Why is there anything to be shamed about? I have to take a refresher course to get reacquainted with your case, and after reading it, even with the situation betnomi is currently neck-depth in, it'll still be wrong to support your flag. Your case was proven that they did not delete your betting history, you just did not set the right filter, and the reason why your fund was confiscated for far too long is because you did not submit a document they requested for KYC. All processed accordingly the instance you provide it. Were you suggesting people should support a flag for a case with such basis?

The statement of which members agreed upon supporting type-1 flag, your flag, is:

"Due largely to the factors mentioned in [...], I believe that anyone dealing with [...] is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

None of it is valid because the reference that's became the basis of the flag shows otherwise. If people have to support these flags just because now betnomi --if we assume for a second here-- is proven to be abandoning the sinking ship, this will be a wrong way to support flag. This is why the need for anyone having their funds confiscated by betnomi to raise their scam accusation and --if they deem necessary-- a flag against the platform.

If all signs shows and verified to be a concrete evidences of an abuse, I am sure DTs will not hesitate to support the flag.

PM sent, please wait for Razer to come online and notice my PM.

---

Edit: Got a reply from Razer, Rollbit is more than willing to cooperate and answer to any third party addressing this issue. Given there's no ADR that's suitable for this case [sportsbetting related] you can escalate it to complaints@gaming-curacao.com. Please note that the ruling made by the master license holder is final and binding to both parties, so both parties has to honor the final decision made by GC.

Just because you asked, trust and distrust list are well documented by Loyce and open for public for anyone interested. Here's yours for the most recent week as per when this post is made: https://loyce.club/trust/2023-07-22_Sat_05.07h/3540644.html

How exactly do you propose to "save" the blue bird, with all the hints shows it refers to Twitter, through this project? Why the self-moderated thread? Where is the team? What happened with your previous project?

Just in case: archived thread | archived website

It's not closed yet. The button to lock the topic is at the bottom left of the page. You might also want to edit your title with something to indicate the situation has been solved by adding such wordings on the title, and, it might help if you would show a good gesture by explaining the actual situation on the opening post.

You have my sympathy. I know that it won't mean much compared to the financial lost you experienced, but I am simply extending my honest feeling. I've been quite acquainted with you and cases you have against platforms throughout the scam accusations board, and I can only give a ballpark of how much you lost. To add 0.9 btc on top of that pile... I can only hope you didn't lose enough that'll drastically affect and alter your life quality.


And then, we can finally get a better picture of extent of the damage of this current issue. Recently, throughout several threads across several boards on this forum, many were wondering why [if we suppose Betnomi hits an ice berg] there were no complaint, no scam accusation raised, no body wailed their lost deposit, except for an user who lost 20,000 USD who escalated their case on CG, as well as boroBTC and GekkeBelg above, and yet there's still no one "formally raise a complaint" on scam accusations board. And there it is, finally a suggestion for someone who got their money stuck on the platform to file their complaint. I think it's a good approach for the community if boroBTC would want to. The scam accusation might be won't help returning the fund back, but it can at the very least inform us how serious the situation is, how severe the damage is, and --at the very least-- allows people who frustrated at their lost fund a way to vent their frustration

Ok, so I stared at that post for few good seconds. So... you don't have a ground for that accusation? Any shred of evidence? Anything? It's all just a theory in your head, and when you said you'll give the correct calculation, you actually don't have anything other than a guess, and that's why you locked the thread?

OP, Butternuts25, do you have any more thing to add? If you don't, I think this became quite clear to us that you tried to abuse the system and peer-pressuring housebets into giving up the confiscated funds. I'll consider this case closed and will take other case you might escalate in the future with grains of salt.

The last information provided by Razer is that the decision came from Betby, their sportsbook provider, not by Rollbit themselves, and thus there's nothing they can do about it. The rule about sportsbook canceling bets is also already stated on their Terms and Conditions, of which you agreed upon signing up,


I am sorry that I have to tell you this, but this case is as good as solved. Nonetheless, if you still want to pursue this matter, I can PM Razer on your behalf --since previously you told us that Razer set his PM to not accepting messages from newbies-- and ask him if Rollbit would want to take this matter to another party and see their ruling about this.

I am actually more impressed at how you noticed the negative feedback, given that CryptoHFs is not on DT, thus his feedback doesn't show by default. But that thing aside, my post here is more to CryptoHFs than to you.

CryptoHFs, I take a peek at your feedbacks. Now, I am not going to put a screenshot or a quote of it here as, if I do so, it'll permanently leave a history of your sent feedback, and I am not trying to be patronizing as well, but by this occasion presented to us, I'd like to extend a suggestion for you to really read what Loyce's suggested on the correct use of the Trust system as well as perhaps reading yahoo's recent question about candy.

For Loyce's thread, as it is intended for beginners, the summary can be found on the first post, so I think reading it is quite enough. For Yahoo's though, I'd suggest you to give it a thorough read, chew them 32 times, digest them slowly, and give your own summary based on it as the outcome of the entire length of the discussion is quite mixed. Both of them are a nice read, and I am really really really [can't emphasize this enough] strongly suggesting you to get acquainted with them prior to your next sent feedback.

Again, I am not trying to patronize you, and I am not sure your insight of the DTs or --if I may be blunt-- your agenda on being one of them... well, us, but the road you currently take is one of the fastest way to meet Tilde, one of the Trust Sisters. This is not a threat, this is a friendly warning nudging you to understand how things supposed to work. I really hope you heed my suggestion.

And I asked again, how? If I may requote my entire question about this matter from your now-locked thread,


of which you replied that,


of which instead of explaining and showing us the, "calculation at the correct time", you locked the thread. That's certainly did not evoke confidence on other people's mind about the basis of your accusation. So, let me ask again with your added info, how do you propose they use motion sensor to detect pattern? Accelerometer? Proximity? What pattern do they read and how?


And lastly, please refrain from assuming everybody that did not agree with you right on the spot and, instead, demands further explanation as people on Stake's payroll. I am telling you this for your behalf as it'll just make you looks childish and your accusation more questionable.

If I have to facepalmed myself reading your ignorance, I might have to take myself to the ER. Allow me to help you to break down the situation here slowly: the question being asked here is not if anyone made mistake by participating in the quiz, it's if you're [and other accounts] an alt of deadsea33. Many members are also participants of that thread, but a lot of them [currently] are not as suspicios as you in term of accuracy, timing in giving your answers, and other factors.

As for the matter being investigated here, it is not only deadsea33's merit history, but also the possible alt-account of his, and this is where you come to the spotlight.

In short, if you really find it hard to understand, there is an ongoing investigation that deadsea33's account changed hand, and that he published his quiz thread of which you participated for the sole purpose of abusing merit by rewarding it to his other accounts, of which, so many signs point out to your account as one of it.

Thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate it.


A bit OOT, just for added info, there are four master license holders authorized by Curacao gambling authority and there will be only those four as the authority will not issue another master license [far as I know], and those four license holders may issue "sub-license" for platforms like Rollbit to authenticate and legalize themselves. Those four master licensor are Antillephone, Curacao Interactive, CEG, and GC.

I think the best bet right now --pun intended-- is to contact through complaints@gaming-curacao.com as instructed by Razer and see if they'll give a follow up steps for disputes or if the email bounce or anything. But I think it'll be most likely their means of communication for disputes and the likes.

And OP, cryptogeniusdice, while you're at it, you could probably explain your previous accusation of them utilizing motion sensors to cheat as well, I am not sure why you leave your other thread about this very issue unanswered, lock the other thread when the discussion moved there, and created this new one. Sorry, but I can't help but to start thinking you made baseless --and probably retaliatory-- accusations and run when pressed further to give strong evidences to back up your claim.

It will also be very helpful if you can just focused into one topic instead of creating multiple threads with same accusations.

I think what he tried to say is that after the last contact on 8th of June, where they asked for another document on top of several documents that's been asked before, and up to this day, he still hasn't get his withdrawal, thus, "this site failure is another step towards disaster." I don't think if the ship's sinking, they'll still employ people to work on KYC, they'll most likely resort to skeleton employees, and likewise, if they still have people to send email their members about KYC, the ship's probably not about to sink.

The best possible route right now will be to file a dispute to their licensor, as Razer has agreed on responding to it promptly. I previously made a mistake by not correcting OP about the master licensor he should be in touch with, which made him reaching to CEG instead of GC and inevitably put the whole case into a wrong direction. If OP would reach to GC, we can probably put this case back into motion of the right track and one step closer at closing it.


Oh, nothing so far worth mentioning other than my epic failure [LOL] of confusing CEG and GC on OP's latest confirmation prior to him reaching the master licensor, which cost him roughly one month of his time [I once again apologize for this overlook, OP]. Other than that, Razer --and through him, Rollbit-- agreed to respond to the case through GC, so yeah, for me, it's another wait and see for GC's ruling and see how both parties adhere and respond to it.

I understand correctly that your argument that ties jimmy0143 and two previously tagged and flagged accounts, brandon6969 and Smith_94, is because both brandon6969 and jimmy0143 offers Content Decryption Modules [CDM]?

Just passing by, please ignore me, I am currently not interested on this case as I have other things to attend, as well as not gonna draw any conclusion about loginsam45, nor that I've ever have to verify a signed message, but tweaking with it a little, the error made on the signing message seems because somehow when he posted his reply, there's space between "eedc" and "e6e4", where it should be a complete line without any space. Not sure why when we quote his post it'll show that the line is uninterrupted, but upon being posted, it'll be broken into two line [the image I show will describe better]





This line, upon being pasted into https://app.mycrypto.com/verify-message, will also have a space, as shown on FatFork's screenshot as well as mine below, and removing that space will validate the message, as shown on the image next to it:



That said, and as I previously said that this is the first time I have to verify a signed message, so I am not well versed on this matter, I am not sure if the message should only be verified by "mycrypto" or if other platform will also work, but I try to verify it on etherscan as a doublecheck and it turned invalid,

---

Edit:

Ok, found it, tweak it out a little, have a feeling that the error is in the message and trying to figure out how the message supposed to be written. "\n" is an line break [enter] --this I figured quite fast-- but I also automatically ignore the space next to the line break, for example in the word "... bluedeep\n I am...", I tried to make them as "... bluedeep[enter]I am", ignoring and deliberately deleting the space between "\n" and "I" where it should be "... bluedeep[enter][space]I am ..." because... who the hell add a space right after a line break?

The whole message body to be pasted to etherscan should be as below:

My Account 1. ltcrstrbrt 2. GigaBit 3. bluedeep
 I am the original owner of this account
 @JollyGood You investigate it properly

 Dated 21-07-2023

and it's validated:

It might be nice and helpful for others if you can add those new addresses to the opening post where it will have a bigger chance of get read by anyone stumbled upon this thread looking about idmining compared to if it's being slipped into the second page of the thread.

Given that there's no sensitive or private information exchanged or provided on those PM, I think the decision to reveal the sender's username is ultimately depends on the purpose of this thread.

Does it serve as a way to help you decide whether the user tried to scam you or not? Then don't, you've reported it to mods, you've made your stance on the PM's purpose.

Does it serve as a way to satisfy your curiosity why he PMed you? Then don't, there's no added benefit on it. He went online yesterday, if he's honest and had any intention to tell you further, he'll already done so. Unless you hope by having his name mentioned, he'll come here to address the concern [which quite unlikely, if we assume he's a scammer with disposable account]

Does it serve as a warning and informing people who might also get PM from him? Then do it, as said above, there's no private information on those PM. Revealing his username might encourage others who probably also got PM from him to report it.