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?

Flip.gg is not on this forum, they don't have any ANN, as well as --far as I know-- any account or community manager that can represent on their behalf. So there's no way to summon them. If they're here, I'll be more than happy to bring this matter to their awareness and invite them to address this issue.

As been repetitively informed, their clearnet has been down for a while, their tor version is still up and running though. Charles-Tim already gave you a guide on how to use the tor site from the other thread. If you're still unclear about how to use tor and want to try to access their tor site, I can guide you step by step. But, the current advise for the time being is to refrain from depositing until the pending transactions came through.

First of all, I'll post the BBcode version of the [currently] only image you provide so anyone can see things easier



with that made visible, I'd urge you to edit the opening post with the format and more evidences than what the image above provide us, as logfiles suggested. This board runs on evidences, it'll be very much appreciated and helpful if you can give proper materials to back up your claim for the DTs to tag them [you do aware that you can tag them yourself too, right?] if they're proven to be the wrong side here, because the current evidences you gave is... very limited and didn't give us enough insight.

I will also urge you to inform them [preferably after you edited this thread with proper format] about this thread. Your post on their ANN did not direct them to this accusation thread and they probably didn't know where to address your issue. I can do that for you if you want to [though I don't see why], but I'd prefer to do it after you made this thread "complete".

And lastly, no, I am somewhat sure that shasan is not working for them.

Three things. One, no one can "not accept" the wallet as it's been sent months ago, the receiver already received the wallet, it can't be undone. Two, no one can participate on the free-raffle/giveaway anymore as it's been done months ago, the events are no longer exist. And three, if you bother to read at least one or two latest posts --if not few more-- to get a better grasp of the latest situation and development of a case before posting, you'll see GazetaBitcoin Grizzly-ta-Bear-coin gave a very nice summary of his very long and extensive due dilligence on the other thread about the ledger.

They're [arguably] abusing merit, I'll take your word for that and won't bother to crosscheck, but do they cheat the community that warrant a negative feedback? You requested us, the DTs, why doesn't we leave them a negative feedback. And you've been repetitively asked, "what scam?"

Perhaps I should invite you to reacquaint yourself with what trust feedback said and dictate,



Do the users you mentioned poses a high-risk to the community if they trade with them? If you can provide arguments backed with evidences that they poses such threat --thus will potentially scam the community-- I'll probably consider about leaving tag. Otherwise, it's a case of merit abuse, not a scam.

I'll quote this one as it summarizes the latest exchanges of communication. Has someone suffered a damage or financial lost caused by the user you mentioned? Or, does the user you mentioned poses a risk of causing other user financial damage?

I don't understand this part. Which scam is this? The merit abuse? Or did you find another evidences [that you're yet to present here on this thread] that they scammed someone?

On that case, if your story is what actually happened and it's a simple mix up, you can rest assured that SB will sort everything up. For the time being, I noticed no one asked you yet if you're the only one accessing SB in your home. Are you?

I think you're a bit behind on the development of the entire whirlwind's situation. There's already a reply and explanation made by Hhampuz on their ANN thread, which also quoted by Logfiles on post #14 of this thread.

There were not enough evidences to conclude your situation here to determine what's really going on. I will try to reach SB's representatives and see what he thought about this matter and give SB's side of the story. They are very attentive and handled cases fairly if it's proven to be a simple misunderstanding. Please give more time and wait a moment for my PM to be notified by them.

Pretty much sure the post you quoted just proven the exact opposite of your comment. Gazeta Tabloid spent a lot of time writing the post, and even longer time figuring every details and doing every steps needed to check the ledger's integrity, and they came clean.

Yes, people is advised to exercise caution when they use the ledger and they could do what Tabloid did [dismantling the device] if they want extra security, but it's proven that the ledgers are not tampered. Thus, if the balance became empty at one point, it's not necessarily Betnomi's fault. You do aware that there are a lot of malicious entities out there in crypto-space who perpetually tried to steal other people's fund, right?

The screenshot of the conversation explained it quite clearly, OP deposited 50$, got a promo bonus of 100 free spins from that deposit, and won 110 USD from it.

I am trying hard to understand [I guess my brain is in slow mode today] so please guide me down the road slowly. I understand correctly that you deposited 50 USD, and won 110 from a free roll bonus given from that deposit, and then you played another game, Kraken's Sky Bounty, and won 112.28 USD with free roll from it, as referred on your game replayable here?

I can see that OP is online earlier today and didn't comment further about the issue. I think OP now understand what's the promotion about and the misunderstanding that happened. OP, as this situation is clarified and cleared, can you please lock this topic and mark them as solved?

If I am not mistaken, the crisis in that episode ended in less than one day, if not mere hours, and definitely not weeks. And if we take a second to suppose that's what happened, Sorsis took a month-off, it still doesn't explain the other situation where the entire website slowly dissipates into void, admins of tg goes frenzy, social medias followed the website into the void, etc.

I think you still understand it wrongly. First of all, I am sure you understand now that Stake's promo is to reward the oldest account which enrolling to the competition, not to point out the oldest account known. For example, if bitcointalk provided the same competition, I should enrolled mine, registered on 3rd of February 2016 instead of pointing and "enrolling" theymos [registered 9th February 2010], I can not and may not enrolled theymos'.

OP's case, he misunderstood the instruction, he pointed out "theymos" instead of enrollling his own account.

I am seconding this, reading the details in the opening post --and before reading khaled0111's comment-- gave me an impression that OP hit a language barrier. The promo was about rewarding oldest user by asking them to provide their account's name and age, not Stake's own account. Thus, in a way, OP is not even eligible to enter the contest as his answer is wrong, he didn't enroll his own account, he enrolled Stake's.