I am also made aware of this thread through PM. Jannn, if your friend wanted to have an account on this forum so they can have a more direct and open discussion with 500's representative but doesn't want to pay for the evil fee, he can try to shoot LoyceV an email through


he can help with whitelisting proxyban. A more detailed information can be read here.

Meanwhile, for this case, I see efialtis were reaching them through email. I'll try the other way, through PM to their representative. Please give them some time to respond, they're usually quite attentive.

Tried to replicate your situation [accessing through mobile with chrome] and I can access them just fine. I didn't submit the form and accessing through incognito, though. Try to do it through incognito or clear your cache, perhaps? Or maybe enable the "desktop site" [through the kebab menu, that three vertival dots], see if it helps?

SoW is one of the standard practice of casino for AML, it's not just stake that ask for this, many other casinos also require the same for their advanced KYC verification. The whole process of this verification and why they keep rejecting things though, is not standard.

AFAIK, Razer is one of their representative, not the owner, but yeah, he solves a lot of Rollbit's users problem.

I see that you've marked it as resolved. Do you mind locking this thread to prevent spam posts? The button to lock a thread is at the bottom left of this page.

Ah well, you can rest assured, then. The forum is quite confident with its position. It is the oldest and biggest forum, the "original" one, they don't mind someone talking about a forum or two. In fact, we even co-exist with some of them. For example, in scam accusations board [where one of the main purpose is to facilitate a dispute], we often refers people to other "forum", an arbitrator or two, when those sites offer a more efficient way to get a resolution for the case.

As predicted, this turns into a cluster of messy quote. Again, learn how to quote. You have sophisticated system [or so it seems] and --I believe-- a powerful tech team, one of them can look into this forum and teach you how quoting works. It's very simple, he won't need more than few seconds.

I am tabling other, simpler, things for now [point 1-4] and focus on point number 5. You're saying the analysis you use now came out with a result that 100% of the fund is dirty? Who provide the initial analysis, again? The one with mere 3.1% [at best]? Such an astronomical difference, don't you agree? You sure the analysis given by your partners are the valid one and not a false positive?

---

This, I can help answering for them. They've been asked about this on an older thread where they're --similarly-- being questioned quite thoroughly, though their answer is not satisfactionary and, when pursued further, they went full Avatar Aang.

I think he actually got blocked from the entire "My Messages"page, because normally, the forum's "address bar" will shows something like below, with its subsection being shown. I don't think we can simply choose "Personal Messages" section, it always followed by a subsection



But his shows like this,

I think he actually can't. As seen on his screenshot, the "Outbox" is being highlighted instead of "New Message", that's him clicking and accessing the outbox page, and meet the error message.

I am intrigued by the possibility of your account being hacked. The forum is recently under "attack" of hacker silently co-living with the real owner, where they didn't hold it for ransom or change the credentials so the owner can't access it, they move under the radar by not touching anything and execute their action. One of the recent case is asking for a loan.

If you claimed that you never send a PM yet your account got banned for phishing PM... can you check your IP log as per Despairo suggested? Through https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php?

I can see that this conversation will go into a big mess of quote pyramid. So, to prevent that, just ignore all of the text above and begin replying from below the line. And please learn the proper way to quote.

---

1. And the details like username [which understandably some will prefer to be a private matter] are important on this investigation... how? I am once again bringing your older statement here for everyone's attention:


seems the exact opposite to me, you're violating the confidentiality of your customer by forcing him to reveal his contact info, and you're not only asking about the source of the fund.

2. Still not explaining about the counterproductive-ness of having OP to ask for his client to provide the info. As mentioned, if we suppose OP did involved in the crime, there's nothing stopping him to work with this client to fabricate that evidence you asked. So...?

3. Thus... innocent? Your words, and I quote, "Since the OP is not the sender of the funds, he has nothing to do with the funds sent to us."

4. Quite contradictive, is it not? "As we have already said, in this case, the OP has nothing to do with the funds sent to our addresses from a legal point of view. When accepting criminal funds to their own addresses, there are other legal consequences for users." So does he have nothing to do with the fund sent to your address or is he involved in it and thus have to face legal consequences?

5. Oh, wow! All of it? But I thought you send him a screenshot of analysis that shows the tainted money from darknet is just 2.2%? With 3.1% at best if we consider everything shady as "tainted"? Tsk... tsk... tsk... now now, which one of your employee published that analysis and which one of you is lying?


For reference, the image being mentioned is as below [re-uploaded to talkimg]

That case in AskGamblers was closed before with "unresolved" as their verdict, it was reopened as per OP's request. That two days were already an "extra time". And if they really consider this a closed, I really hope they'll reconsider, because it doesn't look good on them with several questions here being unanswered and AG's thread unattended.

Hmm... this is a nice development, but I think we can and should consider his silence [if he never replied to you, and assuming he is the whistleblower] is due to an NDA upon his termination that prohibit him from spilling any more tea on this issue. That's logically what I'll do as a damage control when my company is exposed by one of my [now former] employee.

Chipsgg's representative can clear all of these issues [together with several points being asked throughout the thread] if they really interested to clean their reputation, but they don't even bother to answer any [legit] question surrounding this situation or anything related to the nature of their business.

It'll be nice if you can reply to all of my questions on post #27, I think it's rather convenient that you always "missed" a post or two that you can't answer, just like what happened on the other thread. That thread has a lot of questions left unanswered too.

---

Sechyelles, and they're requesting it because they runs globally. The jurisdiction where they reside itself didn't ask them to provide such information.

I'd like to think that the user above is one of those people creating account to talk bad about trusted casino. He made an account and zeroing right into this thread with "knowledge" that there are many cases against Rollbit on this board, suggesting that he's quite familiar with this board.

I believe, and I think we all know here, that's the main reason and the goal aimed by the casino by holding that winning. OP fall right into their play.


I can't help but wonder... how on earth will they explain someone that is not their employee get a hold into their account in CasinoGuru? That thing aside, if I may know, does that whistle-blower is the one you mentioned on your previous post approaching you through PM? I assume they use their own account and not chipsgg's?

Several things that you might want to explain further:

1. How does asking for OP [and his client's] telegram details fit into this investigation of the source of fund?

2. Why do OP has to be [initially] the one asking his client to provide details and how is it not counterproductive toward an investigation of the legality of fund like what I pointed out here?

3. How is what he provided from his side is not enough? He proves that he worked for it, got them as a payment. Unless proven otherwise, it's all legal from his side in a sense that he's not involved or have any idea in the said criminal activity.

4. How do you think OP will know that the fund is related to criminal activity instead of being a pure innocent here? Wouldn't considering him ineligible to prove the source of fund as he's not the sender rather contradict the assumption that he's being involved in the activity [which become the reason why you hold his fund, because he knows it's tainted, otherwise, he's clueless, innocent, and the fund should be released to him]?

5. How much from that fund is marked as tainted? All of it?

Yeah, I followed their case on CG, visiting the thread every now and then to keep myself updated, but thank you for notifying me. Regarding the verdict given by the mediator, I have to say that it's quite surprising that they ruled against OP, but at the same time, it also bears its weight if we tunneled the case strictly on the blocking of the withdrawal [namely, why would OP still depositing and playing in spite of all of the situation] instead of the bigger scope like all of the other things they did; the withdrawal blocking [which we all know the real reason behind it], the issues raised by efialtis on his article, the cheering, the warning given by the whistleblower [I don' think I understand this part correctly, what's the outcome for this matter?].

As for adjusting the negative feedback, yes, when the case is marked as closed by CasinoGuru's mediator [which yet to happen], I will adhere to the verdict given and adjust it accordingly to make sure what's said there is true to the most recent situation and development, lest someone --that's simply here looking for dirt-- use it as a way to stick it to my chute by complaining about it. What will it say or whether it will be completely removed, though, is fully depend on Chip's representative's answer here on the questions that's left unanswered, because, those things above are not cleared and [currently] not being discussed on CG, and one thing that I think any sane person with an ability to process logic will agree is that those points are worrisome for a casino to have.

And from those numerous threads, most are resolved, some are invalid, some are in progress of resolution, and only few is a valid and unattended case. You can look at the summary here.

As you can see from that thread, there almost no big casino on this forum without any scam accusation against them. Though there are instances where a casino gave a questionable decision, there are a lot of people tried to cheat them by playing victim too, and that's one of the aim of this board, to oversee and resolve those cases from neutral perspective.

Umm... I think screenshots of those conversation is enough for now, given many signs points to OP's accusation being justified. A video recording of those screenshots [although welcome] seems a bit excessive.

Were your customer willing to answer to that? Though in one side it is [IMO] very intrusive and a gross practice of violation to privacy, this might put an end to everything. From the points being asked, they seemed just trying to match the story.