|
Out of curiosity, how many satoshis per post does Betcoin pay people to have Betcoin's ad in their forum signature? He's probably well on his way to getting an item off the dollar menu just for being a contrarian.
|
|
|
|
I never said that Twitchy was multi-accounting on SwC, just his mere presents is alarming enough because he has admitted to having several accounts on Betcoin.ag so that demonstrates that he does not see a problem with it. Plus, his continued trolling false accusations makes playing at any room he's involved with a liability. Just bad news....I have no idea what Twitchy is doing at SwC because I will not play at a room he frequents....I'm not even positive Twitchy has an account at SwC because he's known to misrepresent the truth, but as soon as I seen his name associated with the brand, I knew it was a site I would not visit.
It seems that you are confusing having multiple accounts with multiaccounting. There is nothing that prohibits a player from having multiple accounts at SWC, so that demonstrates that SWC does not see a problem with it, either. However, multiaccounting (being logged in to multiple accounts at the same time to gain an advantage) is strictly prohibited. If you have evidence of the latter, I would love to hear about it. If you have evidence of the former, welcome to SWC. |
|
|
|
But, SWC has known multi-accounters playing there, like TwitchySeal. You know that feeling one gets when they walk into an underground card club and their hair instantly stands up on their arms? The feeling where one's first instinct is to find a restroom to cheek the roll before heading back out the door toward the parking lot? Well, that's the feeling I get when I see a room populated by characters such as the likes of him. I would never lay my money down on the wood as long as those types of people are lining the felt....it's just not a safe proposition. Sorry, for the lack of action, but with such a small player base, it's hard to hide the "bad actors."
Out of curiosity, what are the names of the accounts that Twitchy is multiaccounting on at SWC? Or is this just a baseless accusation? If you think someone is colluding or multiaccounting, please report it to support@swcpoker.eu. I didn't know Twitchy was playing on the new SWC. When he was playing on old Seals, there was never anything to arouse my suspicion that he was multiaccounting. |
|
|
|
The argument isn't with CloudFare....the jurisdictional argument is "where was the server located which precipitated the signing of the contract on the date it was signed." The location of the server in which the contract was signed establishes a jurisdictional claim. It's a holding that is clearly established in international law and is the reason why different jurisdictions have the right to claim peoples private information contained with the cloud if that information passed thru servers within their jurisdictions.
I think this is a legal gray area at best. A couple weeks ago a court of appeals unanimously ruled that Microsoft didn't need to comply with a search warrant for e-mails they stored on Irish servers. The fact that the data were relayed by a U.S.-based company wasn't enough to give the court jurisdiction over the matter. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ae2fb30d-207e-45ad-9316-4022ec64fd69However, because Microsoft’s servers were stored in Ireland, the core issue in the case became whether “Microsoft can thwart the government’s otherwise justified demand for the emails at issue by the simple expedient of choosing — in its own discretion — to store them on a server in another country.” Judge Lynch concluded, although somewhat hesitantly, that Microsoft does indeed have this power under the SCA. |
|
|
|
No, the question becomes in what jurisdiction was the server located at the time the contract was signed....negligence has nothing to do with it. And, Betcoin was the mediator in this action between jasonort and Betsoft which complicates the matter to another degree which further justifies the decision to negotiate a settlement rather then litigate the action.
CloudFlare isn't Betcoin's server. They intercept incoming traffic and then let it through to Betcoin's server or don't if they think it represents a threat. Besides, CloudFlare has wisely written a loophole into their TOS: SECTION 12: INDEMNITY
You agree to indemnify and hold CloudFlare, and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of your use of the Service, your connection to the Service, your violation of the Terms of Service, or your violation of any rights of another. |
|
|
|
If the Terms and Conditions of the contract were signed in the United States then there can be a jurisdictional claim submitted in United States. The contract was signed in the United States; therefore, a jurisdictional claim can be submitted within the United States. NetRange: 173.245.48.0 - 173.245.63.255 CIDR: 173.245.48.0/20 NetName: CLOUDFLARENET NetHandle: NET-173-245-48-0-1 Parent: NET173 (NET-173-0-0-0-0) NetType: Direct Assignment OriginAS: AS13335 Organization: CloudFlare, Inc. (CLOUD14) RegDate: 2010-12-28 Updated: 2012-03-02 Comment: http://www.cloudflare.com/Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-173-245-48-0-1If this was an issue arising from the negligence of CloudFlare, which is their anti-DDoS protection, you might have a case. However, going after CloudFlare is unlikely to get you very far. The only leverage they have over Betcoin is whether or not they choose to license their service to them, and I'm sure that if they decided to not work with Betcoin anymore, Betcoin would just use one of their competitors and continue business as usual. That would be like suing the bouncers at a nightclub if the nightclub didn't give you correct change. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to explain the way i would do it, but if you think about it for a while, you will see that there is much easier way to prosecute someone.
Any decent lawyer will know what to do. Or do you think whole world is doing whatever the hell they want ?!
In regards to licencing, most of casinos here are without a licence (case we will explore soon enough)
If you have some sort of cogent argument to put forth, I'd love to hear it. I think you're bluffing, though. |
|
|
|
He is obviously asking for more money, that's for sure.
That aside, my question remains ; if he (Jason) is legally correct, why doesn't he sue betcoin, or betsoft, or whoever the hell thinks costed him that jackpot amount ?
And don't talk about costs please, because anyone can pay for lawyer and lawsuit knowing that he will win it. But that's just the point - he can't win because he already settled the case.
And even after all logic goes away, i still can understand Jason, but i can't understand Witch hunters claiming to talk in Jason's best interest, when all they do is
clearly attack betcoin.ag specific , even tho there are tons of sites using Betsoft. Now that's something you don't do unless you have personal interest in site being attacked.
Betcoin.ag could and should have done things differently in my opinion, but they are far away from scam many claim them to be. If you think otherwise, and/or feel wronged
by them; by all means take legal action.
All this whining and flaming is getting old.
Do you need it spelled out for you? OK, let's assume that he hires a lawyer. Where is that lawyer going to file a case? If they file it in a U.S. court, it will be immediately thrown out because overseas companies are not within their jurisdiction. So now he needs to find out where the laws do apply to Betcoin. According to their terms of service, it appears they're operating under the laws of Hong Kong or possibly Curacao. So now he hires a lawyer in Hong Kong to file a court case there. It's going to get thrown out, or maybe he'll get arrested, because he's just admitted to online gambling in Hong Kong, which is strictly illegal. OK, let's find a lawyer in Curacao, because maybe that's where they have an e-gaming license. The reason that businesses get e-gaming licenses in Curacao is because they don't care if your company is reputable or not and won't prosecute you as long as you give them money for a license. Now what? If he had been playing in a B&M casino in Las Vegas, he would have some legal avenues to pursue, but he wasn't. Obviously, the issue with playing on overseas casinos like Betcoin with sketchy or no licensing is that if something like this happens, you have no legal recourse, as demonstrated in jasonort's situation. |
|
|
|
Here's how some of my players feel about his posts in my thread yet he continues to spam my thread for malicious reasons, and he's even acknowledged to me he's purposely being malicious and "attacking" me.
Those quotes from players about how happy they are to be receiving RB from your program would be much more compelling if they were dated after you changed the terms of your RB agreement. |
|
|
|
Well i certainly wouldn't go around forums and whine about how i think someone did me wrong, and i most certainly wouldnt say : I am pleased to say that this matter has been resolved to my satisfaction by all parties involved. Responsibility has been taken by Betcoin.ag for lack of clarification from their customer support, Betsoft has acknowledged that the wording on the pay table may have been cause for misunderstanding with respect to jackpot eligibility. Both parties have been very helpful and cooperative in resolving this and made the necessary adjustments.
and then continue asking for more money after settlement, and after saying all that. I'm not a shill behind alt account, you are. I'm just annoyed that bunch of people are abusing this case to attack competition. I haven't seen any post by jasonort asking for more money after the settlement, although it's certainly possible that I missed it because Betcoin has been deleting his posts. The one big post that I saw was this one: https://www.betcoin.ag/setting-record-straightasking that people not quote him in forums as proof that Betcoin is good or bad (like what you just did), and asking Betcoin to answer some legitimate questions about the chain of custody of wagers, why they are deleting posts, and more generally asking for greater transparency. From the "P.S." portion, it sounds like he's not comfortable playing slots on Betcoin until some changes are made. As razzle pointed out, he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in this situation, so it would be a costly waste of time to retain a lawyer and try to fight it in the courts. Sounds like he learned an expensive lesson. His only recourse at this point is to make what happened public knowledge on forums or wherever he can think of (within the terms of his settlement, of course) and attempt to get some better explanations so it doesn't happen to him or anyone else again, either because they've fixed the issue or because people will know which games/sites to avoid. Who can blame him? |
|
|
|
I hope you realize that like 2 posts of saying absolutely meaningless stuff isn't really "silence is over". Now, let's address some issues. Why does it take a site more than 1.5 years to fix hand history log output? There's like 4 lines that need to be fixed, but the issue has been purposefully neglected for over 1.5 years. You realize that for a site such as yours, one that is not licensed or regulated by any authority, nor implements any provably fair processes, hand histories are the only way for players to catch foul play? Historically, any public accusation of collusion, cheating, superusing, or unfair RNG (ya, ya, i know rigtard) always needed hand history data to verify the legitimacy of the accusation. This is how superusers on AB were caught, how colluding rings on Stars were caught, etc. Hand histories are the only source of reliable data for players but you have refused to fix the 3-4 lines in the log outputs that would render the hand histories actually useful.
For those who haven't heard, Carlo wrote a script to fix the broken HHs, and it's available for download here: http://sealsclubhouse.com/hand-history-saving-script/Carlo was kind enough to include the source code as well. I haven't tested it out personally because I feel like I should at least glance at the source before I install random code I find on the internet, and I have a lot of other things higher in my priority queue at the moment. I have no reason to believe that Carlo is anything other than completely honest, but it seems like due diligence to do so. While I greatly appreciate that Carlo has taken his own personal time to fix a problem for free that someone else is nominally being paid to do, and then release it to the general public rather than keeping it to himself, I feel like this is really a stopgap solution at best. Carlo said that he did this without the approval of the SWC devs, which is understandable given that they have been missing in action recently, but it also raises some concerns. If solutions like this become the norm, it means that more technologically savvy users are going to have a big advantage at SWC. If the devs had blessed Carlo's script, I would think that more users would feel comfortable running third-party software to get non-broken HHs. As it stands right now, you either have to know Carlo well enough to trust him to write non-malicious code or have the skills to read and understand source code and verify/compile it yourself. I also expect that in a minute there are going to be more than a few people who have HUDs running on SWC. However, if you don't understand how to hook in HEM or whatever, you might be playing at a pretty big disadvantage and not even know it. I understand that at least one user has had a HUD running on SWC for a while now, but hasn't released his code/modifications to make it work to the general public. I think that it would be great if the devs could vet Carlo's code and give it the SWC seal of approval (arf! arf!), or ideally, just fix the SWC code so you don't have to fire up an additional process every time you run SWC to get non-broken HHs. Better yet, hire Carlo on a consulting or longer-term basis to fix the SWC code. This is something that should really be integrated into the client rather than run as an adjunct process for performance and security reasons, if nothing else. |
|
|
|
But those games are not there anymore right? Right, because they were fakes. They were pirated games running on a server under the control of the pirates. Novomatic do not license their games to unregulated casinos, and they are currently not available anywhere for legitimate play in Bitcoin. Let me be clear - anywhere that you find a Novomatic game that is playable in BTC or mBTC, the game is a fake and you are being cheated.
If you ever played these games at Betcoin, you were cheated. If so you should be contacting the casino and demanding a refund for any losses incurred on them. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to give it to you.
You might consider posting this information in the main Betcoin.ag thread as well. This thread is more about the jasonort incident and Betsoft, and your post will probably be overlooked by most people looking for Betcoin information. Here is a link to the main thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=386266 |
|
|
|
The website seems to be down currently. The poker client is up currently though.
Yes. Support is unavaible too, withrawals didnt came through. Whats going on? I appear to be IP banned again (sent e-mail to support 8 hours ago and no response) and was seeing CloudFlare pages whenever I refreshed the webpage, so I'm guessing Betcoin is under some sort of DDOS attack. |
|
|
|
Hey thanks for the reply and advice. I'm aware that most bitcoin sites aren't licensed but I'll try contacting curacao.
These guys have no authority over Betcoin, but they do collect player sportsbook complaints and post them to their site: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-sites/betcoin/ |
|
|
|
If there is anyone that actually knows if betcoin is licensed by WPN and how I would contact the licensing authorities or whoever I'm supposed to contact, I'd appreciate it as I would like to make a formal complaint. Thanks for your time.
I am afraid that you may be SOL, like jasonort. Betcoin pays WPN to have WPN tourneys on their site, but WPN does not license Betcoin. If they are licensed at all, it is not stated on their site. This is the closest I could find: 25. GOVERNING LAW
These Agreements shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. You irrevocably agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Curacao in The Netherlands Antilles for the settlement of any dispute or matters arising out of or concerning these Agreements or their enforceability. You could try contacting Curacao eGaming and see if they are licensed through them: https://www.curacao-egaming.com/ |
|
|
|
|
I heard that Slotsmillion casino also pulled Betsoft jackpot slots from their site on July 8. Will this impact Betcoin's decision to keep Betsoft slots?
|
|
|
|
I have some comments regarding your front page article. CasinoListings.com titles their article: "Betcoin.ag, Betsoft Force Shafted Jackpot Winner into Agreement"
This couldn't be further from the truth. For the following reasons this is completely false.
1. The agreement was between Betsoft and the player. Betcoin didn't force our great player into an Agreement and Betcoin was not even a party to the Agreement. If Betcoin hadn't intervened, the player might have got nothing, but Betcoin wasn't going to let that happen and ultimately the player was very happy with the agreement with Betsoft. Betcoin helped the player get a substantial payment. This same scenario could have happened on any casino offering Betsoft games and by chance happened at Betcoin. Basically, you are throwing Betsoft under the bus by implying that you have no control over if or how Betsoft pays out users. However, this isn't stated anywhere on your website, which implies that these are Betcoin jackpots, not Betsoft jackpots ("Our jackpot slots are well over 500 BTC and counting"). If the Bellagio decided that their regular dice source was costing them too much and started buying dice at Dollar Tree, and then it later turned out that the dice weren't fair, would you expect the Bellagio to tell players to pound sand and take it up with Dollar Tree? This scenario would not have happened at other reputable casinos offering Betsoft games. I would expect that any casino licensing software from another company would have paid out the user the full amount owed, removed Betsoft games from their site for non-payment, and then either eaten the loss or recouped their loss from Betsoft separately. If there is a problem with the integrity of the companies that provide your software, that is a problem that you should handle in a manner that doesn't affect the player rather than congratulating yourself for arranging a partial payment when things go awry. 2. All payouts from casinos are done directly through the software provider casino interface. Betcoin and any other casino serve as a middle men connecting the player with the casino provider. The player plays the games on the casino providers servers and Betcoin nor any other operator can make any changes to any games, payouts, etc. The casino provider credits the accounts on winnings. Where have you stated that Betcoin users who use Betsoft slots are playing at their own risk, and might not be paid out in full or at all? "We're just the middleman" isn't an adequate defense because jasonort was wagering with BTC that he deposited at your casino, and should have been paid out in full by your casino. 3. Because we are not a party to the agreement and because we want everyone to know as much as possible, we never asked our player to sign an agreement or keep anything silent or private. We urge him in fact to speak about any particular matter he chooses to. There is no agreement with Betcoin limiting him to what he can say or not say. From the remarks that jasonort has made, it seems pretty clear that he is obliged to not talk about the details of the settlement. Whether that stipulation was made by Betcoin or Betsoft is irrelevant. What matters is that a player who deposited BTC on your site in good faith got screwed on a payout, and the resolution must have been partial, or there wouldn't have been anything to hide and no reason to keep anything silent. The title and scope of the article is completely false and a prime example of irresponsible reporting on the Internet. The author of the article did not take the time to ask Betcoin or the player any questions about the content of his statements but chose to publish factually incorrect articles irresponsibly and the entire credibility of the CasinoListings.com website must be called into question.
Because the author of the article has chosen to completely ignore the true facts of the case, he has then concluded that Betcoin Casino is rogue and should be blacklisted. When your conclusions are based on blatant falsehoods and irresponsible reporting your entire classification is false. CasinoListings.com has no obligation to contact you before posting their opinion on their own site. They haven't taken any action other than recommend to their readers that they not play on your site. Similarly, you are free to recommend that players ignore the recommendations of CasinoListings.com, and you are not obliged to contact them before you make that statement. We implore the entire Internet community to demand responsible, accurate and factual reporting which is not the basis of CasinoListings.com. In their praise of bovada and slots.lv they fail to even mention that 1) these are in fact the same company, 2) there are other internal issues as to why Betsoft games were removed, and 3) no other online casino has removed Betsoft games. This again is also very irresponsible. I'm not sure what Bovada and slots.lv being the same company has anything to do with the slots that you offer on your site. Please elaborate on the other internal issues that resulted in Betsoft games being removed from Bovada, and whether those internal issues also affect Betsoft slots on your own website. But as ungod said, why should the decisions of other casinos have any impact on the actions that Betcoin takes? You have an undeniable example of Betsoft not honoring their progressive jackpot payouts, and I have no idea why you would continue to do business with them after one of your players was screwed as a result. We will continue to provide you with a great place to play at Betcoin and we hope all of our great players and the Internet community sees what is really going on here. Betcoin is making waves in the industry and the established players don't like it. We are where bitcoin was several years ago and even now; where it was and is spoken negatively by irresponsible press and less educated people. The people that experienced bitcoin and continue to experience bitcoin however saw and see the potential and the negative press only serve to introduce more people to bitcoin. We have received a substantial amount of new traffic and converting players from CasinoListings.com and continue to see that people are smart and don't believe the falsities they read online.
Again, we thank everyone for their support. "We welcome negative press because it drives new traffic to our site" makes it sound like you are less concerned about your site's integrity and image and more concerned about making a profit. While this may be true, I would recommend keeping this viewpoint to yourself rather than using it as a defense or advertisement. TL;DR You have a responsibility to your players to ensure that the games offered on Betcoin are fair. If Betsoft partially paid out one of your players in a confidential settlement, it's time for you to pony up the remainder of what he's owed. Anything less means that your casino should be blacklisted for non-payment. |
|
|
|
It might help you guys get some new players if you could get off of Cardschat's blacklist, like Betcoin just did. It looks like Betcoin is even rooting for you guys, strangely enough. https://www.cardschat.com/blacklisted.phpThe bitcoin-only poker site that replaced the revolutionary SealsWithClubs has now made it onto our blacklist after founder Bryan Micon was arrested and charged with operating an unlicensed gambling site. Until it gets resolved, and SWCPoker finds a way to square things with the Nevada Gambling Board, it stays. Betcoin's response: https://www.betcoin.ag/betcoin-poker-responds-cardschat-absurd-blacklist-designation |
|
|
|
Despite all my issues with SwC management, i would like to applaud them for refunding all the players affected by the 4-man collusion team during this past Sunday's MediumBTC tournament. While SwC has mishandled pretty much everything else, they did step up to the plate in a prompt and decisive fashion after the tournament after players e-mailed support with reports of suspicious behavior by these 4 individuals. Players on all poker sites (BTC or otherwise) should always remain vigilant against possible dishonest users.
Which accounts were involved? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
