It’s not merit begging, it’s desperation. Just ignore him, I don’t think you could classify it as begging. Begging and desperate beckons are not mutually exclusive, assuming that you aren't using some strange definition for either term. I will throw a very general definition of, "begging is the act of requesting others for charity," but if you take a look, the very structures of begging and desperation are in completely different topics: one is an act, and the other is a noun describing one's state. Could someone not beg, in desperation? 
Pedantry is fun! |
|
|
|
Why do people not just ignore GP? He’s been doing this for years, he’ll get bored & stick a fork in a plug socket or get run down by a truck or sometging if everybody just ignores his trolling. Don’t feed the troll. The reason GP isn't ignored is the same reason as to why scammers and ponzi promoters aren't ignored. The forum administration won't do anything about these types of users, so the responsibility is tethered to the minority of community members that actually cares about protecting users from scams. The troll may not be fed but it is self-sustaining and if you allow the troll to continually bump their threads and potentially delude unsuspecting victims into their scams, then is it not better to give them attention rather than the opportunity of theft? |
|
|
|
But obviously Twitter employees are main suspects It's easier to prove that someone else did it than to prove that you didn't do it. A smart black-hat Twitter employee would set it up so that it frames some other user for the act they provided, using the plausible deniability of, "my account was compromised," wherein even in the event of any financial ramifications, they get to go mostly scot-free with the loot they were able to acquire. |
|
|
|
Lol, Someone just went to wake his alt up just to comment about Roobet. Where have you been between May 2017 and Today Mr noone000? Mad gamblers rally together, as it seems. Judging by the tag as well, it looks like just another low-effort old account.
It looks like the thread isn't going anywhere, though. OP hasn't been active for over a week and I'm assuming they don't want to continue their accusation with further discussion. |
|
|
|
If they didn't do that, people could just use casinos as a mixer and there's nothing in it for them. If people wanted to mix with casinos (for whatever reason) instead of a mixer, they could probably brunt the 1% fee in the form of house edge which I presume would be far less than the amount they are paying an alternative mixer. If it's not less than the amount they are paying, then why have the rule? That would be stopping irrational money launderers - a minority of a minority. Does it stop money laundering? Kind of... but does it also create a massive benefit for the casino's end, ensuring that they get at least a small percentage of all users' deposits? Yes.
A few BTC-based casinos did not have a rollover requirement... I'm not sure if there is a sportsbook out there. |
|
|
|
|
Whether it's in the Terms of Conditions or not, general "no multiple accounts" rules punish players more often than anyone looking to abuse the actual site. Rather than target a symptom of a problem (i.e. multiple accounts from promotion abuse) they could just simply leave it at "don't use multiple accounts to abuse giveaways and promotions". The sweeping general term lets them do shit like this. What if a player, in one situation, comes back to the site after a year forgetting their previous account details? How about if they lose access to the password and email of an account? Any number of scenarios could be arbitrarily created, but that's not the real point: it's ToS like this, like the rollover requirements that some casinos use to "prevent money-laundering".
Masquerading as rules to prevent abuse against a minority of players, they in turn are used against every player.
|
|
|
|
Bookmakers always use these terms to their advantage - all bookmakers. These rules are only enforced in case of dispute (about withdrawals) and the bookie always wins Yeah, and when you look at rules like this: "6.2. If you do not use your account which has deposited funds in it, for 3 months you will receive a notice from us. If you do not use your deposits within 1 month following our notice, we reserve the right to deduct monthly administrative costs from the deposits remaining In your account. The administrative cost is 15% monthly from the deposited funds remaining in your account."
"6.3. We reserve the right to close player accounts that have been inactive for more than 12 months. In case your account has deposited funds after the 12-month inactive period, we reserve the right to use the remaining deposited funds for administrative costs for closing the account."
"9.3. We reserve the right to apply a wagering requirement of at least 5 (five) times the deposit amount if we suspect the user in using our service as a mixer."
"12.2. If you use a Deposit Bonus, no withdrawal of your original deposit will be accepted before you have reached the requirements stipulated under the terms and conditions of the Deposit Bonus."Well... |
|
|
|
Imagine someone plays poker, assuming that the better player won't bluff! I was under the impression that bluffing is part of a strategy playing poker. Sure, but if we want to look upon this situation as a "game" then you would have two options: scam/not scam. By assuming that a reputable player that is known not to scam (i.e. good prisoner/dove) would never scam, you are creating a strategy that is easily exploitable by those players. Now imagine using circular reasoning to posit that a reputable casino would not scam players. |
|
|
|
I trust sportsbet.io, there’s no way they’d scam somebody for 0.3BTC. Trustworthy people should have trustworthy justification for their actions: this situation is not an example of that. My problem is the constant "x casino is reputable" rhetoric that I see not only here but on other, similar threads. The problem with this idea is that it is a form of denying the antecedent: you are changing the principle, "if they have scammed someone, then they will be marked as scammers," to "if they are not marked as scammers, then they have not scammed someone." Reputation does not immediately absolve someone of the possibility to commit immoral actions. It is merely the rule, not the exception: to gain reputation, you must simply refrain from shady actions. It does not mean that you are incapable of doing so. |
|
|
|
I think they are doing a lot of hardwork to prove that they are fair 🙂 and they do what they said now they also add server seed thing before changing the seed 🙂it should be enough for them to prove fair  Does everyone deserve a fourth chance? To extrapolate from one event a user's character would be a very unreliable system of conclusions. However, to get provably fair gambling wrong so many times without consulting anyone (because otherwise, this would have been resolved immediately), I consider that enough fodder to raise some serious concerns about the administration of the casino. |
|
|
|
All 272 bitcointalk spreadsheets from docs.google you can't find on-forum like you claimed. What are you saying? I just gave you an example of one. If you seriously expect me to bring about a list of the threads that link to these Google Sheets pages, then we can simply discontinue this discussion. Don't act in bad faith. Bitcointalk has definitly to explain the mass publication of these so-called "public spreadsheets" on docs.google. The explanation is that these are from bounty campaigns and are maintained by bounty campaign managers. Go talk to them about it, not Bitcointalk. And of course there're ways to abuse them. Bounty hunters are aware of that when they sign away their details, or at least they should be. But because you shit on everything anyway, I'm not going to disclose that. Damn, look at the smart boy with his smart knowledge that he won't disclose. |
|
|
|
|
Newbie requesting a loan for a small amount, stating, "I will not be gambling with the moneys I will be using it for short investment," creating a suggestive implication that they are going to, in fact, gamble with the loan...
I don't think it needs to be said, but have you read the stickies of the board? You need collateral to request a loan, and considering how your reputation is non-existent, it's not difficult to assume that you would simply run off with the loan and default the balance.
|
|
|
|
Based on the initial information we had at hand, we decided to lock the account temporarily and contact the player to ask for more information on some matters.
We have asked several questions of the player, on many different email chains. We are not confident in the credibility of the answers vs the information we have at hand.
The decision was made to keep the account closed and refund the customer the difference between the deposits and withdrawals (102mbtc)
I won't be allocating any more time to this matter. I trust you understand. This lackadaisical attitude is the kind of opaque operation that I joined Bitcoin to escape. Are gamblers expected to believe, "we had information and determined he is in the wrong," when the whole situation is a conflict of interest? Players don't know if the information you used to come to that conclusion is detailed or very loose: whether it hinges on something trite like IP addresses and geolocation or something more concrete like blockchain evidence and falsified KYC. |
|
|
|
I think you should start learning about provably fair. Agreed: you should educate yourself on fairness and exploitation thereof. |
|
|
|
That's the general idea with signature campaigns. It would be silly if it was the other way round, i.e. if I would have to pay for discussions. There's a shitcoin for that. TM
I am not afraid of negative feedback and negative trust! That job is already over for me! It is interesting, how things developed. I do note the retaliatory feedback in those first few sent out, so I'm not sure I can say much in this situation. Though, it feels like a situation that could have easily been resolved but now snowballed into another Sphere of Chaos. TMCertainly, it could have easily ended with the YoBit promotion and the respective feedback, I imagine. That's a different timeline, though... |
|
|
|
Probably?? Then show me where exactly! No need to be pedantic about the word "probably". The intention of its use was to mitigate the severity of the generalization, as I cannot be absolutely certain that these Telegram spreadsheets are exclusively found in the Bounties section. Here is an example of a bounty thread, and its spreadsheet filled with Telegram names: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MydpoygVAXh6Z3nqUWjKAgnbnlwt_DsvXM9nCBnoupM/edit#gid=0This is just one of many bounties. |
|
|
|
meaning: thanks to me you are texting and making money. as you do ... Jokes and insults aside, you did mean this, right? "If you are not like me, I think you can not post free! you scared everyone! When you see 1 "man", you are all attacked. Today you are all mine, free post right from everyone to me!" > If you don't have negative reputation, then you have something to lose and thus cannot freely express your opinions. You scared everyone away through using the fear of a negative feedback, and when you see one dissenter, all of DefaultTrust has been "attacked" to which you respond with feedback. Now, you see me as an attacker and everyone is responding to me. Free posts for your signature campaign! I don't think I understand the last part completely, though. Close? |
|
|
|
How can you be so sure he will not win? Trump will certainly not win in 2020 If I believe it, and you believe it, and everyone else believes it, then it might as well be true! 2+2=5 |
|
|
|
I suggest some people should learn english language before writing nonsense here, or write in their local topic if they know to write.
Crap will be reported to moderators. As long as it is understandable and it conveys some sort of substance, I have no problem with erring in the context of syntax or semantics. grammer en spellin mattor wen u cant undorstand da text but if u can den ur just bean pedantic |
|
|
|
Then I got fired from that for shitposting. You want to talk shitposting? I joined both YoBit (stupid) and secondstrade (stupider) in my early years. What a bunch of fuckin' rubbish that was, huh? Must have planted something in my head because years later I would shitpost again, under the guise of an experiment... I suppose you just can't scratch that itch once you've developed it.
Even guys like jolly molly have made DT, everyone is afraid of you. "1 negative = firing from signature" Yeah, if the reason isn't stupid. People aren't black and white machines that operate under algorithmic methods, man. You think a negative from anyone for any reason is going to fly with good signature managers? Get out of that lonely echo chamber, Thomas. There are many members who have changed their trust list for $ 3 signature income. Wow, what a bunch of scumbags. The forum is exhausted, and when those who are afraid for that $ 3 are gone, only you and your side accounts will remain. When chipmixer stops giving thousands of dollars a month to such a forum, you will go too. The idea that I would have an alt account for farming ChipMixer is pretty wild. If you go into my post history you will notice a fairly substantial gap. Those are wasted opportunities if my only goal on the forum is money, isn't it? Unnecessary accusations, seriously. At least have some backbone to try and defend it with some evidence, even though you know it's just simple rhetoric. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
