REQUEST FOR ATTENTION OF: All betking.io Signature Campaign Participants

[JollyGood]

betking.io IS A MAJOR SCAM

betking.io IS A MAJOR SCAM







betking.io IS A MAJOR SCAM

betking.io IS A MAJOR SCAM

Here is the betking.io signature campaign thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5353071.0

Here are some threads which highlight why betking.io is a scam and why the betking.io owner/operator serial scammer Dean Nolan cannot be trusted:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122856.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1703778.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4751127.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4913034.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5047787.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5287553.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231103.0


From cursing members and the forum to vowing to leave and never to return back, serial scammer Dean Nolan has returned. He needs this forum to peddle and perpetuate propaganda while he tries to pocket more cash from gullible investors and game players that do not know winners in the past have had their winnings withheld under false pretences.

Many signature participants, game players and investors do not know serial scammer Dean Nolan faked a website hack in order to steal the remaining bankroll funds of the previous betking.io incarnation but after this thread and so many other threads there can be no excusing for those applying or joining the signature campaign.


In simple terms, all signature campaign participants for the betking.io scam are kindly requested to withdraw because they are in most cases knowingly supporting and promoting a well known scam organisation. All those applying to join the signature campaign or those who promote betking.io will receive appropriate trust and ratings.



Please stop promoting a known scam for the sake of pocketing some Bitcoin from a shameful signature campaign. Thank you.


FLAG: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3364966
FLAG: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=565024

[1715270949]

1715270949

[1715270949]

1715270949

[1715270949]

1715270949

[1715270949]

1715270949

[1715270949]

1715270949

[1715270949]

1715270949

[JeromeTash]

So they decided to copy what their fellow scammers 1xbit did and think they will be successful?
It more like they are even just doing way more damage for themselves instead. I mean, who would trust a casino being advertised by a bunch of red tagged and untrusted accounts?
No one sensible enough would.

[SFR10]

In simple terms, all signature campaign participants for the betking.io scam are kindly requested to withdraw because they are in most cases knowingly supporting and promoting a well known scam organisation. All those applying to join the signature campaign or those who promote betking.io will receive appropriate trust and ratings.

Seeing that all of them already had multiple negative ratings for various reasons + previously promoting ^{[except for two of them so far]} another known scam ^[1xbit], I think our best bet is to look for alt accounts that were previously banned ^{[if there are any]} and report them for ban evasion ^{[easier said than done]}.

I mean, who would trust a casino being advertised by a bunch of red tagged and untrusted accounts?
No one sensible enough would.

You have a point but unfortunately, there are still a lot of tech/computer-illiterate people out there that tend to completely ignore such ratings.

[zanezane]

So they decided to copy what their fellow scammers 1xbit did and think they will be successful?
It more like they are even just doing way more damage for themselves instead. I mean, who would trust a casino being advertised by a bunch of red tagged and untrusted accounts?
No one sensible enough would.

They're much worse, they don't defend themselves since there's already a big red warning when you click on their thread, I tried to post a reply there to remind people about the implications of joining the scam campaign of Betking and the next day, I got a message that it was deleted.

[robelneo]

They're much worse, they don't defend themselves since there's already a big red warning when you click on their thread, I tried to post a reply there to remind people about the implications of joining the scam campaign of Betking and the next day, I got a message that it was deleted.

No use dropping a line against them it will be deleted they have a moderated thread compared to 1XBIT who maintain an open thread Betking is worse than 1XBIT they put the thread moderated and they are not trying to resolve their existing issues, I saw some members of 1XBIT transferring to this campaign, it's a big surprise since 1XBIT is offering a much better rate, soon bounty hunters will be the next victims of these two scammers.

[acroman08]

looking at their spreadsheet, the majority of the participants are the ones who are suspected to have been bought to shill adkinsbet in the past. looks like whoever bought the account for adkinsbet is trying to make full use of it hoping to get the money back wasted for buying those accounts.

[Awaklara]

3 Accounts Connected

1. Celot
2. Muratsink
3. Tazmantasik

Bitcointalk Username: celot
Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=708600
Current amount of Posts (Including this one): 1481
Forum Rank: Sr Member
BTC address for payouts: bc1qj0erpqj7t2qeezxvrkylfyfp7g5cud58g7zpmc

[ archive ]

Bitcointalk Username: muratsink
Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=897308
Current amount of Posts (Including this one): 957
Forum Rank: Sr Member
BTC address for payouts: bc1qj0erpqj7t2qeezxvrkylfyfp7g5cud58g7zpmc

[ archive ]


quote posted by tazmantasik on 2021-08-09 03:44:24 UTC
Bitcointalk Username: tazmantasik
Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=558299
Current amount of Posts (Including this one): 991
Forum Rank: Hero Member
BTC address for payouts: bc1qj0erpqj7t2qeezxvrkylfyfp7g5cud58g7zpmc
[ archive ]




Related Addresses:

Code:

Bitcoin address: bc1qj0erpqj7t2qeezxvrkylfyfp7g5cud58g7zpmc

I looked at the list in the spreadsheet and there were 3 Accounts Connected with the same address but one of them was deleted (Tazmantasik).
each of accounts already has negative trust and I hope accounts like this need to be given a more deterrent effect, I mean banned. Is it possible?

[Bitcoin_Arena]

I looked at the list in the spreadsheet and there were 3 Accounts Connected with the same address but one of them was deleted (Tazmantasik).
each of accounts already has negative trust and I hope accounts like this need to be given a more deterrent effect, I mean banned. Is it possible?

A ban is not possible in cases of multiple accounts cheating on bounties, unless if one of the connected accounts was banned earlier on and the remaining ones were evading ban.

The evidence is more than good enough, so red tags and/or red flags can be left on the profiles by you or any member.

[LoyceV]

The evidence is more than good enough, so red tags and/or red flags can be left on the profiles by you or any member.

Correction: "red flags" (I assume you mean type 2 or 3) should only be created by actual victims of the scammer.
See the Flag creation page:

[type 1]   Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)
[type 2]   This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.
[type 3]   This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

[actmyname]

The evidence is more than good enough, so red tags and/or red flags can be left on the profiles by you or any member.

Correction: "red flags" (I assume you mean type 2 or 3) should only be created by actual victims of the scammer.
See the Flag creation page:

[type 1]   Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)
[type 2]   This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.
[type 3]   This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

Which is unfortunately evadable via alternate accounts. Once a scammer is given a red flag, there is no consequence to repeated account creation as a means of trust evasion. Of course, since trust is subjective, all this means is that if the scammer is more persistent than the victims (a likely scenario) apropos to scamming, then you can expect an efficient scammer to have a yellow flag at worst, and no flag at all at best.

[LoyceV]

Which is unfortunately evadable via alternate accounts.
~ a yellow flag at worst, and no flag at all at best.

Victims are allowed to create type 3 Flags on all alt accounts:

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

Yes, one of the victims can.

I've created type 3 Flags on all known Betking accounts:

source: loyce.club

2810 Active. (Support | Oppose) LoyceV flagged Betking Manager (type 3, see why). Supported by The Pharmacist, LoyceV, examplens, bitbollo, nutildah, SFR10, Slow death, TwitchySeal, JollyGood, sheenshane, witcher_sense, dkbit98, notblox1, BITCOIN4X, Ratimov, ScamViruS, Jawhead999, icopress, Stalker22, igehhh, robelneo, TheUltraElite, stomachgrowls, Swordsoffreedom, $crypto$, psycodad, PrimeNumber7, NotATether. Opposed by nobody.

44 Active. (Support | Oppose) LoyceV flagged dean nolan (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, Hueristic, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, dbshck, Avirunes, nutildah, actmyname, franckuestein, marlboroza, bones261, Lafu, Lutpin, Hhampuz, Last of the V8s, bob123, JollyGood, El duderino_, Royse777, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, TheBeardedBaby, coinlocket$, asche, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, TalkStar, Timelord2067, Quickseller, TheUltraElite, IconFirm, cissrawk, PrimeNumber7, nullius, N0sferatu, izooomrud, thecatinc. Opposed by nobody.

43 Active. (Support | Oppose) LoyceV flagged PocketRocketsCasino (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, Hueristic, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, dbshck, Avirunes, actmyname, franckuestein, bones261, Lafu, Hhampuz, Last of the V8s, bob123, JollyGood, Royse777, subSTRATA, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, TheBeardedBaby, coinlocket$, asche, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, TalkStar, BayAreaCoins, Timelord2067, Quickseller, TheUltraElite, IconFirm, cissrawk, PrimeNumber7, nullius, N0sferatu, izooomrud. Opposed by nobody.

42 Active. (Support | Oppose) LoyceV flagged BetKing Support (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, Hueristic, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, dbshck, Avirunes, actmyname, franckuestein, marlboroza, bones261, Lafu, Hhampuz, Last of the V8s, bob123, JollyGood, El duderino_, Royse777, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, TheBeardedBaby, coinlocket$, asche, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, JSRAW, fillippone, TalkStar, Timelord2067, Quickseller, TheUltraElite, IconFirm, cissrawk, PrimeNumber7, nullius, N0sferatu, izooomrud. Opposed by nobody.

41 Active. (Support | Oppose) LoyceV flagged BetKing.io (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, Hueristic, suchmoon, owlcatz, LFC_Bitcoin, RHavar, SyGambler, LoyceV, examplens, dbshck, Avirunes, nutildah, actmyname, franckuestein, marlboroza, bones261, Lafu, Lutpin, Hhampuz, Last of the V8s, crwth, bob123, Murat, TwitchySeal, JollyGood, El duderino_, Royse777, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, TheBeardedBaby, coinlocket$, asche, Coolcryptovator, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, JSRAW, TalkStar, YOSHIE, notblox1, BayAreaCoins, Timelord2067, Quickseller, johhnyUA, FFrankie, TheUltraElite, Text, wwzsocki, Joel_Jantsen, IconFirm, TGD, cissrawk, ChuckBuck, Yudhisthir, pandukelana2712, PrimeNumber7, Lassie, lighpulsar07, nullius, s0lidus, N0sferatu, elmanchez, izooomrud, leventturksoy, ChemicalSpillage, Donatelli, thecatinc, okdevin. Opposed by BillyBurns, NikS13, attilla82, CrankyAnt[/size].

[actmyname]

Which is unfortunately evadable via alternate accounts.~ a yellow flag at worst, and no flag at all at best.

Victims are allowed to create type 3 Flags on all alt accounts:

Your ability to create flags does not impact my ability to create subsequent alt accounts and new threads.

Victims will need to actively seek out their scammers to constantly add red flags. A battle of attrition. Only difference is that the scammer profits from their behavior.

[DireWolfM14]

Your ability to create flags does not impact my ability to create subsequent alt accounts and new threads.

You're right about that, but there's only so much we can do.  Scammers are gonna scam, victims are gonna be victimized.  I'm not trying to downplay it, it's a sucky situation. 

I know you've campaigned for a welcome page that will attempt to warn newbies about the proliferation of scammers on this site, and it's a noble effort on your part.  It certainly couldn't hurt, but I don't think it'll solve much.  Here's a situation where it appears that the victim didn't even register an account on the forum before getting scammed.  The victim ignored the scammers flags and negative reviews.  All those flags and tags did nothing to prevent that scam.  Had the victim registered for an account and seen a scary warning message, would we have had any different of an outcome?  I reckon it would have likely been ignored just like the other warnings.

There are many out there who's greed will overcome their skepticism.  There's absolutely nothing we can do to prevent them from being scammed, and unfortunately those are ones scammers are banking on.

[LoyceV]

create subsequent alt accounts and new threads.

This is actually an easy case, since Dean wants to keep using his old name. Most of the time it's much more difficult to find alts.

[actmyname]

Here's a situation where it appears that the victim didn't even register an account on the forum before getting scammed.

This is like one of 20 cases all of which include vareole, spanning a duration over multiple months (check trust page for some history).

No welcome message. View some of vareole's threads as if you were a guest user, but bear in mind your current knowledge greatly exceeds that of them. For example, you have to forget that the forum doesn't moderate scammers and forget that rank doesn't equate to reputation. Moreover, look at how generously the red (though somewhat pink) message paints the scammer: "while the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution."

I'm not sure what you imagine when you read that sentence, but I see something akin to eBay, with some malicious users having marked another as a scammer. Of course, since the administration doesn't verify the claims, they're not a verified scammer! At least since there is a link to something that tells me about trust in greater detail in the flag warning so that I may be educated and cautioned against scams.

Wait a minute!How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

[DireWolfM14]

How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

Maybe big red warning on every trading board post started by a newbie; something simple like "Scammers flourish in a free marketplace, WATCH YOUR ASS!"  That might get the job done, but then again it could get ignored just like all the other giant red warning signs.

At some point one has to accept the risks of living in a free society.  We can police our own in the hope of preventing repeat offenders, and sometime we can't even do that.  The only alternative is regulation and enforcement, and I doubt theymos will ever venture there.  Personally, I would rather accept the risks of a free forum than the alternative. 

[actmyname]

How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

Maybe big red warning on every trading board post started by a newbie; something simple like-

Writing a welcome message

Personally, I would rather accept the risks of a free forum than the alternative.

As it currently stands, imagine you hit the front page of Bitcointalk: there's no way for you to even know about the existence of the trust system unless you see a thread in Meta or some discussion about it. What's the likelihood of that? You accept the risks of a free forum now, because you know the conditions. Anecdotal evidence is not always sufficient, but our sample size well exceeds 10 at this point (in relation to ONE scammer): how many scam victims were ignorant of the forum policies and expected intervention?

Suppose you are a guest and you want to investigate the currency with say, $10. Currency exchange seems good! (and any variety of potential situations as a result of easily-preventable ignorance)

Consider a scammer that exclusively uses Newbie accounts: do we flag them so that guests will see a warning? If so, then what if the Newbie is genuine? If not, then what action do we take to caution users if not a message on visit?

If we're to specifically target marketplace sections and boards where scams proliferate, a warning that uses a significant amount of screen space and cannot be easily-avoided (i.e. a banner that requires scrolling down or a landing page) can be applied to guest users. If this is annoying, all the more reason for people to register and see (at the very least DefaultTrust) defined trust ratings, with numerical degrees of impact. After all, having -1 red trust is different from -8 red trust, and untrusted ratings are only accessible to registered users.


It's not as if you can't make a ^M_W^A_A^S_R^S_N^I_I^V_N^E_G in bbcode.

[LoyceV]

How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

It's one of the things that makes Bitcointalk so unique. If I have a problem with my computer, I go to Stackexchange, copy/paste some code, and it works again. The same for car related problems on specialized forums: I follow the instructions, and it solves my problem. But if you do the same on Bitcointalk, you lose your money:

Scenario
Someone has a problem with a wallet, comes to Bitcointalk, creates an account, asks a question, and gets a solution. Great! A happy new user for the forum, and another happy Bitcoin user, which adds to Bitcoin's popularity.

Reality (2 days ago)
Someone has a problem with a wallet, comes to Bitcointalk, creates an account, asks a question, gets "help" by PM from someone who asks him to enter some code into Electrum, enter his password (and I quote: "(NEVER share this password with anybody)"), and gets scammed out of $30,000.
Another clueless naive new user bites the dust, the forum loses a new user, and Bitcoin loses a potential user forever.

Maybe big red warning on every trading board post started by a newbie; something simple like "Scammers flourish in a free marketplace, WATCH YOUR ASS!"  That might get the job done, but then again it could get ignored just like all the other giant red warning signs.

This is theymos' view:

Honestly, I think that someone that naïve can't be protected. Even if every inch of the page had been full of warnings, he still might've fallen for it, since he wasn't even thinking about the possibility of being given evil instructions. The scammer was a Jr Member, not some Legendary.

People like him (ie. the majority of the world population) are why we'll someday want an optional sidechain or something on top of Bitcoin which has reversible transactions (via some sort of automatic 2-of-3 escrow which expires after a while, maybe).

Consider a scammer that exclusively uses Newbie accounts: do we flag them so that guests will see a warning? If so, then what if the Newbie is genuine? If not, then what action do we take to caution users if not a message on visit?

The Currency Exchange board is filled with scammers. Can you imagine a multi billionaire who wants to buy 500,000 Bitcoin and uses an "agent" who barely speaks English to buy it on a forum, paying cash with truckloads of money? The scam is so obvious, if he manages to scam $100 he can buy food for a month again. People who fall for that can't be helped.

[DireWolfM14]

How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here."

It's one of the things that makes Bitcointalk so unique. If I have a problem with my computer, I go to Stackexchange, copy/paste some code, and it works again. The same for car related problems on specialized forums: I follow the instructions, and it solves my problem. But if you do the same on Bitcointalk, you lose your money:

Honestly, it's not that cut and dry.  The internet is full of misinformation, and most of us have learned to be skeptical when researching solutions to our problems.  I don't blindly copy and paste code from stackexchange without researching the commands, nor do I assume that the youtube videos about misfiring Fords are going to address my specific mechanical issues.

Maybe big red warning on every trading board post started by a newbie; something simple like "Scammers flourish in a free marketplace, WATCH YOUR ASS!"  That might get the job done, but then again it could get ignored just like all the other giant red warning signs.

This is theymos' view:

Honestly, I think that someone that naïve can't be protected. Even if every inch of the page had been full of warnings, he still might've fallen for it, since he wasn't even thinking about the possibility of being given evil instructions. The scammer was a Jr Member, not some Legendary.

People like him (ie. the majority of the world population) are why we'll someday want an optional sidechain or something on top of Bitcoin which has reversible transactions (via some sort of automatic 2-of-3 escrow which expires after a while, maybe).

I tend to agree with theymos, which is the point I was trying to make to actmyname.  We can't protect everyone, nor can we prevent all scams.  I'm in no way suggesting that we stop trying, but we're going to have to accept some risk.  A quote that's often attributed to Benjamin Franklin goes something like this:  "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[actmyname]

I tend to agree with theymos, which is the point I was trying to make to actmyname.  We can't protect everyone, nor can we prevent all scams.  I'm in no way suggesting that we stop trying, but we're going to have to accept some risk.

Risk is perfectly fine, as long as the willing participants are given awareness.

I was under the impression that a welcome message - an introduction to the trust system + scammer indifference - could bring about that awareness and could be a very simple and non-restrictive measure. I don't think your liberty is going to be compromised with a few extra hand movements as a guest. It is not unreasonable to request a landing page for guest users.

The internet is full of misinformation, and most of us have learned to be skeptical when researching solutions to our problems.  I don't blindly copy and paste code from stackexchange without researching the commands, nor do I assume that the youtube videos about misfiring Fords are going to address my specific mechanical issues.

Are you able to leverage people's comments in accordance to their actual content via research, or do you place some bias on their site-based reputation? Similarly to as if someone were to trust a member based on rank, the expectation of some local reputation system is perfectly reasonable. Yet, who do you actually trust? Sure, staff can be trusted to some degree, but apparently even DefaultTrust is a bad measure of trust due to the legacy of past exit scams: I would even grant that someone new, having read through enough of the forum, would rather trade (and post) elsewhere unless they wanted to scam others.

Which other forums do you visit to where the rules are inaccessible unless you go to their forum discussion board located at the bottom of the front page, view an "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules" buried within SIX sticky threads, and go all the way to rule 19 to find out that scams are not moderated? This is an excessive scavenger hunt.

In fact, unless you count an warning to use escrow as a direct "scams aren't going to be removed and we're not going to do anything about them" message, then there's almost nothing said about forum policy.Was it a programming issue, integrating a DefaultTrust rating as a guest view of trust (preferably with some description/links to explanations)? DefaultTrust is good enough for registered users, after all, and the only difference is a few minutes!

Or, is it instead a fundamental problem?