For the reputation of this forum: you HAVE to rule on this flag! Share 10mBTC

[PaperWallet]

You don’t need this 1mBTC for your curse, you’ve just earned it

Promises, promises.

Wait a bit, it was for 1st of June. You’re not that smart to bully me into this am doing this by myself. Don’t spend your day refreshing your BTC wallet though:) I know you’re cheaper than that but still.

[1714708468]

1714708468

[1714708468]

1714708468

[1714708468]

1714708468

[1714708468]

1714708468

[PaperWallet]

Payout is done, 10 mBTC were divided among 7 participants using BTC address on profile.
Bambolina: no BTC address
Blossom15
cruso
examplens
GazetaBitcoin
igehhh
LEVSKI7: no BTC address
Marvelman
Sterbens: no BTC address
yogg

As said, those opposed received some cursed coins, so you are allowed to send them back if you want to.

I wish you the best of luck.

[Mr.right85]

Hhampuz is a very reputable user and conscious about the people or company he represents.

Of course, this is the problem. If your best reputable members like Hhampuz do campaign managing for this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5400099.0

I don't understand how you even come to this conclusion. Like, I've tried to rationise it and the only thing am getting is you trying to question Hhampuz's reputation based on some user that was involved in the promotion of 1xbit. That's pathetic if you ask me and it doesn't make sense.

You seem to have complete disregard for terms, especially where it states that, the manager and project team has the right to add and remove anyone at anytime or to do as they wish with there campaign. Some this rules states that, the feedback could be regarded as legitimate or not. Try to get the logic behind these things and know that, it doesn't appeals to everyone at every point.

Imagine, 1xbit is said to be a known scam but still, users gamble on them! Do we call these users scammers too? What we do out here is subjective.

The issue with projects turning out to be scams is mostly, when you can't withdraw or they hold on to your deposit. Yours is different, your illegitimate bets that broke there T&C was cancelled, the stake on them refunded and the one that was legitimate was paid and I believe, you've withdrawn as due. The only cause for alarm here is there waiting until you won otherwise, you won't have raised a flag.

Next time, try different predictions and you won't have an issue. I like the fact that you could go huge and win. That's some courage a lot of gamblers lack and to be on point with your bet.

[NotATether]

OK, so I just saw this thread, and while some of you may know from previous threads my dislike of certain parts of FJ's TOS, let's come back to earth for a moment.

1) Sure, what was lost is lost, but why gamble with 105K euros in the first place? Everyone knows that route won't give a large profit, so why take the risk? Especially on some random casino, for goodwill. [Yes I called FJ a random casino for the same reason I'd call nearly every other crypto casino random, as most people have not heard of them like Bet365 and Bwin for example.]

2) Casinos in general should not be allowing people to wager more than $10K at one because of negative emotions attached to gambling loss. Some of them already have such a wager ceiling - I don't know if FJ does but they shouldn't be allowing players to be reckless with their money, and that goes for similar casinos without a ceiling as well.

[Igebotz]

2) Casinos in general should not be allowing people to wager more than $10K at one because of negative emotions attached to gambling loss. Some of them already have such a wager ceiling - I don't know if FJ does but they shouldn't be allowing players to be reckless with their money, and that goes for similar casinos without a ceiling as well.

In the gambling world, they are only concerned with two rules that benefit them;

1. Minimum stake; they tell you the amount they are willing to accept from you, implying that they are only interested in users who can throw some decent $ to the company; it's rated 18 years and up, implying that every adult should know how much they are willing to lose; they didn't have to preach that on their page.

2. Maximum payout; for example, FJ's maximum payout is €300,000, which is what the company can afford to lose on a single bet; if your winnings exceeded that amount, the bet would be void, but they don't care if you lose €300,000 on a single bet.

Gambling is not for the weak. I started in 2009 and never had issues with any gambling site because I always play within the rules.

[SatSnatcher]

Both sides are jackasses..
One didn’t read the bullshit terms he agreed to, while the other makes users agree to bullshit terms that nobody ever reads..


Iirc a while back a newer casino got red trusted for not putting limits on the bets placed to keep them under max payout if they win..
Got red trust for allowing users to make higher bets than they could win back..

But no..
This casino allows you to place bets that you won’t even get max bet back on.. They just delete your bet if you win and refund your bet amount..
I wonder how many lost bets they just keep instead of refunding if they won..

I don’t personally care..
If you don’t read the terms and/or do the math yourself.. Sucks to be you..
Nor do I like casinos either..

[eddie13]

The negative trust on paperwallet here is bullshit..

He didn’t pay for any specific outcome or votes, he only said he would pay/raffle for participation..

Why? I can imagine because most are afraid to step up and criticize fortunejack, because fortunejack is the money tree, the hand that feeds many sig posters..

And with its campaign manager, completely biased, running around giving negative trust to users for criticizing fortunejack!!
(What a shitshow of trust enforced censorship, hamputz)

With such extreme and obvious conflict of interest, how brazen does one have to be to even contemplate such?
Well, it may not be hard to become inflated when so many line up to kiss the Sir’s feet..

Thank you Sir Hhampuz. … Thanks for the privilege given and opportunity.

How dare anyone speak against fortunejack!!!


Paper wallets ratings are a mess too though, so lol y’all have fun..

[PaperWallet]

The negative trust on paperwallet here is bullshit..

He didn’t pay for any specific outcome or votes, he only said he would pay/raffle for participation..

Why? I can imagine because most are afraid to step up and criticize fortunejack, because fortunejack is the money tree, the hand that feeds many sig posters..

And with its campaign manager, completely biased, running around giving negative trust to users for criticizing fortunejack!!
(What a shitshow of trust enforced censorship, hamputz)

With such extreme and obvious conflict of interest, how brazen does one have to be to even contemplate such?

How dare anyone speak against fortunejack!!!


Paper wallets ratings are a mess too though, so lol y’all have fun..

Thks for participating in this thread. I agree that the trust system is not really about trust, it's just a marketing tool, destined to give exposure to the organisations sponsoring this forum. Unfortunately, a lot of them are scams, and I fell for one of those that is FortuneJack.
That's why I'm also using this "trust system" to try to show to others what it is really about, but that has limited exposure of course because most users of this forum won't read it and are exposed to scams.

Well, it may not be hard to become inflated when so many line up to kiss the Sir’s feet..

Thank you Sir Hhampuz. … Thanks for the privilege given and opportunity.

Hahaha good one, I wouldn't have read that if it was not for you.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Am i the only one who has a problem with OP offering money (being that in the form of a giveaway) in exchange for participating in flag support/opposition? WTH, really?  

As long as the payment isn't based on the outcome, and the reward is public, I think it's okay. It's different when people pay for for positive reviews or negative feedback (I've seen both cases).
It's certainly a first

That's not what the trust system is for. At best this is low-effort spam, incentivizing which is against the rules when posting on the forum, and I can't think of any reason why such incentive could be good for the trust system either.

Such incentive shouldn't be allowed even if this is for fun. It encourage the trolls to use the system in their favour. A troll load with money will make the next offer which will be irresistible for some users. They can always rephrase their feedback but troll gets that he wanted. Feedback shouldn't be used for financial benefits or any kind of personal benefit.