So it simply means that the total MB size is accumulating overtime. In this example, 2+ sat/(v)byte up to the highest transaction fee is included on the 0.481 MB making it possible for these transactions to be included in the next few blocks due to uncertainty that there will be more tx with a higher transaction fee. The value on the right of the fee is the size, and it represents the total volume of transactions in the mempool that have a fee equal to the value on the left, or less. That means that if you have a size of N MB, if you pay the corresponding fee for your transaction you can expect it to be confirmed in 10N minutes... + incoming transactions, of course  |
|
|
|
Sort of. That's the mempool as of right now, but it doesn't mean that if you broadcast a transaction, there won't be transactions with much higher priority than yours. I like to estimate it by looking at the previous block's peak: see the highest point right before the sharp drop? Whatever the blocks are saying there is the estimated block size for the next one. Each MB corresponds to 10 minutes, basically. Recommended resource: https://mempool.observer |
|
|
|
|
Use a wallet. Think about it: do you want to control your money or do you want others to control your money? I can't speak on mining, but there are very experienced members here that can. I do think, though, that $0.13/kWh is quite expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
There are still 155 participants left from the initial 370 according to the 'Live Casino Hero Participants' page.
7 users have dropped out since yesterday.
These are:
asu****i
bas****e
Hab****h
haz****u
Jas****s
THE****2
yuu****7
The current split of the prize would be 6.45mBTC each.
|
|
|
|
I get I look like a scammer and used a new account. But I'm not. I'm just trying to get this looked at. Maybe I get some guys on my go fund me. I am just trying. Thanks for the reply. Take it from a lender's perspective. You have no basis for your reputation apart from your saying, "I'm not a scammer," which only provides circular evidence and is thereby inadmissible. Collateral like a cryptocurrency deposit is tangible. Words are not. Lenders usually enjoy lending to people with tangible collateral. |
|
|
|
All what has been posted is absolute bullshit and my account has been compromised ever since, password and email changed.
LiarYour post was made 05:57:56 PM Your password changed 6:46:23 PM I understand you slipped and compromised your entire operation, but what exactly prompted Boris007 sudden outburst? These two events happened coincidentally one after the other. You guys know each other? saturent saturent2 saturent7 saturent01 saturent09 saturent99  for the post, https://bpip.org/Profile?p=saturent for the password.
I thought it was going to be another case of 'multi account' accusations, with the only provided evidence being words. I question, though, how Sportsbet allowed 4 accounts to register and be detected as multi accounts. You would think after the first, never mind the second and third, that you could catch them as they deposit or after they create their account. |
|
|
|
-snip- It's difficult to really find any information on the match given how niche it is. Like I mentioned to you before privately, I don't think you'll get any more compensation out of the website - given that the game deemed it as an offside goal, sportsbet.one probably determined the result based on what the referee (i.e. the game itself) stated. That's how it applies to most games, so the rationale would be consistent. |
|
|
|
the sportbooks would still be within their rights to consider the game a void in case of none clear decisions. Remember that cabirr lost his bet. He didn't get a push on the result.
They gave me -trust here because I was dealing with the number of posts. It's really funny. The other negative trust is for attacking crypto sports bookies. You will understand what my purpose is when my case has a positive or negative result. Those are because of the spill-over/misunderstanding from when you were accusing Sportsbet.io instead of Sportsbet.one. Simple miscommunication issue. |
|
|
|
my brother. They have been here since the first time I opened the subject. What do you think should I think? Your association may stem from the first user's avatar, which is an advertisement for Sportsbet.io. However, the actual website has no association with the sportsbet.one website that you have a problem with. Users may have issues with Sportsbet.io right now, but let's not get it tangled with this different situation. |
|
|
|
I strongly believe they have some connection. Is it normal for them to comment that much in a situation that doesn't concern them? It is normal if you're defending yourself against a flag that doesn't concern you: cabir, create a flag against sportsbet.io as they will keep on ignoring the complaints against them anyway. Hi, 100% nothing to do with sportsbet.io ....
That's their first post on this thread. |
|
|
|
You say "I have nothing to do with this platform". You are saying "how can we take any of your complaints seriously anyway?". Do you use this head at all hours of the day? Or do you only use it at certain times. Maybe you can be separate platforms. but how kind of platform you are is obvious. Sportsbet.io is a separate platform from yours, sportsbet.one. The user is addressing saturent, who has created a thread against sportsbet.io. |
|
|
|
I'm not totally familiar with the offside rules but as far as I can tell, they apply when the ball is received and on none of those occasions could I see a player in the offside section. The ruling in the game should have been a goal. Totally out of my realm, though: someone more familiar with football should chime in.  |
|
|
|
In your scenario, you're describing a sportsbook that I simply wouldn't play at, but I don't think Sportsbet sees their decisions as "arbitrary." You see them as arbitrary. I'm describing Sportsbet.io. Check the Terms and Conditions. 17. Cancellations, Suspensions and Closure
17.1. Without restricting our ability to rely on other remedies that may be available to us, we may suspend and/or terminate your account, cancel any outstanding bets and/or confiscate any or all funds in your account at our absolute discretion if:
(i) we suspect that you are engaging in money laundering, illegal or other fraudulent activity while using our Website; or
(ii) we suspect that you are depositing funds which have been obtained unlawfully or in a clearly and seriously debase manner; or
(iii) we obtain evidence that you are part of a betting syndicate where several parties are involved in placing bets in order to evade the Sportsbook Rules, these Terms and Conditions or any other rules of Sportsbet.io; or
(iv) we determine that you are using any device, robot, spider, software, routine or other method (or anything in the nature of the foregoing) to interfere or attempt to interfere with the normal proper functioning of our services, any relevant device(s), software, the Website, the casino games, the sportsbook and betting information or any transactions offered on the Website and in particular will not employ or make use of any artificial intelligence or other system (including machines, computers, software or any other automated systems) designed specifically to defeat the Sportsbet.io systems; or
(v) we determine that you are colluding or attempt to collude with other players in order to defraud Sportsbet.io or its customers;
(vi) we determine that you are breaching any term of these Terms and Conditions;
(vii) we determine that you are acting in a manner that is detrimental to the conduct of our business.
17.2. You acknowledge that Sportsbet.io shall be the final decision-maker as to whether you have violated rules, terms or conditions in a manner that results in suspension or permanent barring from participation in our Websites. https://archive.is/veb99#selection-1367.0-1385.231 |
|
|
|
Wrongdoing isn't necessarily the same thing as "not fair," but in my eyes, it is fair because the user agreed to those terms of service upon registration, and their deposit was returned so they didn't actually lose any money I want you to consider the two states of reality from before OP dep osited to after OP was retur ned money. Prior to d eposit: No bets ha ve bee n made. Balan ce is X. After return: Bets have been made. Ba lance is X. The fact that Sportsbet.io accepted bets means that they were wi ll ing to t ake the player' s money in the case of a loss. Given that the playe r h as instead won, the casino is now instead liable to pay up. Unfortunately, due to the m using their arbitrary ToS, they are able to quote a clause that gives them absolute discretio n and they are able to essent ially nullify the player's w in s. Now im agi ne this. X: I offer you a bet. If you win, I freeze your winnings and return your deposit. If you lose, I take your money. I cover details allowing me to arbitrarily freeze balances if I consider you a negative to my casino in a clause outlined within the ToS. You agreed to this. I can now act accordingly to everyone else who agrees to the ToS, because of course, contracts are all-encom passing and if you we re too stupid to re ad it then you deserve to get scammed. Lo l, what a bunch of n ewbie dimwit losers for me to take advantage of by documenting binding legal contracts. T hey can do noth ing about it. That's because rules are rules, and if you accep t it th en you' re vulnerable to every s mall part of the clau ses. |
|
|
|
"you violated the ToS, therefore it's your fault!" Do you honestly believe otherwise? If so, why? I create a website dedicated for gambling. Outlined within the ToS are a few clauses that allow me to arbitrarily freeze player balances, all fit under one nice long section. One of them is based on if I have suspicion that they are using multiple accounts or money laundering. Another is simply, if at my discretion, I determine that you or your account is detrimental to the conduct of my business. I use this to freeze player balances when they win. When questioned, I respond that they violated the ToS by stating that they violated the section containing those clauses. I do not provide any evidence and then state, "we'll return the deposit though." Fair, or not fair? |
|
|
|
What is your true goal to commenting on these threads?
Are you trying to discredit my report now?
Why would it even be my fault? My fault for choosing to be their costumer, I guess.. Reread what adam wrote: they are not criticizing you nor are they trying to seem unbiased. I don’t think we will see any further comments from sportsbet on this matter unless more attention is raised to the thread, it has not gained much attention really and I think that’s because most users see it as the fault of the OP and not as a scam
They're basically just saying that a number of users think that it's your fault. Usually, those parroting the same old cliche of, "you violated the ToS, therefore it's your fault!" |
|
|
|
The total deposits were: 20000RUB
The total withdrawals: 50000RUB
The customer is well ahead here.
There has been a genuine spike as you guys have noticed about players coming from a particular country betting on a particular sport and/or markets.
It has forced us to fully review a whole entire sport and we will have to make a business decision on that at some stage soon. Is it at all possible that there are false positives when you are reviewing - in your words - a whole entire sport and the spike of players from a country? This is a very wide net that is being cast. I fail to understand how the player was linked to the other accounts. If the information provided was not 100% accurate, which parts were incorrect? Was it anything to do with the FIAT deposit? If you were discriminating against Russian players in the Table Tennis matches, then perhaps there should be a more stringent process before any bets are taken. Erasing the bet from the timeline after the fact means that you simply increase your house edge from 5% to 100%. Either the customer loses, or they win and then get the winnings frozen because they were flagged as the group from Russia. |
|
|
|
You might be on to something but there is a little bit more to this because when going to the sportsbet.io website from the UK the URL gets diverted to sportsbetio.uk and there are lots of terms and conditions they have to abide by including very strict UK laws with them being based in the Isle of Man. The UK site is FIAT-only, though. Perhaps they merely combined the various processes between the UK site and the BTC site, and the overlap was too stringent for general gamblers? When it comes to multiple account detection, depending on the methods used, results may vary. And of course, the larger the player-base, the greater chance of false positives. |
|
|
|
In details: on 20th or 21st of July I created an account and that our the next day I sent my passport and back statement. They approved it ( https://imgur.com/a/FUB8tUQ) Several days ago I deposited with My debit card with my name on itThe withdrawal was to that card of course. How could it cause that multiacc thing? BTW, I always pass such KYCs as I register, no matter if it is a bookmaker, a wallet or something else. I don't want any future problems if they would not accept my passport. So if my documents weren't suitable for them, why approve it? Talking about veriff - I'm sure an another verification method would have been offered if it really matters. Not a word was said after I sent them an email about it - they blamed for multiacc right away. If your deposit and withdrawal are to the same source, then the question still stands: how did they determine that you were an alternate account of another user? The problem with their statement in the email was that they linked FOUR accounts to you. How did they link those accounts to you? You only placed one bet. You only deposited and withdrew through one source. You passed KYC. It couldn't have been the KYC, since there would (or at least should) have been a huge red flag once you deposited with the same credentials as four other users. So the KYC was totally pointless. |
|
|
|
So, what's the need of multi-accounting here? To place a bet on draw?  Multi-accounting is relevant to Sportsbet.io as they have those "price boost" features for accounts. With multiple accounts, you could presumably take advantage of this on multiple occasions for a given market, which reduces their ev. Since casinos hate being cheated on their "bonuses" (utterly terrible ev) with multiple accounts, you could imagine why they have a problem with this as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
