I do not endorse any website in my signature.<--Yes You Do!

[Vod]

Another personal attack against Lauda.

This has become a daily routine now.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.  It's more than obvious these anti-Lauda threads are started by Quickseller alts.  No one respects that scammer.

[actmyname]

When you are wearing a signature, you're advocating for that product. You're encouraging the use of it, and what if the source is not reliable? This seems as if it's a personal attack, but a part of the problem lies in the fact that as EcuaMobi stated earlier:

Also, I do believe highly-trusted users and staff should be specially careful with what they promote. As I said long ago in a similar case: if the staff promotes a site newbies will think it's endorsed by the forum (I know it's not the case but it can look like it because of the 'Staff' legend). So they definitely need to check any site before promoting it.

Although the only explicit issue you can find about Betcoin is the Betsoft situation, research is still a necessity especially since TwitchySeal has laid out all of it on a thread. Doesn't the jasonort problem at least raise any alarms as to the fact that there might be something else going on? Even though he got his "settlement" (which is definitely a fraction of what he should have gotten) the entire situation started off with Betcoin's ignorance, which has happened on many occasions.

[BitcoinEXpress]

I don't know about Betcoin being scam but Lauda is a bonafide Staff Sig Spammer

He's an excellent mod but also a sig spammmer.

He should just own up to it and tell everyone to fuck off.

Let me channel Lauda.....

"Yeah I'm an effen sig spammer bitches, what you going to do about it"


Seriously what can any one do about LOL


~BCX~

[redsn0w]

I don't know about Betcoin being scam but Lauda is a bonafide Staff Sig Spammer

He's an excellent mod but also a sig spammmer.

He should just own up to it and tell everyone to fuck off.

Let me channel Lauda.....

"Yeah I'm an effen sig spammer bitches, what you going to do about it"


Seriously what can any one do about LOL


~BCX~

Possible unrealistic solution, you can try to report one of his post (just to see what it will happen).  /s

[Lutpin]

If you recall, back when you joined their campaign, I've advised you against promoting that particular casino/brand, Lauda.
Right now, I'd go forward and once again do the same thing. I don't think you (or anyone else) should be promoting them in your signature.
You shouldn't be advertising betcoin.ag given their current situation and how they handle problems/themselves.

That being said, I would advise everyone else being enrolled in that campaign to do the same, drop it.

[TwitchySeal]

Another personal attack against Lauda.

This has become a daily routine now.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.  It's more than obvious these anti-Lauda threads are started by Quickseller alts.  No one respects that scammer.

Do a little more research please.  I am not quickseller.

This thread was an attempt to bring attention to what I consider a major issue that many don't seem to take seriously. Seriously though, ask around anyone active in the gambling forum, I'm not Quickseller and my posts are not influenced by his agenda in any way.

Although the only explicit issue you can find about Betcoin is the Betsoft situation, research is still a necessity especially since TwitchySeal has laid out all of it on a thread. Doesn't the jasonort problem at least raise any alarms as to the fact that there might be something else going on? Even though he got his "settlement" (which is definitely a fraction of what he should have gotten) the entire situation started off with Betcoin's ignorance, which has happened on many occasions.

The progressive Jackpot is only the most recent explicit issue, it is NOT the ONLY issue and, in my opinion it's not the biggest. 

There are many others.  So many I honestly don't even know where to begin.  Most of them involve what is likely an honest mistake made by Betcoin handled in an extremely unethical way. 

Please, read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322261.0

The reason Betcoin appears as if these issues don't exist is because of the 50+ signature campaign members some of them are very happy to be members of one of the highest paying campaigns.   When they defend Betcoin against "trolls" like me, Betcoin pays them bonuses.  When users are "spamming" their thread with legitimate questions, campaign members provide someone else to respond to.

To be clear, this type of behavior is not something all campaign members participate in and I'm not accusing Lauda of being one of them.  However, any reputable member of the forum who joins the campaign makes the entire campaign more reputable.

Here is one example of how Betcoin addresses issues, read the post and then the following few responses:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=386266.msg14470101#msg14470101

They never responded to dooglus, by the way.

The issue he was asking about involved a glitch that caused too much rake to be taken from Nov 1 - Mid December. (in cash games, they take a fee out of every pot based on the size of the pot and a few other factors)

A player reported the issue the first week of Nov, betcoin ignored it for over a month and continued to advertise a rake structure that wasn't being followed.

In December, they announced a rake increase and denied the issue happened.

From December - March they ignored the issue.  Me and a few other members posted about it nearly daily, along with signature camp members that didn't seem to know much about Betcoin other than "great promos and fast cashouts!"

In March, they had their "Betcoin to return overcharged rake" promo which made a lot of players happy but was not an appropriate way to handle the situation.  I am still confident that there are players who were overcharged 10+BTC and didn't notice.  The only way one would notice is if they own tracking software and understand how to use it.

Not trying to offend you or something but if it is any other member on the forum due to any causes either a scam accusation is opened or found promoting something which is liable to steal money from users indirectly,DT members without even looking into the matter ,give a negative reputation temporarily which could be resolved later .Doesn't the same rules apply to you as well?

Understood. It would be only natural, according to what you're saying, that the service in question received those ratings first IMO. So mind telling my for what reason am I singled out here, out of so many members (there's at least 1 DT member wearing their signature) and Betcoin itself? After a certain amount of time and accounts it becomes obvious to one.

I don't think you should be given special privileges,the DT members should apply the same rules to everybody.Just my two satoshis.

I'm not and I haven't done anything wrong either. What you're saying would only be fair in case that every single participant receives that negative rating.

I'm not saying anyone should just snap neg rep anyone.

I'm saying we have a serious issue here.  It's become acceptable to help a site become trusted without taking any consideration into whether or not they should actually be trusted.

When I see a staff member do it, I see an obvious and legitimate response for every member who may be asked "hey, why are you promoting that site?"

Lauda, why won't you remove your signature until you have done your due diligence?

If the money is so important, you should consider the research equally important.

If it's not about the money, just remove it until you have time to educate yourself on the situation. 

Otherwise you're not just promoting Betcoin.ag, you're also promoting ignorance.

[rizzlarolla]

Great thread OP. I fully agree with you, it is bs.

"It's become acceptable to help a site become trusted without taking any consideration into whether or not they should actually be trusted."
Yes, it has clearly become acceptable for staff to take no consideration.

Good advise given from Lutpin. Completely agree with actmyname.

[Lauda]

Frankly speaking,I don't think it makes much sense to apply special signature rules to Staff as well.As said,there are more than 30 members carrying the signature of betcoin.ag who should be equally responsible for promoting the casino.No special actions needs to be taken just because you're a "Staff".

Someone finally gets it. If anything, DT members should have higher priority in such cases IMO.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.  It's more than obvious these anti-Lauda threads are started by Quickseller alts.  No one respects that scammer.

I try to rationally accept the disrespect. That's the best that I can do I guess. I can't know to whom those alts belong, although the previous 2 threads were created by shills.

He should just own up to it and tell everyone to fuck off.

I don't see why I would do that.

Seriously what can any one do about LOL

How you forgotten about admin(s)?

If you recall, back when you joined their campaign, I've advised you against promoting that particular casino/brand, Lauda.

No, you said "I wouldn't advertise for any coins in the world" and posted 2 links, which is less than OP PM'd me and equally useless to me ATM. That was about 2 days prior to the first PM of OP.

Possible unrealistic solution, you can try to report one of his post (just to see what it will happen).  /s

It should be, and would be deleted if it was not appropriate. Rules should be applied without exceptions regardless of a members position.

I'm saying we have a serious issue here.  It's become acceptable to help a site become trusted without taking any consideration into whether or not they should actually be trusted. When I see a staff member do it, I see an obvious and legitimate response for every member who may be asked "hey, why are you promoting that site?"

This is a trust related issue, right? So mind telling me why I'm being prioritized as a staff member (e.g. over a DT member) only when it (could) is 'negatively' effecting me? Additionally, don't be surprised if more 'random' people, that I've had strong discussions with (e.g. Core vs. Classic), hop on this bandwagon.

Lauda, why won't you remove your signature until you have done your due diligence?

I've actually PM'ed EcuaMobi asking him to please provide me with the results of his own analysis, and it was inconclusive:

Update: I haven't found final proof against betcoin.ag so I don't think promoting it deserves negative trust. There are some suspicious things so personally I wouldn't promote it but the benefit of the doubt could apply. However I do think it would be more responsible for anyone to research a site before promoting it. This is valid for everyone and even more so for staff and trusted members.

I suggest building a strong case again Betcoin first (no, you don't have that). That's the best way that you could 'effectively' stop their campaign if the company was truly a scam. This is what I've written via PM to someone and it still holds ground: "All that was required was to either give me a few days of time or provide a conclusive 'investigation' by a non-random (or possibly DT member) and it would have been removed." Guess what I had time to do besides sending a few PMs because of this thread (reading, processing and formulating takes up a lot of time) so far? Nothing. Additionally, the first experienced DT member concluded that there was no conclusive proof.

[EcuaMobi]

I've actually PM'ed EcuaMobi asking him to please provide me with the results of his own analysis, and it was inconclusive:

Update: I haven't found final proof against betcoin.ag so I don't think promoting it deserves negative trust. There are some suspicious things so personally I wouldn't promote it but the benefit of the doubt could apply. However I do think it would be more responsible for anyone to research a site before promoting it. This is valid for everyone and even more so for staff and trusted members.

Indeed I found it to be inconclusive. However I did find suspicious things and I strongly advice you or any other not to promote it. That would be more responsible in my opinion.
I just didn't find enough evidence to demand it or to add negative trust to those who promote it.


Regarding special attention to Staff, DT or trusted members I think we all should be more careful about who we promote, however I think this is specially true for Staff members because newbies see that Staff label on their profile and may think the prompted site is endorsed by the forum.
That's not the case with DT members, there's no 'DT' label which may confuse new members. Very trusted members should be extra careful too.

[DarkDays]

I don't know who "Lauda" is and have no opinion one way or another about him/her.  I also don't know what "DT" means, but I assume it's "default trust"?  So I'll try to explain the situation as succinctly as possible, but I apologize if I get an assumption incorrect:

Betcoin is a shady/sketchy site.  They have done a number of things in the past that are very ethically wrong at the BEST.  All of them are anti-customer and show a disdain for their customers, disrespect for their customers/customer's money's safety, and have a huge veil of secrecy.  Now, I don't come from a bitcoin world, I come from the poker world.  I've seen literally dozens of poker sites fold up and steal player funds.  Betcoin's activity mirrors made of the "warning signs" that those sites exhibited right before their cut and run.

Here are a couple of examples:

- Betcoin either sold their customer's email addresses to phishers or had several layers of their database compromised by malicious attackers.  They refuse to take responsibility for this or let any customer know what was going on, allowing made players to fall victim to phishing emails.  When made aware of what was going on, they POSTED THE PHISHING LINK ON THEIR FRONT PAGE!

- Betcoin stole player funds in the form of a bad beat jackpot and overraking pots on all tables. 

- Betcoin consistently underpays players in the form of their daily rakeback. 

- Betcoin steals money and actively bets against their player base by converting btc-to-usd at a rate up to $100 lower than the actual conversion rate.

And so many many all.  All of these situations have been documented extensively, and are listed in Twitchy's scam thread.  If you have time to post a couple of times on this board, you have the time to read through that thread and make an informed decision on what you want to promote.  The problem with a staff member promoting a shady site is that it carries a certain amount of weight to it.  It looks like bitcointalk itself is endorsing the site.  That's bad!  Will you be criminally responsible if Betcoin steals money from players who signed up under you?  Probably not (unless you are currently living in the US, in which case you are already breaking the law by being an affiliate for an illegal offshore US-facing site), but ethically you absolutely will be.  Most people wouldn't want that weight on their head, which is why every major affiliate rejects Betcoin ads, and I hope that staff for one of the biggest hubs for bitcoin fans would hold themselves to a higher standard than promoting a shady site for a penny per post.

[TwitchySeal]

I'm saying we have a serious issue here.  It's become acceptable to help a site become trusted without taking any consideration into whether or not they should actually be trusted. When I see a staff member do it, I see an obvious and legitimate response for every member who may be asked "hey, why are you promoting that site?"

This is a trust related issue, right? So mind telling me why I'm being prioritized as a staff member (e.g. over a DT member) only when it (could) is 'negatively' effecting me? Additionally, don't be surprised if more 'random' people, that I've had strong discussions with (e.g. Core vs. Classic), hop on this bandwagon.

What % of active users do you think could give the name of a single DT member? 

The system is really complicated and most people have no reason to bother trying to figure it out.  Default Trust members appear the exact same as any other member (I think, right? I could be wrong)

I have no clue what your job is, how you got it or who gave it to you.  All I know is it says "STAFF" under your name, and that seems pretty important.  Then after every post you make, it says "Betcoin.ag The Most Trusted Bitcoin & Litecoin Casino."

Lauda, why won't you remove your signature until you have done your due diligence?

I've actually PM'ed EcuaMobi asking him to please provide me with the results of his own analysis, and it was inconclusive:

I've asked you several times now and haven't gotten a direct answer.  Why won't you remove Betcoin ad from your signature?

You're acting as if you trust everyone until it's been proven you shouldn't.  I know you are more intelligent than most, so I don't have to explain how ridiculous that is.

I suggest building a strong case again Betcoin first (no, you don't have that). That's the best way that you could 'effectively' stop their campaign if the company was truly a scam. This is what I've written via PM to someone and it still holds ground: "All that was required was to either give me a few days of time or provide a conclusive 'investigation' by a non-random (or possibly DT member) and it would have been removed." Guess what I had time to do besides sending a few PMs because of this thread (reading, processing and formulating takes up a lot of time) so far? Nothing. Additionally, the first experienced DT member concluded that there was no conclusive proof.

Ok, I'd really appreciate any specific reasons my evidence is not conclusive so I can have a chance to clarify. I've played 8 million hands of online poker in my life, and many of the issues involve stuff that non-poker players may not get, like rakeback, rake structure, satellite structure, ethical standards re: enforcing rules, dealing with cheaters, etc.

In the mean time, I suggest any trusted member to ask their campaign manager why they removed all the data from previous campaign periods, only share the data with members who request it and have kicked a member from their campaign for sharing it with me.  (or you can probably figure it out by reading this post:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1236667.msg15142143#msg15142143 )

[Quickseller]

Do you mean all casinos, that still have BetSoft games on their site and, are or should be aware of this resolved accusation are scam?
If they had not updated the payout table I might have agreed with you.

The paytable being updated/corrected only resolves the specific issue that was originally brought up by the OP of the thread claiming non-payment of the jackpot, since that thread was created, several other issues have come to light.

Do let me know which slots or feature of BetSoft is not working as it should be?

It appears that the jackpots are being paid out in a pattern that is unprobable, to the extent that it is fair to say that there is a serious problem with how BetSoft pays out jackpots. This issue is amplified by the fact that it is not possible to verify your "rolls" (bets) on BetSoft games. There are a number of articles on what appears to be online gambling sites warning about this issue (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- some of these may be somewhat duplicated).

BetSoft also appears to have lost their "Alderney Gaming License".

These issues appear to be severe enough so that bodiva (the largest online casino) has removed BetSoft games from their site.

BetCoin has specifically dealt with the issue regarding jackpots themselves, so they cannot deny that they are aware of the issue. As mentioned above, bodiva has apparently removed their BetSoft games from their casino.

Regarding the other casinos, yes they should be aware of the situation, however I can understand if they are not, and I can understand if it would take a long time for someone with the appropriate authority and expertise (this might be two different people) gets the message that there are issues with BetSoft.

There is also a thread that lists some fairly serious concerns about BetCoin.ag that are not BetSoft specific. 

Wait a couple of days and go ahead negging all the above and the members wearing any of their signature. 

There is no reason to make an example out of Lauda (although it appears that is what she wants currently), nor anyone else for that matter. The best resolution would be for Lauda to remove the signature and get on with her life.

From the looks of it, the OP contacted one or more members of BetCoin's signature campaign, presumably asking them to remove their signature, and Lauda responded by posting a BS disclaimer (that is not even visible the majority of the time) that she does not endorse any website in her signature.

Incorrect. I have asked the OP (kindly; now I see that it was a mistake) to give me some time because I have a backlog that needs to be worked down from. I added that disclaimer temporarily until I am able to verify what is going on, yet I get attacked even for that.

Addressing a complaint that you are advertising what someone believes to be a scam should be your number one priority, and should take priority over anything else in your backlog of things to get done. When I was acting as escrow for a signature campaign for a site that turned out to be a scam, I PM'ed all of the participants letting them know that they were "officially" promoting a scam, and that they had the option of receiving payment for the posts they had made to date if they removed their signature, and I received an ~instant response from ~all of the participants, all of which (except one) removed their signatures. When "bitcoin black Friday" was uncovered as being a scam, theymos looked into the situation ~immediately, and addressed it ~immediately. I see no reason why you should not do the same.   

[Quickseller]

I think its wrong to manage ad campaign and try to keep the members from knowing truth about business they advertise for.  
Every accusation against betcoin is backed up with evidence.

Well, IMO posting that in their signature campaign is not right. From what I see there is already an on-going scam accusation against them to which they are not responding to. If there is adequate amount of evidence, then it would be best to contact people from DT as they might mark the service (if they have an account) or the promoted with negative trust.
Note: I have not looked closely into the accusation and can't say whether it is valid or not.

^^the above post was found in another thread discussing betcoin

This quote is from March of this year, it is now July. If you are outright not going to look into the situation then you should just come out and say so explicitly instead of saying "I will look into it later". If you are not going to look into claims of the site you are advertising for ~4 months then it should be safe to say that you are not going to look into it at all!

[Lauda]

I just didn't find enough evidence to demand it or to add negative trust to those who promote it. That's not the case with DT members, there's no 'DT' label which may confuse new members. Very trusted members should be extra careful too.

I concur with this (fair point on the second sentence).

What % of active users do you think could give the name of a single DT member?  The system is really complicated and most people have no reason to bother trying to figure it out.  Default Trust members appear the exact same as any other member (I think, right? I could be wrong)

I can't answer that, thus you have a fair point.

All I know is it says "STAFF" under your name, and that seems pretty important.

The same applies the other way around: All I know is that you're a random member who's demanding that I remove their signature based on inconclusive evidence. You may very well have some history with them that I'm not aware of (an example).

You're acting as if you trust everyone until it's been proven you shouldn't.  I know you are more intelligent than most, so I don't have to explain how ridiculous that is.

I don't have to burn someone at a stake beforehand though.

Ok, I'd really appreciate any specific reasons my evidence is not conclusive so I can have a chance to clarify.

Please talk about EcuaMobi in regards to that.

Addressing a complaint that you are advertising what someone believes to be a scam should be your number one priority, and should take priority over anything else in your backlog of things to get done.

No, it shouldn't. The service in question would be negatively rated if it was a clear scam and that was not the case at the time (which is what I checked while entering, and after getting the PM). If I kept prioritizing things every time I got a message from a random member, I wouldn't have time to do anything.

If you are not going to look into claims of the site you are advertising for ~4 months then it should be safe to say that you are not going to look into it at all!

How about you stop talking nonsense? I've joined Betcoin 6 days ago.

[TwitchySeal]

Re: Betsoft issues

The coingaming sites, bitstarz, betchain and a few others are indeed continuing to offer Betsoft slots, including jackpots.  But they have limited the denominations down to .02, .05 and .1 mBtc (used to offer .25, .5 and 1 as well)

Betcoin, on the other hand, continues to advertise a total of  BTC4,215.745 in progressive Jackpots on their front page.  However when you add them all up individually (as of a few days ago) it was BTC2,978.573 I've only been able to find record of one single progressive win since Betcoin has opened.  It happened in July of 2014, player "btc2014" won 3,800 mbtc progressive jackpot at 3D Slot Greedy Goblins." I posted this info last week with more details here

If someone wants to volunteer and go ask Betcoin to confirm how many progressive winners there have been, whether they have BTC4,200 in jackpots or only BTC3,000 set aside.  Also, we should wonder where the bitcoins are, right? They will not give theymos a direct answer if he asked, I am sure of it.
Edit: I  am happy to see lauda has removed the signature.  Thank you Lauda, I hope you understand my only motivation was to prevent uninformed users from thinking a staff member was claiming Betcoin should be trusted, and perhaps the spreading awareness of the Betcoin issues  would not be a bad thing.  Nothing more.

I'd like to continue discussing the benefits of holding other signature campaign members more accountable in the future, not sure if I should lock this thread and take it somewhere else or not though.  Will edit Title in the mean time.

[redsn0w]

Well done Lauda,  you have removed the signature ad .

Possible unrealistic solution, you can try to report one of his post (just to see what it will happen).  /s

It should be, and would be deleted if it was not appropriate. Rules should be applied without exceptions regardless of a members position.

That's sure, it was just a sarcastic post (did you noticed the final /s?).

[cryptosmoker]

Hey Twitchy nice job.
Seriously, I thought this thread would just be like all the others with betcoin supporters pretending to be even dumber than they actually are.  Nice surprise.

Well I guess Lauda wasnt technically a betcoin supporter.  Guess thats why it ended ok.

[roslinpl]

Sorry but I never had such a stupid conversation with that TwitchySeal.

And finally, an anonymous person who seems to have been your campaign manager had a conversation with me in a google document.  Whoever it was clearly considered the fact you were joining a great success:

Code:

So Lauda (a staff member) also joined the campaign today :D
6:09 AM Jul 5
Anonymous
Anonymous 
See how you are fucking with them. Its getting no influence on their campaign. LOL!
6:09 AM Jul 5
Twitchy Seal
Twitchy Seal 
this is sad
6:11 AM Jul 5•Edit•Delete
Anonymous
Anonymous 
See his profile for solid proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872
6:12 AM Jul 5
Anonymous
Anonymous 
Looolllllll. A staff member joined now. You will have zero influence now. And better be careful because you will be banned by Lauda now! :D
6:13 AM Jul 5
Twitchy Seal
Twitchy Seal 
They must need the money. I hope. Hopefully they wont run around acting all shilly
6:15 AM Jul 5•Edit•Delete
Twitchy Seal
Twitchy Seal 
I will always have influence though, don't be silly, :)
6:16 AM Jul 5•Edit•Delete
Anonymous
Anonymous 
Wait and watch. I hired Lauda for our benefit ;) Now post another bullshit on our thread and get banned. hahaha
6:17 AM Jul 5
Twitchy Seal
Twitchy Seal 
I post truth, not bullshit.
6:17 AM Jul 5•Edit•Delete
Anonymous
Anonymous 
you are a bullshit troll. now fuck yourself. Or get banned by bitcointalk staff :D

Best regards.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Sorry but I never had such a stupid conversation with that TwitchySeal.
Best regards.

DUDE WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ? YOU JUST EDITED YOUR POST AND YOU WERE NOT TOO QUICK IN DOING THAT ! I read the actual post and it was way too off or say distant from this one.Dear Roslinpl,I have not archived that post but if you you have the courtesy to post the same comments,I'd appreciate it.And I read your post like 3 times so I'm aware what its contents were.Please post the same comment you posted before editing the post. 

[roslinpl]

Sorry but I never had such a stupid conversation with that TwitchySeal.
Best regards.

DUDE WHAT THE ACTUAL **** ? YOU JUST EDITED YOUR POST AND YOU WERE NOT TOO QUICK IN DOING THAT ! I read the actual post and it was way too off or say distant from this one.Dear Roslinpl,I have not archived that post but if you you have the courtesy to post the same comments,I'd appreciate it.And I read your post like 3 times so I'm aware what its contents were.Please post the same comment you posted before editing the post.  

This is why Forum has an "EDIT" function so you can edit your post.

Yes it was way longer because I had enough of this TwitchySeal but I decided to edit my post because I don't need to share my feelings to you if I don't feel like I want to.

Remove the EDIT function! God damn!


and stop swearing please ... behave yourself.