Bigger problem is the fact that the situation is even possible: the fact that there is a tweet backdoor does not bode well for the future of Twitter, especially when we are concerned about legitimate and free thought... though I'm certain that censorship has gone on for many years whether the company would like to admit it or not.

This has little to do with the user's personal security: do you really think that this would happen without the inclusion of some Twitter-based flaw?

With those huge-ass platforms, they concern themselves more with algorithmic practices for filtration rather than any human-based interaction.

The 'perceptions of scale' concept only applies when the model is trained sufficiently and unfortunately, it's much easier to outpace the current type of moderation that these larger sites are using, especially if you have any amount of creativity at all. Scammers run wild.

Even if we disregard the fact that the thread you linked actually has nothing in it (details, evidence, story of any kind), it's not terribly difficult to find any "<x> site is a scam" thread since you'll get those complaints - similarly to yours - when it's not necessarily equivalent to an outright scam but rather when it's an issue on the player's end. There are a lot of scam accusation threads out there, but for some reason when it comes to casinos, there are quite a number of accusations that are unfounded. I wonder why

I think you need to take a few hours to cool off, because you are composing yourself with the same maturity level of a child at this point. I have personally had some success with a few sites that have advertised on the Gambling section here. If you're going to complain about not having an immediate or direct link to that, then surely you should start thinking about why you want everything spoonfed to you.

FYI: ranks mean nothing on the forum.

Wow, look at those deposit logs! Certainly no problem with escalation there... as far as I can see, though, this is a case of some technical problem in relation to how their databases are checking confirmation status. Live chat is outsourced to typically ignorant customer service (they won't be able to help much in terms of blockchain or anything crypto-related) so that's why you got stonewalled there.

Certainly is problematic if they have a withdrawal issue and they aren't fixing it immediately.

---

I wouldn't call them scammers, but it's certainly a huge inconvenience when this happens.

How many contracts have you signed off without reading in completion, simply assuming the other party is trying to compensate you or is trying to fulfill your obligations completely? It's kind of absurd to assume that others have your best interests in mind when you surely don't have the other party's interests in mind when you're accepting their terms.

Probably most of the unlicensed casinos, I'd imagine. Well, there's the beauty of Bitcoin: no one can stop you from seeking out those sites. I would recommend this, rather than a list of sites directly: read the ToS of every casino you register for.

For one, you prevent the act of making a fool of yourself. Additionally, you get to see just how brutally shady their ToS gets. In particular, enjoy the Bonus Terms of Conditions section where they try to drive back the player edge as much as possible.

It looks like either you're not a native English writer or that you're incredibly frustrated. Either of these lead towards very trivialized answers, so bear with the trite explanation and depth: casinos are a little scummy in that they don't ask for KYC before the deposit rather than before the withdrawal. It's also a bit scummy that the ToS covers their ass when they make the claim "we have the right to investigate ... [sic]" but that's how they operate . The thing is, though, just because they require KYC doesn't mean that it's a scam - I would use that word sparingly. I would call it shady but scam is going into defamation territory.

This is probably another case of those degenerate gamblers spinning out of control and losing a balance they weren't prepared to lose, thereby deflating their emotions which now seek out vengeance by form of online forum drama with indignant spewing of buzzwords and drivel. Wasn't there another case of Bitcasino rambling by some other user? I'm not usually one to throw out alt accusations, but the coincidence is quite improbable.

Here:

[General] Bitcoin Wallets - Which, what, why?
FAQ: Everything you need to know about forum 'activity, account ranks and merit
Bitcoin Developer Guide

That should get you up to pace. Read a lot, and then read some more. Since Bitcoin is a new financial asset, you should learn how the system of money works before you try spending any of it.

0.01

Just FYI, your email and your "other contact information" box are both publicly viewable on your profile. If your intention was to conceal these from others, then I would suggest you navigate to your Account Related Settings and your Forum Profile Information pages under your Profile settings and hide the email and your Facebook contact information respectively.

I'm going to avoid the alt accusations here, because we're given a screenshot. There's no reason as to why the screenshot could not have originated from the actual user and not Tim - he didn't have to log in to share the screenshot, of course. Usually, any time you see the word 'friend' or 'brother' it's justified to be cynical but I'm fairly sure this situation is different.

The only point of contrition is the fact that OP did not tell his friend that he could register a new account as long as its use was solely for a ban appeal.

This really depends on what you deem as 'secure' and it depends on if you're willing to allow third-party intervention or not. Controlling your own node and broadcasting transactions directly is certainly one benefit in terms of privacy, though perhaps some wish to delegate things to a more centralized server.

Some would say, "hardware wallets are the most secure," though you need to place some trust in the companies that develop the product, detracting from decentralized management. All wallets have their pros and cons and for most people, they will give up the security of running a full node for the accessibility of not having to download a 200GB+ blockchain and updating it constantly.

I don't like this take. After all, if a casino is not worth investing in, then why would the owners bother investing in the building, maintenance, and advertising of the site itself? With a number of 'strategy-based' casino games you can usually double the house edge due to bad play from casual players and you can easily see a significant profit from investing in the bankroll.

I recall Lutpin recording some of the monthly returns for Crypto-Games, and IIRC most of them averaged around 4% ROE - that's pretty significant.

It's been archived lol
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182222.msg54764178#msg54764178

---

No doubt the account was banned for the malware, rather than plagiarism.

It probably is likely that your friend was hacked and the account was thereby taken as hostage to do a scammer's bidding. :/

Way to be consistent with the name Coinbase, but never getting it the correct way around even once. This reminds me of when you see those Speculation posts where they need to pad out the post as much as possible with the word Bitcoin: "the price of the bitcoin is unpredictable but bitcoin is a good technology so the bitcoin price should go up and if you invest in bitcoin you will see that bitcoin was a good choice bitcoin"

I love this functional forum where we care about preventing long-term scammers from preying on Newbies. I love this forum where we don't have a dedicated board for ponzi schemes and HYIP frauds. I love this forum where we're running on a modern forum board, where we don't have another forum project that has been in development for years. It's great seeing such a strong community: one where the metrics required to join the DefaultTrust network aren't arbitrary and where someone could never possibly get onto DT1 without having been a trustworthy individual.

I think I'm going to go with the opinion that this is very inconclusive, and that it's more probable that it isn't game-protect. It looks to me like just another purchased account, who is trying to accrue some activity and slack on the post gap in order to make it look more viable when they eventually apply for a signature campaign.

Apart from the whole spiel about "unlicensed site" et al when it comes to casinos and apart from the kind-of-linked reawakening, there isn't much to go on. And with the massive number of one-liners around the April mark for the account, I think it was just trying to farm posts rather than trying to get disgruntled gamblers to go to gp's site. Still, it's something to keep tabs on. One thing for certain is that the account has definitely changed hands: that prose shift is not natural.

I recommend you checking this for referencing wallets: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

There are a variety of mobile options available and I suggest you go through with the streamlined process - it'll get what you're looking for.

---

Download Bitcoin Core here: https://bitcoin.org/en/download

---

I believe that Core has supported SegWit (bech32 adoption) for a while now and should still support legacy addresses as well as PS2H addresses: reference this 0.16 update.

---

Anything can be 'hacked' from the client side. A common attack will be that of your clipboard (i.e. copying and pasting) being changed to a scammer's address, That's why you should always make sure that the address you're sending to is the correct one. From a pure infrastructure standpoint, though, you have little to worry about as long as you are not handling your security abysmally - if you've never gotten a virus before, you probably won't be the type of person to get their funds 'hacked'.

Better question: why would anyone spend a large amount of effort in writing a post that takes ideas from another source, only to subsequently not mention to source even though the core parts are taken word-for-word idea-for-idea?

Intellectual dishonesty is not difficult to detect. Unless you're an idiot or if you have already absorbed the knowledge fully (and thereby transformed it into your own unique idea), it's never a bad idea to say, "taking from the ideas of <author>, ...," so I don't expect anyone to sympathize in this situation.