Hmm... I think we actually have some basis to think that the roulette itself is scam, if we may connect it with the evidences found on my investigation of their "parent company", BitCase. What we're yet to figure is how, will they ask for private key? Use a drainer malware? Or will they ask for certain deposit to unlock withdrawal.

If I may quote myself about the quick investigaton of BitCase [there are still lots of materials about BitCase that can be pointed out from their website, but I think these points are enough to cover the nature of the website] as well as to safe-keep the research result in case the first thread moved to trash,

Reported them under fake roulette, fake parent company, and a possible attempt to phish gullible users. Let's see if it got handled and moved to trash.


Nuke an account? Yes. With sufficient reason, moderators has the power to send an account into oblivion.

Hmm... I stand corrected on the merit cluelessness. I admit that I didn't check the log [I assume the log didn't cover that far back to 2018, just like the archiver by loyce and ninjastic] and thus didn't aware the full depth of the merit distribution. I assumed that both accounts sent a huge amount of merit once, realized or being warned about it [or got educated by himself] and stopped doing it.

If the distribution was spread evenly throughout the year, then yes, I think Haunebu should be, at one point, aware of the implication of his action and continued on doing so before stopped altogether.

I am now torn for the negative, though. I initially inclined to think that even the merit abuse is proven, then the tag should be a neutral one, given the negative dictate,



and on this case, there were no risk [at least according to my opinion, but I am open for discussion] of trading with Haunebu, i.e., he's not scamming anyone. But your reference of what hilariousandco said moved me an inch or two from my stance. I am now not sure what to do.

May I ask your opinion if I counter hilariousandco's opinion for red tag with the one given by theymos, [I stole it from nutildah's on previous page]


if we consider that as it's been five years since both account exchange merits, then it's probably safe to assume that the mistake happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Thus, red tagging them will pose as a mark-of-shame instead of a warning for others.

What's your thought on this?

So, two participants with two avatars for each of them? I am liking:

icalical's pirate flag and treasure map entry, and cafter's pirate hat from first and third image of entry number 1 PX-Z's flag for the reason that I shared with examplens, I liked and always think avatar without background [i.e. not square] is neat.

Edit: Sorry, I understand correctly that our votes are limited to the ones you mark in red square? Thus, cafter's avatar will be from his third entry? On that case, I am revising my vote to PX-Z's set number 1. Though if I may give my two cents without disrespecting your choice, cafter's hat is also nice

If I may add more about this case and what you inquire to your security team, wasn't the OP already passed the 3rd level KYC and thus they've fulfilled the KYC requirement?

Sadly, I have to disagree. In my opinion, [negative] tagging Haunebu [and 3kpk3] account for merit abuse would violate the quote from theymos.

The post quoted, as you've very nicely laid out, is about leniency [though I think that case is for Merit Source and about how they exhaust their merit quota]. Combine that with what yahoo said here on #22 that the merit exchange happened close to when the merit system is being introduced and everybody is still fumbling with sending and receiving merit, and that he has never exchanged any between both ever since, there's a huge chance that Haunebu didn't know what he may or may not do with his merit. So, it's a case of merit cluelessness rather than a merit abuse, which warrant even more less [negative] tag. Tagging him for such would step into the realm of "something stupid involving merit".

If a tag should be given, at best, it'll be a neutral tag to indicate the alt-connection to give pointer to campaign manager if he's ever enrolling both of his account on the same campaign, but not for the merit abuse cluelessness.

I went through their "parent company", BitCase, who held this free raffle to celebrate their 15 million cases [whatever that is]. The link to bitcase[dot]org can initially be accessed by clicking the logo on their header, but it's no longer clickable. Anyway, the parent company itself shows so many red flags, and I think it's enough to tell us the truth about this "raffle" and warrant a tag. I'm leaving one as well.

Err...? The official site of the roulette platform that give free raffle to comemmorate an achievement of 15 million cases by bitcase[dot]org, which... has characteristics as I mentioned above? How will this make a difference?

Umm... point?

If you're proposing that in the fictional scenario, the situation is more dire than what happened here [life v. money] and thus their staffs are more motivated to reach the founder to solve the situation, I'd like to remind you that the founder of this platform knows what happened before he disappeared.

If he's in an emergency [that's what inferred from one of his last communication with icopress, not traveling] and intended to keep the integrity of his platform, given he's aware of the situation, he can point one or two of his staffs to be the acting director.

I'll use this chance to re-emphasize that I personally think it's not a good idea. Having a possibility to manually terminate a session by preference implies that Sinbad keep a log of user's transaction. Be it due to the user's request and preference or not, it's a step back from the anonimity that supposed to be offered by a mixer. It'll be a very great assurance to anyone that the platform --any mixer platform-- does not keep a log longer than it needed to be [that is, until the transaction is finished].

According to this old digging by decodx, yes, they shared an address and username. This was part of OP's evidence on his opening post, though he can only share link because the thread was locked. It was also repeated here [quoted below], so their alt relationship is pretty much established.



[p.s.: I envied your avatar, LOL]

Ok, this question might sound stupid, but... are we sure it is a glitch and not something like a deposit bonus promo and the likes? I tried to toy with the amount, counting in a rounding error, the number is indeed around 20%, it's a tad bit too precise for a random glitch and, IMO, more like a bonus?

Breathable?


Challenge accepted. How about these for a reason for doubt? This is what your website said [archived]



Copyright 2019-2023, Bitcase Group, Ltd., Cyprus, where the event itself is to commemorate 15 million cases.

1. Your page is copyrighted from 2019, while it's just six months old. BitCase, the "parent company" of yours, who held the event for 15 million cases, are created even more recent



2. Bitcase Group, Ltd. is the name of the registered company. Depends on which website people accessed, it's either registered in Cyprus [for those who access it from markeeter[dot]com] or in UK if seen from bitcase[dot]org [archived]. They're both came negative, though.





3. The header of markeeter is clickable and linking to bitcase [as it should be, given it's the subsidiary of bitcase group]. [Edit: proof-reading it prior to hitting the post button and I found that it's no longer redirecting me to bitcase page? I can swear to any holy being that I was redirected from clicking the header, though] On bitcase, we'll be able to see testimonials from Portia Villa who apparently also has a twin named Lexie Cuevas who happen to write the review and uhh...



Catrine Galvan and Kellis Humphries?




Polly Rush?


Thought?

No, I don't think anyone other than efialtis did. Or, if anyone do, I don't think they managed to get in touch with Crashino's representative, given their last online activity was in 18 April, months ago. Your best shot will be to try to ask efialtis to reach them again.

Are you waking up from six years of long sleep just to give testimonial about this site? You're amazing.

What he offered is a better way to promote the platform than those questionable posts made above, suppose the platform itself is legit [he'll do a DD prior to accepting to be hired]. I understand it might be quite difficult for you to follow the recent situation of this forum [and this is me assuming you're still the original owner of this account] due to the long sleep. But the user you quoted is one of the top notch campaign manager on this forum.

I'm quoting the original post being referred here in full [below], just for the sake of added context. If I may add, aside from what yahoo said, one that's also not allowed is to add one's main account into alt's their trust list [on this case, I'll assume Haunebu is the main and 3kpk3 is the alt], though it's ok to add your alt to your main's trust list.

---

I personally think it doesn't sound good [me and my own opinion, of course]. If a session needs a manual termination button, there's a chance someone forgot to click the button, and thus, one step backward from privacy [as explained by examplens and bhadz]. If dev wants to venture into an option to manually terminate a session, I think it'll be better to reverse the proposed idea; instead of having the manual termination button by default, dev add a check mark to allow people to keep the session longer or until they pressed the termination button. Otherwise, the sessions will end like always.

Not sure about the implications behind this, though. Wouldn't it mean sinbad has to keep a log [albeit selectively] to cater this idea? I can imagine some people will not welcome this idea.

---

I loved icalical's and PX-Z's first design, the pixelated ones, purely because it matched the current retro-pixelated theme of the site

This is actually part of the reason why I asked BC.GAME my question. I'd like to know if there's more behind this case, if we need to take OP's cases with grains of salt or if OP is one of the unluckiest person on earth. Is it true that OP's KYC is locked and why is that?

BC said that, other than a case of violation of sportsbook on the part below that I snipped, dragged cases like OP's happen when they've been repetitively given explanation by CS,


but if we give OP's explanation of the situation a benefit of doubts, then this case is actually a case of negligence from BC's side.

OP reached them to inform them that he can't do KYC as it's locked --bug or whatever-- and based on what we can conclude from the current narrative, their customer service informed him repetitively but no solution was given or made. OP's KYC is still locked. I can only assume that they require KYC as a preliminary step of sportbetting abuse, so it rather doesn't make sense if they locked OP's KYC while they tried to find a ground on OP's case.

Meanwhile, from the other side of the table, if we take weight on Dexsport's explanation on the other thread, that OP violate their TnC, it'll be a recurring theme of OP.

Thus, I'd like to ask BC.GAME --I think this question does not and will not jeopardize their security algorithm of fraud detection, so I don't see why they can't answer this-- is it true that OP's KYC page is locked, in spite of him --according to what's implied on your statement-- been trying to solve it by repetitively reaching your customer service? If so, why is that?

There's an ongoing discussion on their ANN about considering using funds escrowed by MJ to compensate what's lost by this... incident, but I think [if the idea is approved] the priority should be compensate those who deposited on whirlwind first, and later on to the campaign participants

Wasn't the initial problem that OP raised is a KYC situation? OP tripped over a KYC trigger, which I assume --based on your explanation-- was triggered by a third party risk management team, and when he tried to submit the documents, he can't do it because there is no button to submit them?