Within 24 hours after their post, as stated below,



No, BetcoinAG username Jset21 will not be reactivated, or the third account suspected to be yours too. Or any future account created. Only the original one which asked for 60d self exclusion that'll be restored. This had also been answered,

I assume you're talking about this kind of warning flag?



Which there weren't any since no one raise any type of flag against him, as recorded by BPIP, nor do I find any red box on his old thread on altcoin marketplace, be it seeing from a guest account or a member account. So I am not really sure what you're talking about.




As for someone with positive feedback could easily scam people, I have to agree at certain degree. Yes, some people could and would likely more trusting toward someone with positive feedback, that's why exercising logic and DD prior to dealing with anyone is advisable.

But, at the same time, that doesn't necessarily translate into someone with one trusted feedback could "scam away at ease". Given your rank, I am sure you're well aware that all you need is to report such attempt to the scam accusation board, and that user would be investigated. If found guilty, they'll got some negative feedback which would --I strongly assume-- made anyone dealing with them to further weight in their option in spite of the presence of that nice looking green number.

Ahh... yes, I stand corrected. I read your post with few remaing brain cells that still awake and misunderstood your context of "now" as well as automatically assume --again, with half brain already asleep-- a "DT" refers to the forum's default trust instead of the custom trust list. Kindly forgive the miscommunication happened from my side.

Umm... I think you read the data wrongly. micaxel has been trusting mr.relax since the earliest time Loyce's record begin to scrape data, and MinoRaiola by data published on 03 Dec 2022, and none of them are currently on DT... well, MinoRaiola used to be, but not anymore. I even checked with BPIP to see if the result shown on my page is correct or was it affected by my trust list who distrusted them:

MinoRaiola
micaxel

Speaking from experience, and if I may add personal opinion within, i think it's quite safe to say it's decentralized. I learned the hard way --actually, it's more to "confused way" than "hard" as LoyceV helped me-- that when you tweak your trust list, the result could change your forum experience quite significantly.

If the person you trust distrusted someone, you also distrusted them [on the next depth level]. So, apparently, if I put someone --not sure if it applied to any user disregarding their DT level, but my case was a DT1-- on my trust list, and they have someone they distrust [~username], even if that person is DT2, their feedback will no longer shown on my "trusted feedback" table, and thus when that person [~username] left a negative feedback [~username left a negative trust to "username2"], the said feedback will not shown on my screen. Their feedback instead appeared on that "untrusted feedback. These ratings are from people [...]" table.

--pheww... even writing this made my head spinning--

So yeah, in a quite complex, complicated, and confusing way, I think we can argue that the trust system is really decentralized, in a way that no one has exact and absolute control on who can leave a visible score on someone else's feedback, since DT1s are handpicked --isn't it?-- by theymos through parameter which outcomes are dictated by every user on this forum [by setting their trust list], and DT2 are "handpicked" by DT1, yet DT2 can be kicked with a right amount of vote from DT1 --apparently, DT1 can also be kicked with enough votes too-- and anyone can ask for a DT2 to be revoked --this thread is a case on point-- by plausible reason and enough support.

In one perspective, this brings "trust" into a whole new level of literally trusting someone, because who we put in our list would greatly --as well as instantly, based on my confusing narrative above-- affect our forum experience and collectively affect the whole forum system.

I have to agree, though, that the rising amount of credible DT2 has reached a point where it should be a concern. Loyce has addressed the same concern on his weekly updated thread,


And jumping through his posts through links and threads --which, an interesting activity if I may say, as he has so many interesting posts-- he had also proposed an idea that crossed my mind when I typed this post,

Hmm... I thought I saw that this thread was already locked yesterday?

Anyway, since you come back here OP, or... OP v.2.0, I actually wanted to suggest something to you before your account got banned. Though I'm not an expert on this, but you might want to try risperidone or olanzapine, it might be able to greatly help you.

And I also want you to know that there's nothing to be ashamed of. A lot of people cared about such situation like this. Here, familiarize yourself, this article might come in handy.


Ackk... if only we made this bet happened, it'll be a very interesting bet. I was rooting for two days. Anyone guessed correctly? It's... four days, I think.

If I may be honest, I was waiting for them to give some response before leaving any feedback, wanting to let them give further explanation and whatnot, even though it's kinda a clean cut case. Let's say I was curious of what OP tried to pull out of their pocket. I saw them online after I posted my reply and they're online again today, so I think it's safe to say they just admitted their defeat.

I'll tag the account as well, so that future scam accusations they raised could be taken with a grain... a bucket of salt.

If I may give a wild assumption, I think its more to OP didn't want to be found by anyone scanning through their past history while investigating this case that they have a previous case, proven to be guilty, and resolved, than they're the same owner of the other thread.

So OP copied the first thread on the scam accusation board and used it to edit their past thread. OP even deleted their post stating that the case is solved and they got paid, which unfortunately for them --as every single post on this forum is-- is automatically archived by several platforms. Oh, I also happened to quote that statement,


As well as, they don't want people overseeing this case to know that the verdict given by 8bet is valid, that OP did a multi-acc. Here on their previous case, the account is under moegreen1@protonmail, and this case is under justforvpn99@yahoo.

https://imgur.com/a/EzfrvFS
https://prnt.sc/EHjWAxwNn3kL

I think this case is as good as solved, since 8bet's finding and reason is valid.

---

Edit: mentioning wrong platform name, edited and corrected

I'll quote your entire post for future reference.

A bit curious, back in 10 January, you raised similar case against 8bet over 12 0.012 SOL, which they've answered here, stating that you found and detected for free spin abuse.

I noticed that you edited your post and thread title today into a case for rollbit,


and it was the exact same case, verbatim, posted by this user, here


May I know why?

---

That's because the case that you referred had been answered and solved by the representative of 8bet. The DTs --yes, plural-- overseeing that thread had also came to the same conclusion, which is why the flag is not supported. Not sure why you bother mentioning and referring it.

Uhh... Forgive me to squeaking in with a rather confused tone, but why does it matter who sent what to who on the first place? I'm seriously asking here. I've tried to read the thread couple times and still couldn't see how it matters. The fact remains that Amph is willing to sell his account, as proven by his own evidence --self incrimination, that's rare.


Why is it still matter if Lucius is indeed TGing Amph first or it was someone else pretending to be him?

Have you at least try to inform betnomi about this thread so they can give their side of the story? I've see your post on their ann thread before you created this thread but I dismissed it because it's too troublesome to navigate through the story with so many comments and discussion overlapping your post, so moving it to this sub-board will hopefully do us all a favor, but at least inform the accused. It'll only be a fair case if they were given a chance to defend themselves.

A super quick glance at your and betnomi's post history told me that you both has not engaged on any dialogue about your case yet, in sense that they addressed you directly.

---

You might want to create your own thread for that, so every side can stay focused on what's what and who's who.

---

Edit: I've PMed betnomi informing them about this thread.

Sadly, your flagship product, which I believe is resembles to Midjourney and Craiyon seems not ready for test. Could you please look into this matter? And am correctly assume that there's nno token allocated for team at all?

That does not exactly answered my question, if I understand your statement correctly. Allow me to make it more specific, I am aware that you said team didn't have any allocation from the tokenomy, but do they have access to that nearly-100%-supply? I see from etherscan that the 21Q is already minted to these three ^{1 2 3} addresses. Do you have the private key for these wallet?

Though I am completely ok with their rather unfriendly manner --especially as I was very polite on that first message-- on responding to my message on their channel, I was also surprised on this turn of event. I thought they went so hostile because they don't want to acknowledge the case, but they've solved it instead.

If I may give a wild guess based on the worst and most possible notorious scenario, they probably didn't want any exposure of cases against them in public. Thus the urge to solve every case internally through their website and deleting my chat informing them --and public-- that's there's a case against them.

All things considered, given the case is solved, I think it won't be fair to keep the negative feedback I put against them as it's no longer valid. I withdrew it as a show of good gesture and appreciation towards their action solving the case.

I am very tempted to make a joke and say 1,731 USD, just to tick your nerve and further prove the point of what's written on my personal text, but then I'm afraid you can't tell a difference between a joke and a statement, so I opted to say the truth instead:

"None. I voluntarily overseeing your case and tried so hard to help you understand what your case really is and why your balance is confiscated."


Umm... yes, that's why I choose and put them there in the first place, to save people's time from pointing that fact that I already know and acknowledged and openly state. You telling me that is kinda... defeating the purpose.


I am not sure. Maybe they do have a case and problem against SB, maybe the accusations are unproven and just part of smear campaign? Like i said, trustpilot's review can be bought. Maybe your case, which overseen by CEG, could help us a bit. Speaking of which, what's the update of the case? They gave their verdict yet?


We did, trust me when I say we all did saw those screenshot. It's kinda hard to miss when they're being repeated and reposted way too many times. And I'm sure we all know what's the case really is, as I've pointlessly tried to explain to you several times.

Not sure why can't you see it yet. Either you're in denial and deliberately turning your ears deaf or you tried --so hard-- to paint SB in different color. Rest assured though, everybody who read this thread with the capability to correctly calculate 2 + 2 understand what's the real case here. You can stop your charade.

I'm out.

Ok so, basically this is your total token supply:

21 quintillions from first three clicks, that's 21 x 10¹⁸, or if we want to be specific, 21,000,000,000,000,000,000
100 millions from the next 100th clicks, so 100,000,000

That'll bring us to 21,000,000,000,100,000,000

We can get 100 free pat through the free pat button, but that won't count towards the deposit. The only way to progress through this investment project is through buying pat on uniswap --and presumably other platform as we progressed-- store them on the wallet we connected to your platform, type in the amount we want to deposit, click the button, and that amount will be taken from our address to a burn address. Am I correct?

Two questions if I'm good so far:
1. What's the burn address? I assume its the universal ETH burn address?
2. Who control of the current total --and continuously growing-- supply before anyone buy them on uniswap?

This will sounds harsh, but these are truth, so it have to be spitted out:


Yes, so does many other investing-crowdfunding-platforms.


This too. They promised a very tight selection and only select few based on certain criteria. IIRC one or two even claimed that after that phase, the candidates would fight for vote by the group of investors and only handfull will go with the funds.

I am sure if I'm not too lazy, I can dig one or two whitepaper from the pile of projects in the past that's collecting dust on my download folder, but I don't think that's necessary as I am quite sure all of us can agree that these two points are very common on many projects who proposed the same idea.


Now, this is what I called unique. Let's say someone propose an idea of creating an immortality capsule, or a time-space bending portal, or something that's way more realistic as it's already proposed and developed, an affordable AI imbued contact lens. These projects certainly meets your criteria of potential, most promising and very less likely to not succeeding --who wouldn't buy an immortality, and with the proper team, it's not impossible to create that very affordable AI contact lens?-- if... they can be developed.

You'll provide experts to help develop this idea? What if the idea is to travel to Jupiter? We all know there are space-travel project these days, so with proper rocket scientist, human biologist, anatomy-somehing specialist, and whatever team needed to give birth to this idea, it's not impossible at all. You'll try to outsource these team too?

Speaking of team, I noticed that question is left unanswered.


Snipped, irrelevant.

Allow me to once again inform you, this time probably very very slowly, with some highlights on key points:

Your winning bet is not voided because they did not acknowledge the match result. Your winning bet is confiscated because you're suspected of abusing rule of multi-acc.

If I may put it in other perspective, suppose you play --and sportsbet provide such game-- poker, or blackjack, or even paper-rock-scissor, or for the love of Lucifer, probably even who-blinked-first, and you ends up winning, the fund will still be confiscated because it's not about the result of the game or match you played, it's the possibility of TnC breach in form of multi-accounting.

It will be confiscated until it is proven by CEG that SB suspicion is wrong. But thankfully, as I am sure CEG is very neurral and they're the one wbo will oversee this matter, if you're indeed not guilty, your fund will be released. That said, it also means if the evidence provided by SB is deemed valid by them, you'll have to say good bye to that winning of yours.

It's no longer relevant how long has it been since the game ended, the only applied timeframe here is what's CEG need to draw conclusion.

Sportsbet did not have control on how long they can clear this issue anymore other than giving the evidences required by CEG as soon as when asked. Why? Because now they have to answer to the arbitrator instead of having to handle it themselves, you asked this case to be handled over by CEG instead of their own representative. So the least you can do is wait very very very patiently because, after all, this is exactly what you asked, and that you made yourself.

I'm sorry, what?

Do I understand this correctly, we connect our wallet to your platform through MM --or whatever-- when we click "free pat" button, we paid an ETH fee to have 100 PAT sent to a burn address instead to our wallet?

Been there, done that. Like ajiz138 pointed out, I've tried to reach them through their TG, nicely. They deleted my chat --I saw it through my personal TG account--, blocked me, and took one step further by reporting me to TG admin as a spammer so that I was blocked from PMing their CM. I don't think I am biased when I said they're not welcoming people to tell them to do anything with their situation on this forum