I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate.
It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

---

Thanks for the Judgement I wish you guys were this engaged or enthusiastic back when I was  ... well that.

---

Bye for now.

If their intention is to scam the user in the first place giving the user the record they are finding for "backup" is impossible. But since there is no enough proof to back this up by OP  i wonder how he will succeed to this.

Can someone confirm the current design of the Sinbad.io site, Has there been any update change in recent days?
It seems to me that all the elements are a bit bigger, the text too. Or maybe it's just something with my browser

[...]

[...]
Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

I'm not saying that the OP is at fault. Certainly, there's a reason that the other 99 applicants went along and stuck with the original plan, to deliver a constructive review, in which the accused failed even after receiving an extension; these are the terms he agreed to. Royse is a well-known campaign manager; I understand the reason he did it, but it's how each individual has a different point of view. Personally, in the only review in which I participated a while ago, I completed the review and then got paid for it.

The worst of all is that he hasn't returned the money as he should have already. I understand that something unexpected might have happened, but in that case, if he's unable to deliver, it's mandatory to refund the manager immediately and have someone else fill the vacancy in the review campaign.

[...]
Also:
Here's an excerpt of some campaign rules:

No where does it say this:

[...]

This won't take longer than 5 minutes. They just want to verify whether the person you have submitted on the KYC documents is real and alive, and not some random guy's information being submitted to their site in order to get their accounts verified. This never happened to me, though it happened once on an exchange platform when I wanted to withdraw a few thousand dollars from the platform albeit only completing the basic verification process (this is a local exchange).

Ok then, then I would also ask YOU how a player can show evidence that he doesn't have multiple accounts.

Players show the FACT that they are blocked from withdrawing. They also show the accusation/reply from rollbit. These are facts, I guess we would agree. The site, in this case rollbit, claims "they have multiple accounts", yet they don't show any proof of that or are willing to show it to a mediator. Always referring to "security concerns".
Multi account ACCUSATION are no facts. Players show facts, rollbit doesn't, I guess we can agree.

In real life, if you want to accuse somebody of something, you have to show proof as well, why not in these scenarios"

What we need in those cases are more transparency. Not being willing to settle this through an official mediator always means there is something off.

Also what I wrote doesn't mean that rollbit is so untrustworthy. It just shows that their reputaion is not as good as it gets painted here, you can also see that in their trust summary. A reputable site would have more than 1 positive feedback, and this positive one is only from the person that manages their signature campaign.

As I checked other complains I saw you also commented there, so you you know this is always the same scenario. They are hiding behind their "security concerns" and players have to deal with it basically.

I myself could have opened a scam accusation against this site actually, I chose not to because it's not worth my time. I mentioned this before but I got the "new player invitation bonus"email they sent to stake players (they bought the stolen data from the stake hack). Those bonuses was supposed to be "no strings attached", as mentioned in the email . When I claimed it all and played it 1x , around 100$, I wanted to withdraw it. They suddenly wanted a deposit and full KYC, and I mean full. That's not "no strings attached". As I don't trust this site I chose not to do those 2 things and continued living my life, leaving these around 100$ in my account. 

It is my opinion and I will not stop from calling out rollbit for what they are to me. I never said they are doing a rugpull, just I don't like their tactics. They know about "multiple accounts" from the beginning, when someone registers. But they let these people deposit and the accusation only comes to light when they want to withdraw. If you think this is ok then we don't have to talk about this any longer. Anyway, wish you a nice rest of your weekend! 

If you check the recent pages of the scam accusations there are several complaints about this site.
So basically of all sportsbooks/casino site complaints rollbit has the most in recent history.

Even betnomi, that pulled an exit scam, doesn't have so many complaints.

And almost none of these complaints have been resolved. And so will this one for sure. 

Especially this thread and the behaviour of rollbit is alarming:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5449402.40

Very sad that this behaviour even gets defended here, honestly. People can't relate because they never had a situation like this. If they had it would be different, I'm sure.

My only comment

I called one or two members low IQ because of the logic they used. I do not think that the whole forum has high IQ nor do I think that my IQ is superior to the majority of the forum

This is what happens when you speak out ladies and gentlemen.

I also do not care at all about this thread and I will continue to share my opinion freely, as I have a right to.

If we're going to skew and misconstrue words or make threads about people when they have a controversial opinion, then we're up for a lot of threads just like this one if people exercise their freedom of speech and right to an opinion.

Grow up OP.

[...]

Discussion about gambling is not worthy of needing a merit source. My post stands.

[...]

[...]

Final thoughts

Gambling boards are both a horrible place and a great one at the same time - depending on which threads you read.
I'd like to tip the scale in favor of the great ones a bit.

Good job picking one thing out of all of the valid parts of what I said and using it to invalidate my post. Great job, actually. Very effective. Dumbass.

Disagree.

No one should be a merit source for one of the most unethical boards/sections of this forum. There is no shortage of merit for the amount of quality/merit worthy posts in the gambling section; which is very little in comparison to other, more important and non capitalistic boards of the forum.

I also think merits should not be focused on posts in this section. It does not positively contribute to the Bitcoin economy. It only concentrates wealth to unethical network participants who are exploring other users with unfair odds, ridiculous terms of service, extensive and intrusive kyc checks to ban accounts, questionable provably fair claims, and more.

My 2 cents

The problem here, as in all cases of multi-accounting, is that the casino (rollbit in this case) will not and can not share the evidence they have against the accuse (OP) publicly. This is understandable.
At the same time, OP will never admit having alt acoounts (if he has any) and there is nothing he can do to refute the casino's allegations and prove he has no alt accounts.
This is a dead end.

The only way to solve this dilemma is to use a mediator.
Or, in case OP is afraid of proving himself guilty (with all the consequences), Razer has to promise they will let OP withdraw his funds if he lists all his alt accounts.

Nonsense.
So then, IF you are right, and he lists those accounts, then what? Then you would pay him, yeah right. 
If he says there are any, you would say "violated our terms" and still don't pay, 100%.

Rollbit has a solid reputation now for doing this, not only in our forum there are reports about these tactics.

Still a reminder, rollbit bought the stolen data from the stake.com hack last year to promote their own site, this has been mentioned and proved before. A site doing shady things like this also comes up with excuses to not pay honest customers.


Have we ever seen any proof of those claims? I have actually never seen them. They always say there are multi accounts "but we can't tell you how we found out, for security reasons" .

Sites like rollbit are happy to take deposits, but when it comes to pay there are suddenly problems. If there are multiple accounts you knew when he opened it, you should close it immediately, not after depositing over 10000$.

I agree with that. We shouldn't tag everyone, that's why I said "with valid suspicion." I think it's important to strike a balance between warning others about potential scams and avoiding hasty judgments. Negative feedback indeed loses its impact if it becomes too widespread and indiscriminate. But, things are hardly ever just black and white, and there are a whole range of shades of gray in between.

Let me break it down with an example: Just the other day, me and some other DT members gave a negative tag to the account OldCat over this topic. As far as I know, the scam hasn't actually happened. But based on what we can see, there's a legit reason to be suspicious about a possible scam. So, in this case, is my judgment flawed, and is the negative tag unwarranted? I don't believe so. Waiting for an actual scam would basically make the whole reputation system useless as an early warning signal.

How about all of the users who don't know how to speak English fluently like anonymousxm, and all of the users who don't have the emotional patience or thought to make a thread here on bitcointalk? How many more consumers and value of BTC are locked because of ridiculous/impossible KYC restrictions/conditions?

I've investigated many complaints and I say that you are lucky so many users are in your pocket, or else you and your business would not exist here.

[...]

Also, regarding this link, it appears that both me, icalical, and tjtonmoy have submitted multiple entries for selection. I've observed that the votes are being counted per participant and not per designs entry.

it's so sad to see i just received 4 votes after producing this much creative avatar's: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5462254.msg62680588#msg62680588

Sorry @Royse777 late for an opinion, Almost everyone did well. Thanks to everyone for participating.


But most like is this and updated.

This could be a phishing scam of sorts as well. Users connects their wallets and the site empties them. Heard about that happening a couple times in the last few months.

As I said earlier, words about multiaccounting are just funny for me, because that was my first and last duckdice.io account.
Transaction was really approved, which was surprising for me. Here is screenshot. https://ibb.co/C951JXx
But they decided to send funds not to the wallet that was specified in the withdrawal form, but to the one which I used last time. That seemed strange to me, but in general I have the money and I'm glad that my issue is closed.

I'm very much in favor of forgivenness. For example to give people a second chance after they admit their mistake, even for plagiarizing under certain circumstances and that's also why I'm not in favor of our current "ban evasion" rule, because such a rule is exactly the opposite of forgivenness. Everyone needs a fair chance to admit his mistakes and a fair chance to improve.
But I'm also in favor of drawing a clear line to prevent abuse from getting more common. Every member should know that certain practices here are frowned upon and it's important to avoid such abuses, like Haunebu and his Alt did. If these members are really valuable for our comunity, they will admit their mistake, accept the consequences about the involved accounts getting tagged and then, they can start from scratch building a new Account, where such abuses are avoided. That's a fair second chance in my opinion.

As a DT member, consistency is very important for me. When Merit was introduced, the consensus was pretty clear that sending of Merit to our own Alt Accounts will almost certainly lead to red trust.
If Haunebu and his alts are getting out of this untagged, we are at risk, that someone else will come here, setting up a bunch of own Alt Accounts and sending them Merit from his main account. In case he's getting a negative tag (which would be deserved in my opinion) he could point at Haunebu and his Alt, where no negative tag was issued.
And DT would be in trouble to explain it properly because it would be a very inconsistent story.
That's why I'm in favor of tagging the abusers because DT needs to be consistent about our Merit guidelines and issue a fair punishment for the abusing accounts because it's important to prevent abuse in the future.