. Richbased is still posting regularly Dailyscript is still posting regularlyCryptoprincess101 is still posting regularlyAgbamoni is still posting regularly |
|
|
|
If I understood parts of the work Grant Thornton have concluded already including travel abroad, it seems every expense they incurred will be paid for by using/selling the assets of Cryptopia. I could be wrong therefore please do correct me but did we ever get to see any balance sheet from Grant Thornton about expenditure? I am sure it will be shown at the end when they recoup all their money along with fees, salaries and possible interest from Cryptopia assets before releasing the remaining amounts to victims but to see something at this stage would give an idea of how/where/when they spent money knowing Cryptopia victims will pay for it in the end. The court who appointed such a liquidator should be investigated, subpoenaed, and prosecuted by a higher govenmental authority.
How about Tom Udall (I lived near a Udall road in West Islip, NY. Ambassador of the United States to New Zealand/Officeholder
There are no coincidences. |
|
|
|
Still no answer, still they stuck my funds and not give me back my money. I am very sad. Please someone help me to get back my funds!
I've seen your post on their thread multiple times in the past and I am pretty sure I have answered some of them. anyway, I doubt you'll get a response from them here, they have been inactive on this forum for almost a year now, they have a pretty bad reputation here and I don't think they'll be back. They have left the forum of their volition therefore they can return whenever they want if it suits their agenda. I believe they will be back from time to time just to run a signature campaign for a short period in the hope of getting some negative tags removed. As JollyGood has mentioned, you have virtually zero chance of getting your money from 1xbit. there are a lot of similar cases to yours and If I remember correctly, the majority of them never got their money from them.
Of the cases that allegedly were refunded in the thread created by 1xbit/1xbit1, it seemed they were red herrings designed to demonstrate they were taking claims seriously and were refunding those that had funds seized and accounts frozen under the most dubious of circumstances. I would go further than what you stated with the word "majority", instead I would use "none" received their money back. |
|
|
|
Thank you for clarifying what happened back in 2020 to your account (along with what seems many others). I am curious, if they did not accept your official documents in 2020 when you tried to resolve this issue, were you trying again as a matter of formality in the hope they will release your funds or did you really have high expectations? I have added the unloaded image from your post for easy viewing. We have heard stories like this before, casinos and exchanges allowing their customers to make deposits but using KYC when customers try to withdraw. Any company doing that cannot be trusted because using KYC in that way is ethically wrong no matter what their terms of service state. I apologize for my poor language, I can't explain the whole story for this reason (I apologize if there is an error in translation).. In short, my account was disabled among many accounts at that time (almost 2020) in what is known as the arbitrary KYC incident, without allowing our balance to be withdrawn at that time. Because they were allowing deposits without verification In general, I was among them and I was unable to withdraw my balance from that incident and They did not accept my official documents  |
|
|
|
There should be a deterrent in the form of an official announcement that would make those using AI on a continuous basis beyond grammar correction face a permanent ban. At the moment the appropriate acceptable course of action to take is to either report the post and/or leave a neutral tag. As this problem will only increase with time (because of signature spammers), an announcement will probably be made to address it. If you are using a tool like grammarly and your primary intention is to improve the grammar, it should not be problem. But if you are spamming with AI generated text, this will not be tolerated. You should also report such posts if you come across them. This could have become a major problem for a big forum for bitcointalk but the good thing is that there are many active members who report these kind of posts on time.
|
|
|
|
It definitely sounds like an improvement, that (provably fair) image should never have been added to the blackjack.fun website if any of the games were not verifiable because it would have been an incorrect statement. Is that tab available when played on any of the third party games? Which other games provide an option to verify bets? It’s true that they remove probably fair logo on the bottom page of their website BUT they put a probably fair tab which user can verify bets on their house blackjack. This is much better than before and this improves fairness of their house game  |
|
|
|
|
This is supposed to be one of the most eagerly anticipated boxing fights in a very long time but I remember Fury vs Wilder had more media attention and buzz around it. I guess we have been close on several occasions having Fury and Usyk in the ring but been let down therefore it does not have the same eagerness now. At this moment, Joshua vs Ngannou has more boxing fans and neutrals talking about it.
|
|
|
|
I recently encountered a disheartening situation while using the cryptocurrency exchange platform CEX.IO. Having been a user for approximately six months, I initially had a positive experience. However, when I attempted to withdraw my funds, things took an unexpected turn.~snip~ You have completed the KYC they imposed on you yet they still have decided to block withdrawals. That is unacceptable. There is always the risk that any of the exchanges you use can implement a KYC rule on their customers. If you read through the terms and conditions of most websites you will understand what I am trying to articulate. From my experience reading posts regarding how exchanges operate, what does seem to happen regularly is some exchanges collapse overnight (via a hack or exit scam) and whereas some tend to selective scam their customers over a period of time before shutting down blaming an imaginary hack in order to exit scam. If the complaints against them increase, it probably means something is going wrong on their side and it is not a good sign. Unfortunately, one should not expect much from exchanges with this level and a score of 4.9 out of 10 ( https://imgur.com/a/hw4J1Zq). They increase their profits by keeping your assets. Be careful in choosing an exchange.The best way is to send a violation report to the institutions that authorized this exchange. One of the things some people do sometimes is to forget to carry out due-diligence because they feel comfortable the exchange they are using will not do anything like this. Sometimes a little research beforehand can save a lot of trouble later. |
|
|
|
I think I would speak for many members that removing a provably fair image was the right thing to do if not all the games were provably fair therefore it is a welcomed move. Having said that, is it possible for you to ask the relevant department to explain why they added a provably fair logo on the website when not all the games being played were provably fair? Also, please ask them to explain how blackjack.fun customers can be sure to trust them or any casino they are playing on when they cannot verify for themselves they are not being cheated. Greetings everyone,
We are open to experimenting with various types of bonuses based on the creative ideas we generate.
Meanwhile the UX team has made the decision to remove the provably fair badge from the site. This step is taken to prevent any potential misconceptions, ensuring that users do not mistakenly assume that all games on the platform are provably fair.
Admin Eva
|
|
|
|
Blackjack.fun can change the rules and make it customer/player friendly to attract players
or
players can stop playing until they implement new customer friendly bonus rules Any casino (or any website for that matter) can and should be able to change the terms and conditions they allow customers to use their services. How they implement the new terms and conditions is a different matter. And how they inform/advise customers about the new changes is also another very interesting and important factor. please don't forget they removed the Provably Fair icon from the site according to Eva their Representative and this is anyway a bit shocking for crypto players If their games were not provably fair, the logical thing to do was to never add it in the first place. At least they have removed it. After I asked the questions they had to take some form of action. |
|
|
|
Quite clearly that is not happening. Investors are storing crypto in exchanges in order to free up space on their own PC/laptop hard drives but there are other options than downloading blockchains for each crypto. Some people just never learn. I thought after the FTX crash people would actually stop keeping their coins on exchanges. At least most of them.
|
|
|
|
I honestly am astounded at what I am reading from you Eva because if you are catching up you would have read the list of questions and concerns and answered them accordingly. Before asking any other questions related to licences or anything else, please answer these three questions (though 1 and 2 could overlap in your answers): 1- kindly explain why there is a provably fair logo on the blackjack.fun website when not all of the games are provably fair 2- kindly explain if you think it appropriate for blackjack.fun to display that provably fair logo when not all of the games are provably fair 3- kindly explain what you intend to do about displaying the misleading provably fair logo Hello, everyone!
I'm quickly catching up with everything here. Have I missed any unanswered questions? It was suggested by you guys to make a post, and while our time is limited, I'm eager to answer all queries. Some of the questions about licenses have been covered already. Our legal department has already provided responses as well. It's not a matter of me having a choice over it. The decisions are based on legal considerations, and we're following the guidance provided by them. The question regarding provably fair has also been addressed. Questions about our Blackjack Tournaments and bugs are on the table, but rest assured, nobody should be concerned as no one is taking any risks in this stage. The entire process is still in development. The entire concept is about collaboratively building Blackjack Tournaments with our community. It's completely acceptable to have an unfinished product with bugs at this stage—it's the core of the idea. Our aim is to peacefully construct our project with our community without any external dramas.
Eva
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
