I waited for CG to made their posts public and was hoping that it told us that the video conference went and serve a purpose like what I thought it would be: to have an interactive dialog with OP and clear things up. Should have known to grab my popcorn because the drama is far from end.

For anyone who won't bother looking at the dispute page on CG, this is their reply:


OP, before I make any assumption, can you please tell us several things:

1. Does the notarized certification paper specify passport number or detailed ID like full name, DoB, address, etc. or other aspect that can tie the certificate to certain passport and to certain citizen?
2. Does the passport you sent to TD at the very first time --and later on, to CG-- has a nice photo of you on it?

If the answer for both question is yes, I can't understand how is it so difficult for their security team to calculate 1 + 1. All they need to do is matching the passport ID --or whatever identifier-- on the certification paper with the old passport file they had from your very first KYC.

The passport has your picture on it, they made a video call with you and can see your face. They have all the ingredients needed. If necessary, they could just simply open three simultaneous windows on their screen: the current video call, the old KYC file, and the notarized documents to match details on the passport. I think it's not that diffucult to find a string that connect the three data and draw a conclusion, whatever conclusion, from it.

But, for the sake of being fair, allow me to treat you with "guilty until proven innocent", is there a reason why you can't show your passport? I assume the video call happened at your home where you can leave the screen for couple of minutes to take your passport?

I assume you're asking because you want to invest? One thing that I learned by venturing around the corridors of this forum for years is that there are way too many projects born every day --or weeks, the token section is currently has been quiet for a few days-- that it's near impossible to handle and understood all of them at once, and that's ok.

IMO, if you plan on a short term holding --or perhaps it suits better if I say "trading"-- stick to old coins which are more established and less likely to be rug-pulled. Only if you're ready for a longer period of holding, you can try investing on those ICO and ITO. And by "long period" I am talking a period that can span for years. Focus on couple of projects only, do a deep DD on these projects and determine if they worth taking and suits your financial strategy or not instead of trying to understand as many projects as you can.

Those people who seemed very positive about some coins, more likely than not they're a hired shillers and/or hyping a coin with their comments to fulfill their own agenda.

Give the projects you're about to invest a thorough read, check their roadmap and their tokenomy, feel how professionally-written their whitepaper is, crosscheck their team's background, visit the scam accusation boards of this forum to see if there any thread raised on those new projects you're about to invest. There are dedicated people on this forum who actively scan the token board trying to tackle scam projects from taking advantage from the forum's members. That'll help narrow down your options.

I am agree with this point of view, seems to me like a simple case of pending transaction. Duelbits didn't cancel the payment and lock the account --at least that's what I get from OP's very limited description-- it's simply pending, OP should have tried to get in touch with their representative through chat or on their ann thread first instead of directly moving to this accusation thread.

Like what? Fake KYC? Or to send the amount they tried to WD to you? Or relinguishing their locked account to you?

---

OP, I am strongly suggest you to stay away from this user above. I don't think whatever they offered to help is within the realm of acceptable by Stake. Like noorman0 said, Stunna's help will be more credible. Try to reach them.

It sparks a question in my mind: is it possible with the current system for anyone to carbon-copied someone's notification? Suppose I registered myself on the tg bot, I understand the database collected our tg username and the BTT UID, does the bot allows other tg to register and bind themselves to the same UID or will it automatically reject the impersonator's registration because the BTT UID is already registered to someone's tg username on the database?

If it is possible, how feasible is it to make a restriction where once an UID is bind to a TG username, no other TG username can connect to the same UID anymore? Suppose an impersonator get ahead of the original UID owner and registered the UID to the tg bot, the original owner can just write here to sort it out? If... that's not too troublesome.


If I have to put myself in other perspective and think of the possible detrimental effect of this idea --thus opposing it-- it would be an added possibility of (1) receiving unsolicited DM, be it the scam offers, or someone genuine from the forum trying to reach you personally, and (2) having my TG enrolled to a telegram bounty campaign without my consent by a bounty abuser. Your list will kinda act as an open buffet for those people, giving them list of available telegram contact and the forum username associated to it.

But those risks are already present with or without your list. Anyone can easily scroll past a bounty spreadsheet or type "telegram username:" on the search field on ninjastic with specific forum username on the author field to basically get the same --if not more comprehensive-- result. So I don't think it's much of "an issue" because more likely than not, our username is already exposed "without our consent" by the bounty spreadsheets and telegram group we joined.

Wouldn't what you're looking for is "positive feedback"? Trust list is meant to be left to someone whose judgment you trusted. If user A has a positive experience dealing with B, C, and D, they should leave each other a positive feedback instead of put each other on their trust list. If user A has a good record on pointing out that user E and F is a scammer, user G is to be trusted, or user H is one of the best escrow, then you put user A on your trust list.

Back to your case, as what you're looking for is actually the "positive feedback", then the method needed to know how trustworthy someone you're about to deal with is, is already catered by the forum. The "show ratings" button below "these ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate" will show you feedback given by any members to the said user regardless of their DT status

Can it be made as one of /menu command so --existing-- users can activate/deactivate this option to ads/remove their name from the list suppose they changed their mind one day?


I think a /user command will probably be quite messy. I imagine the list will be quite big? It'll be a very long chat bubble every time the command being prompted. Do you have a ballpark data of how many user currently use your notifier?

If it can be set to automatically add or remove a username who activate/deactivate the feature, --so it won't bother you too much to manually update the page-- I think a page on ninjastic will suits better. It will also serve to let people know that you have another useful program aside from the ninjastic. I think there are a lot of people knows about and use ninjastic, but not everyone who use ninjastic know that you also have the notifier. Adding a page on ninjastic about TG bot will serve as a PSA.

I don't think I understand. I thought the bounty being discussed on this topic, Bitcoin Future, has successfully being paid and distributed? The bounty manager themselves gave a TX ID for the payment.

That'll be useful. It'll be nice to know if certain user only need to be mentioned on a post or I should send them a PM to let them know about a topic.

An alternative to get this "feature" without breaching privacy is perhaps allowing those who use the bot --and wouldn't mind people know they got notified-- to PM OP or post here and OP compiled a list on the opening post consisting of these usernames.

OP did, fortunately. So future BM-wannabe could learn from their mistake. This one is the archived service ann thread which meant to be "reviewed", this one is the bounty thread.


I LOLed.

---

Looks like the conflict ends with mod --I assume-- deleted the thread. Their TG is still flooded with fake reviews, tshough. I'm not really sure what's on Jr BM's mind by having this bounty, even the most clueless project would questions how and why did their service ann thread suddenly got a lot of praises and good testimonies in one day. I would like to think they're simply naïve, and thus will leave a neutral feedback referencing to this issue instead of a negative one.

Allowing a private sheet would pose greater risk than the benefits. If the bounty or campaign manager is one of those handful highly reputable ones, then sure, they're "entitled" for the option to make the sheet private to protect their participant's privacy, as they're most likely had carefully handpicked these participants and strictly monitoring their participants activities and/or enrollment, thus the possibility of abuse is somewhat minimal.

But if same rules applied by a less dedicated manager who sweep through the weekly report half heartedly, it won't be good. Not only these manager could facilitate multi-acc enrollment, which happens too frequently that several members dedicate their time to purge these spammers/cheaters --and they usually need those addresses to weed these abusers out-- but there's also instances where campaign was abused by their own manager which was detected and exposed because the spreadsheet is availabe for public

That... is what "optional" means, people are not obligated to give positive review to get rewards.

---

On their last post, Jr BM said they will remove that "write review" part completely, as per OP's suggestion. Let's see if they'll remove it or not later today. If they didn't, I might consider leaving a neutral to negative tag under the reason that their action --asking for fake review-- is questionable, dishonest, and borderline untrustworth.

His post history is filled with numerous telegram username that you can try to reach one by one if you want to. Other than that, create your own thread, you're posting out of topic discussion here. Your case --whatever that is-- will stand more chance if it has its own thread and detailed info.

As in specifically asking for video call to verify your identity by themselves or they just simply asked for a video call without explaining the purpose? If they didn't say that they required it for re-verification --kinda futile at this point given the notary officially appointed by Latvian govt. had verified it, as per their very own requirement-- they probably want the video call to catch you up with their findings and suspicions and invited you to an interactive direct communication so botu parties can discuss the situation conveniently. I suggest you to accept that request, given you've gone so far getting your ID notarized. Few minutes of video call --arguably-- won't hurt. If you declined, though, it'll just made you look suspicious.

Except that they've give a comment regarding your issue, their security and anti fraud detection system matched your ID with known accounts evading sportsbet limitation. That's their final say, I think. You can't demand them to give detailed info of their detection here for public to read.

If you still want to pursue this matter and sure you're the right side, you can do what Pmalek suggested by contacting a third party mediator. I took a quick glance and didn't find them on thePogg, gamblescope, casinomeister, and askgamblers, though. They're on CasinoGuru, but CG are not handling a sportbet-related disputes.


AskGamblers accept and intermediate sportsbet-related disputes, but Rollbit isn't on their list.

Since it's all black and gathering news in one platform and it was like a year ago, dare I guess Blockfolio/FTX? I only vaguely remember how the UI worked, but I think they had a tab that display recent news?

May I suggest you google news feed as a substitute? If you customize your interest to crypto and other similar categories, they'll display recent news, and they could also improve their performance and articles they serve based on your feedback.

Heres some precautions you could probably use to give further assurance of your data safety in the future:

• Have a separate crypto TG --and social media-- from your personal life
• Check the username of anyone chatting you privately out of nowhere
• If there were none, it might be better for you to probably just ignore them straight away
• If they have a username, search that TG handlers here on the forum, either by search feature or through ninjastic, the result would pretty much give you a good idea of how trustworthy the person is
• A little bit no-brainer but... don't share your personal ID to anyone, unless you really trust them

That account will go straight to block and report if they chatted me, I won't even bother replied them, done that numerous times.

I don't think it does not violate any casino TOS, as I explained here, what OP proposed is very close to a syndicate betting on the lesser, most basic, definition. OP has a specialty --his "knowledge"-- and his partner will "specialize" on having a losing account. Not to mention the possibility that the "partner" can be subjected to value betting clause and/or insider information, as OP stated that's how he operated,

I certainly can not add some specifics to the date of your video call with them, as I don't have any knowledge or information of their staff's availability. As for what will they say after you pass verification, it'll depends entirely on their findings for your case. They said you're sportbook abuser --a prolific one, if I have to add-- so after the KYC, they'll investigate whether their suspicion is true or not.

Rollbit Razer, I'll really appreciate if you could divulge more about the claim of sportbook abuser. What's the previous abuses that OP did according to your system? Arbit bet? Multi-acc?

Yeah, when I initially contacted their representative to inform them about this case, I actually was hoping they're improving, as they replied to me responsively and immediately came to address the concern here. But that's probably not the case, given they have two open dispute on CG alone, and both were unadressed that CG representative had to extend the deadline by 7 days and 14 days.