That is true, they are mostly impartial to any drama and only post ambiguous nonsense for the sake of collecting their signature campaign funds Ridiculous! Everyone knows that the best way to maximize one's signature earnings is to formulate a gang of DefaultTrust members to hijack the trust system in order to openly facilitate corruption and merit abuse, to arbitrarily indicate users as scammers and transform truth and the values of the forum, to attract users to this, to subsequently tag them and create an excess of drama which results in one or more Reputation threads that the users can later post on, thus completing the cycle and earning their signature peanuts. Obviously.
They are best left to stew in their own juices. Yeah, but your untrusted negative feedback collection needs some work! Rookie numbers: only one?! |
|
|
|
Honestly I still think that you could play on the same account at two places, I can't do it, it is not working with chrome+opera but maybe tor? After testing it on my end, I believe what happens is that it only allows one dice session at a time, and any new sessions simply void the obsolete ones. If that is the case, then I do not see any way for sonx to reach such a high betting speed without exploiting the dice game somehow. Two of the automatic dice still keep the speed at roughly 8bps whereas you would need to shift that by at least 30% to get to sonx's speed... and I don't imagine many people could do that with just a faster connection, right? |
|
|
|
neymarjr12 deposits 0.5 btc and immeadiately makes 30+ bets within 4 hours with high stakes up to 80mbtc
saturent deposits 0.5 btc and immeadiately generates high volume of bets in a short period of time with stakes up to 53mbtc
Why hurry to make so many bets? What else are you going to do with a casino balance? Let's consider it from a gambler's point of view and not a skeptic's point of view so you can understand an empathetic perspective: A gambler decides they want to place bets on several matches. They determine the amount of Bitcoins they want to wager. They deposit to Sportsbet.io and subsequently place their bets.
If I'm betting with significant figures, then I have no problem with depositing in chunks to separate my sessions and to ensure that I don't bet more than I'm willing to lose. |
|
|
|
Even if it's a crypto bookies, you still need KYC to identify a person. Any time a casino asks for KYC, there should be a reason for it. If they determined that the user was multi-accounting without the information from the KYC, there was no point in requesting it and thus they are merely using the balance as a hostage for the gambler to relinquish their dox. If, however, they determined that the user was multi-accounting with the information from the KYC, then they should explicitly state this. But if you ask for KYC and then say, "you're multi-accounting," without any indication of why... then you're just getting KYC from desperate gamblers for free, and that is completely dishonest. |
|
|
|
How are you going to approve one withdrawal and then decline the next?
How are you going to state, "this user is multi-accounting," but only after they attempt to withdraw?
How are you going to determine that a user is multi-accounting when they have only placed a single bet?
Sportsbet.io needs to determine whether an account was created against the ToS either before any bets are accepted or before the account is created.
Answer those questions three and look at the gambler's plea.I wonder if it doesn't come down to timing and processing. I don't know how quickly they attempt to verify an account after it's created and/or places a bet. Could be that an account gets flagged after the withdrawal processes based on the withdrawal method (linked accounts/addresses) The point of my post was to create an exhaustive list. If the accounts are flagged after withdrawing, then the evidence must come from the details provided during the withdrawal. Otherwise, where was the evidence? If the details provided were of a Bitcoin address, then Sportsbet.io better have some damning blockchain evidence. If the details provided were of a FIAT withdrawal, then Sportsbet.io should have already known this when the user deposited with his card. If the evidence was discovered after the user created the account and deposited, then they should never have been able to place a bet.
As far as I'm concerned, any time Sportsbet.io authorizes a bet, they are creating a contract between them and the player: the loser of the bet must pay up. They must provide a reasonable justification for doing otherwise. |
|
|
|
Also saw the list of participants and there's like 200-300 in the list, imagine if everyone makes it until the last day. There are 370 users in total. Below is a list taken from the leaderboard page: https://sportsbet.io/promotions/live-casino-hero-participants27J****J
42M****s
ajb****1
aki****a
aki****3
ant****v
aom****n
app****o
ara****y
ari****2
Aru****6
ash****a
ast****2
asu****i
ayu****o
ban****5
bas****e
bay****r
bbc****c
bee****2
bin****o
boo****t
Bor****s
bul****n
cal****i
cdy****7
cha****l
cha****b
cho****o
cry****y
cyg****0
dai****e
dch****s
Dee****t
din****o
dog****d
Dog****y
eas****e
eis****5
End****0
Exc****d
fum****o
GAB****9
gen****p
gen****8
gli****a
gor****o
Gum****y
H1T****3
Hab****h
hal****m
har****5
haz****u
hid****i
hir****9
hir****5
hir****2
hir****4
hir****1
His****9
hk1****4
hnk****1
ich****6
Jac****a
Jac****t
Jan****o
Jas****s
jut****u
Juu****n
Kab****a
Kan****e
Kaz****s
kaz****5
ken****a
kim****8
kin****3
kk4****4
KkE****i
koi****i
kok****n
LHH****I
LKC****u
lkd****6
Lov****e
lui****3
lum****s
lun****r
lxf****7
lyt****n
Mag****d
man****6
mao****6
mar****e
mas****8
mat****2
MaZ****a
MIN****1
miz****o
MM7****9
mum****n
n0b****f
nag****9
Nam****7
nam****7
nin****0
nok****5
Nov****a
Nov****a
oka****a
One****6
osh****u
paj****a
pop****6
pud****1
pur****1
Rag****n
rai****5
raj****r
rat****i
rch****e
ren****8
ren****u
Rom****1
rrs****a
rui****7
ryo****1
ryu****u
sab****3
sei****2
sen****v
Sha****7
shi****3
SHI****7
shi****i
shi****8
shi****6
shi****4
shu****e
sin****4
sit****m
ska****a
Sli****y
soj****r
ss1****8
sth****d
suk****8
sun****n
Sus****n
suz****a
Swe****2
syo****3
tak****o
TAK****A
tam****4
tan****i
Tat****5
Tat****0
TEN****N
ten****3
Tep****1
Tit****s
toc****8
tom****o
ton****9
TT1****m
tub****a
van****8
voi****p
vut****h
waf****r
wyt****r
Xav****y
xon****u
XXX****X
yam****1
YAS****I
yon****z
yos****0
You****i
you****e
yuk****2
Yuk****u
yut****a
yuu****7
040****n
100****2
10A****t
12k****i
243****h
6di****e
act****e
ai0****1
aki****5
alm****a
ano****a
Ans****0
ara****9
Ark****z
Art****5
AS3****3
avr****0
ban****9
Bel****h
bho****y
BJa****r
BJC****P
Bla****y
Bla****d
bob****a
bor****e
bor****s
Cam****y
cas****r
cha****b
cha****e
cha****o
cho****e
cir****2
dag****n
Dar****y
dea****y
dhp****d
dif****2
Dou****9
dra****m
DRE****s
ede****1
Elm****s
Emi****2
eri****t
Faz****e
fir****e
fon****e
For****r
Fou****e
fra****i
fro****_
gam****2
gin****0
giw****a
giz****8
gol****l
gor****7
Gri****3
hab****o
has****4
hay****a
hid****5
hif****3
hir****n
hir****1
Hir****y
hkp****o
Hod****g
hon****1
hos****u
hyd****t
ios****5
j18****8
jac****t
Jak****a
jer****b
Jet****e
jon****4
jos****7
jtl****z
k14****7
kai****5
KaR****R
kas****s
kaw****o
kaw****o
KDj****r
kev****6
khr****6
kii****5
kir****n
Kiy****0
koi****9
kos****9
kur****5
Lea****0
leo****0
let****e
LKN****Y
luc****e
lus****5
ma-****o
mas****8
Mas****7
Mat****3
Mbo****k
mew****0
mha****a
MIR****0
mis****u
mju****n
mof****u
mos****2
mot****o
MS1****0
mum****n
mym****1
nat****3
nic****i
nik****3
no4****5
noz****m
NPg****s
Omi****3
Pan****s
Pan****r
pre****1
Pre****l
Raj****3
ral****4
rea****r
ron****6
ryo****x
ryu****t
sap****t
Sel****n
shi****7
shi****8
shu****4
shu****o
shu****7
sih****2
sor****2
sss****o
ste****4
Ste****s
stu****1
sun****k
T0u****3
T0u****3
taa****o
Tac****e
tak****7
tak****9
ter****i
THE****2
the****0
tim****9
Ton****3
TOR****0
tra****1
tyo****u
vic****o
vip****7
wak****u
wan****o
wat****9
wim****r
ws3****5
xTO****x
yan****u
yas****1
yas****4
yis****n
yoo****1
Yor****2
yos****7
you****e
yuk****s
yuk****s
yut****a
yuu****a
yuu****3
zyo****i |
|
|
|
|
Was there a need to create this thread in 'Scam Accusations'? Gambling, or perhaps Reputation would be more suitable for this topic.
You're not providing an actual accusation. Rather, you are launching off a conjecture based on empirical evidence from anonymous users. I am watching the various cases, by the way, but insulting other people and adding more fuel to the fire doesn't really help.
|
|
|
|
|
How are you going to approve one withdrawal and then decline the next?
How are you going to state, "this user is multi-accounting," but only after they attempt to withdraw?
How are you going to determine that a user is multi-accounting when they have only placed a single bet?
Sportsbet.io needs to determine whether an account was created against the ToS either before any bets are accepted or before the account is created.
Answer those questions three and look at the gambler's plea.
|
|
|
|
imgur hates Tor so all I get is a bunch of giraffes instead of screenshots. You must be looking at the graphs all wrong.
Emails:     
The chat messages are unnecessary to include. |
|
|
|
F1 betting is getting a bit boring though isn't it? F1 is only boring if you're looking at the top. Being a "winner" doesn't mean you have to place first -- improving your placement despite having a worse car and not being the 'best driver' is a win in and of itself. You'll get a lot more action if you expand your horizons. |
|
|
|
|
Watching this thread.
Having gone over the images, there is a striking similarity to other recent cases. Opening up a precedent of "In ToS = OK!" is going to be bad.
|
|
|
|
So what's the limit then? Let's say someone damaged someone's privacy? Not flaggable? Even if it was spelled out in writing that Bob agrees to keep Alice's knismolagnia confidential? How about this? A user would have to prove causality apropos to the damages and that they had any significance, whatever type they were. That should handle the 'Alexander flagged Bob for making him cry' and other inane damages. And recall what theymos wrote in the thread: I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
[...]
Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.
The intent of flags then #2 and #3. Thus, one should only be flagging if the user in question is high-risk. Being offensive is not high-risk, nor is chronic tear-oppression. Or having an opinion. |
|
|
|
You have entered an implied agreement with me by sharing the same plane of existence as my avatar, subsequently resulting in competitive spatial occupancy and molecular transformation. This has resulted in damages to my apex of potentiality and you have shifted the probability matrix of the incoming temporal paths. Shame on you.
I think there is a certain limit to how far you can equivocate semantics.  Not sure how legislature works in your scrag of the thicket, but we draw arbitrariness to a close by thinking about the intent of the law. |
|
|
|
I was going to start a new post, but figured bringing this thread back to life might be better.
It looks like the new method is to post a copy of a legit announcement with legitimate links and then go back and edit them later.
Still using locked / self mod posts.
-Dave Is it in the context of editing the links, then locking the thread and preventing others from warning users about it? I still don't see a problem with simply moving locked posts to the very back of the board, perhaps in a section of their own. It can function as a soft-trashcan "sub-board". A thread is locked only when the author decides that there should be no more posts. In that situation, they should have little complaints about being shoved to the back of the queue. This would prevent abusing the lock feature, as well as provide users a way to finally get rid of those threads they're done with, without having to resort to moving it to Archival.  |
|
|
|
Instead of replying off topic can you tell us on what trust and deals you added rohang to your trust list? Please give one example why rohang should be trusted and I'll never message on forum again. Are you sure you know which alt you're using to make these idle threats that mean nothing from? Yeah... but marlboroza does this one infuriating thing in his prose where he refuses to space out an extra line before starting a quote box like so: disgusting
I don't think I could reliably call OP an alt of marlboroza - I see no noticeable connection here. |
|
|
|
Isn't it better instead of escrow account buys and sells to put a warning as theymos did with the trust warnings that buying accounts is highly dangerous and can lead to scam and traded accounts will get negative feedback. How would you implement that, though? Any type of keyword flag would simply be bypassed with a basic circumvention (i.e. substitutes for the word 'account'). If you were to put it in the Auctions section, account sale threads only encompass a minority of the board, and the same can be said for the Invites & Accounts section. Good idea in theory, but not sure about the execution. |
|
|
|
It just doesn't feel right that frowning upon account sales created an opportunity for fake sellers to scam people. Create fake account sale threads. Pretend to be a scammer. Teach someone a lesson without having them lose money in return for it. Hopefully, you reach the ones that will learn without having been burned. Some people can actually change despite no real repercussions taking place, and you have saturated the account market with knockoffs. Lower chance of having someone encounter a con. |
|
|
|
How do scripts find these posts exactly? Are they just searching for key words in the title and post and if nothing comes back as a hit , your script logs it for you in a list of some sort? How do you know for sure it’s spam though? Sorry for the ignorance, but I’m tech stupid as most in this thread know already  It's not automated. The reporting aspect of it is (i.e. the grunt work of opening the report link, putting in the relevant text, hitting submit), but when I go through the posts I try to minimize the number of false positives - I'm not going to suddenly report a user's entire post history just because they made a few one-liners. Usually, the process is to go into one of the spam boards and subsequently a megathread, find a few users that post utter shit (easy task), and then go through their post history for a few months at most. If you're the type of person to go into multi-page threads with a general question like and write the same common-sense bullshit that everyone can easily crank out if they read the title... then you're probably the type to do it again. Example posts: Most of us are choosed the trading because we are know Trading is our best option or way in earning money in crypto.
About gambling yes it is fun but you need to be vigilant of using your money because once you lost it I don' t think it is for fun puposes because it will become fun once you win or maybe less lose but you enjoy the game. I choose to trade because it is easy to make money depending on expertise and analysis when trading, and all I do is trade long or medium term to get good profits.
but I also sometimes like to gamble and only fill my free time and have fun, and only provide enough capital to play casually without lust.
So usually, the core cycle is: go through the page in the post history, check if all of them fit the same bill of 'zero-value', and if they do, then you hit the "report all" button and watch them go! |
|
|
|
I looked at his bets and I could say that he was betting with 2x payout. I did the same with two dice X and Y, but I could not even get closer to him or other participants. I'm not really sure how fast his betting speed, but looks impossible for me to get the same speed. I decided not to participate again as I know that I have no chance to win it. I finished 5th on the 2nd day, not even get close to the 4th position lol. Maybe he found some exploit to speed up his bets in some way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Or perhaps he's just a fast clicker?  I'm not sure how much they throttle the manual rolling of the dice but if you clicked fast enough you could probably get 12 clicks per second... but throughout 4 hours? Maybe with an autoclicker or a script. |
|
|
|
Money is a gem. I don't think money should be called trash. That's if you call those scraps of paper "money". Money is arbitrary so I suppose you're right: technically, it could be a gem |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
