👑🏆👑BITZ.io Cryptocasino| 5 BTC Daily withdrawal | $1.5kk lvl up reward 👑🏆👑

[ptaylor78]

☀️🌙 Solstice Day at Bitz.io
Today marks the solstice — a moment when the rhythm of light and darkness gently shifts.

At Bitz, the atmosphere follows that balance: steady spins, unhurried moments, and a calm flow of play.
It’s a day to pause, reset, and enjoy the game in your own time — whether you’re drawn to the brightness of the reels or the quiet focus of live tables. Solstice Day at Bitz is about balance, transition, and those small turning points that make every moment feel just a little more meaningful ✨

Bitz continues to post promotional ads on Bitcointalk to attract new players while refusing to address serious concerns raised by a player who learned of the casino through this forum. It has now been three days since I first contacted Bitz_Casino privately and posted multiple replies in this thread. There has been no response. Complete silence.

To be clear about the issue being ignored. I registered at Bitz, made no deposits, and within three hours contacted support requesting self-exclusion and permanent account closure due to problem gambling and addiction. Bitz refused. Repeatedly. For days. They repeatedly claimed self-exclusion was legally and technically impossible. By the end of the week, through their own actions, that claim was proven to be a complete lie. This lie was being repeated via email support, live chat support and through personal manager/casino host. Calculated and coordinated deceit.

This is the type of casino Bitz is.

Has anyone here encountered a casino that advertises responsible gambling while refusing a self-exclusion request made before any deposit and instead encourages a player to be the "master of his mood"? That is not responsible gambling. It is the opposite.



If casinos are permitted to promote themselves on Bitcointalk through threads like this one and signature campaigns while ignoring player safety concerns raised, that is a problem. Players rely on this platform to surface exactly this kind of conduct.

Bitz’s silence, while continuing to market its casino, speaks for itself.

[memehunter]

...

So, you deliberately made an account to test their responsible gambling practices? IMO, self exclusion request must be handled professionally and there must be an immediate pause on all deposits and gameplay. Every licensed casinos are usually bound by that. We have already seen a similar case in somedays back and it cost a lot of reputational damage. Right now, what is the status of your account?
And, next time please resize the images before posting.
 

[ptaylor78]

...

So, you deliberately made an account to test their responsible gambling practices? IMO, self exclusion request must be handled professionally and there must be an immediate pause on all deposits and gameplay. Every licensed casinos are usually bound by that. We have already seen a similar case in somedays back and it cost a lot of reputational damage. Right now, what is the status of your account?
And, next time please resize the images before posting.
 

No. The account was not created to test Bitz’s responsible gambling tools.

I agree with your broader point. A self-exclusion request must be handled professionally, with an immediate pause on deposits and gameplay. That is standard.  I trust you would agree that the two messages below constitute clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal requests for permanent self-exclusion and account closure, sufficient to trigger the casino’s immediate responsible gambling obligations.



Additional details and supporting evidence will be provided when a formal scam accusation is posted.

Bitz_Casino previously represented that they would engage here to address player concerns. Their silence suggests that commitment does not extend to situations involving their own failures, especially if no reasonable explanation or defense can be provided.

[memehunter]

I don't think there is anything wrong (correct me if I am seeing thing wrongly). They might have a 7 day policy and it hardly matters as you will not be able to deposit and play within 7 days period, so basically your account is closed. The case would be made if the platform denied your request or manipulated you for depositing and playing.
Just let the 7 days passed and your account will be deleted.   

[notocactus]

I don't think there is anything wrong (correct me if I am seeing thing wrongly). They might have a 7 day policy and it hardly matters as you will not be able to deposit and play within 7 days period, so basically your account is closed. The case would be made if the platform denied your request or manipulated you for depositing and playing.
Just let the 7 days passed and your account will be deleted.   

It is like a cooling down time, you can make a request of self-exclusion that last 7 days. After 7 days, you can request your account deletion but during 7 days, there is no option to cancel or reset that request and get your account back for playing.

Is it for security concern from Bitz.io as they want to have a time window in order to make sure that the actual owner, but not hacker makes that self-exlusion?
After there is no concern from the actual owner about any account hack, the procedure will continue with account deletion.

So if in the middle, during 7 days, it is a hacked account and the original owner files a support ticket, what will happen with the self-exlcusion?
How will Bitz.io handle it?

[memehunter]

I don't think there is anything wrong (correct me if I am seeing thing wrongly). They might have a 7 day policy and it hardly matters as you will not be able to deposit and play within 7 days period, so basically your account is closed. The case would be made if the platform denied your request or manipulated you for depositing and playing.
Just let the 7 days passed and your account will be deleted.   

It is like a cooling down time, you can make a request of self-exclusion that last 7 days. After 7 days, you can request your account deletion but during 7 days, there is no option to cancel or reset that request and get your account back for playing.

Is it for security concern from Bitz.io as they want to have a time window in order to make sure that the actual owner, but not hacker makes that self-exlusion?
After there is no concern from the actual owner about any account hack, the procedure will continue with account deletion.

So if in the middle, during 7 days, it is a hacked account and the original owner files a support ticket, what will happen with the self-exlcusion?
How will Bitz.io handle it?

Exactly. This look like a normal handling of self exclusion request.
@ptaylor78, you were talking to some person who is responsible for increasing revenue and no wonder he did not want you to stop. But if you look at that conversation also, he said nothing wrong and at the end even asked you if you want to proceed further. This was the informal channel but when you approached the casino via official email (formal channel) they did what they suppose to do.

[ptaylor78]

I don't think there is anything wrong (correct me if I am seeing thing wrongly). They might have a 7 day policy and it hardly matters as you will not be able to deposit and play within 7 days period, so basically your account is closed. The case would be made if the platform denied your request or manipulated you for depositing and playing.
Just let the 7 days passed and your account will be deleted.  

It is like a cooling down time, you can make a request of self-exclusion that last 7 days. After 7 days, you can request your account deletion but during 7 days, there is no option to cancel or reset that request and get your account back for playing.

Is it for security concern from Bitz.io as they want to have a time window in order to make sure that the actual owner, but not hacker makes that self-exlusion?
After there is no concern from the actual owner about any account hack, the procedure will continue with account deletion.

So if in the middle, during 7 days, it is a hacked account and the original owner files a support ticket, what will happen with the self-exlcusion?
How will Bitz.io handle it?

Exactly. This look like a normal handling of self exclusion request.
@ptaylor78, you were talking to some person who is responsible for increasing revenue and no wonder he did not want you to stop. But if you look at that conversation also, he said nothing wrong and at the end even asked you if you want to proceed further. This was the informal channel but when you approached the casino via official email (formal channel) they did what they suppose to do.

You are working off of limited information.  Did you miss where I wrote to start the 7 days right now? How is it a normal handling of self-exclusion if there was never any exclusion granted despite over a dozen requests?

I would agree with you if the 7-day self-exclusion had actually been applied. It was not. Bitz made it impossible to self-exclude, close the account, set limits, or initiate the mandatory 7-day restriction. Despite repeated, explicit requests for permanent self-exclusion and closure, Bitz stated the tool was unavailable due to “maintenance” and refused to take any manual action. You may be surprised by the lengths they went to in order to prevent account closure.  The full scope of how this was handled will be disclosed in detail in the scam accusation.  Below is the supposed page required to initiate the 7-day restriction.

[ptaylor78]

I don't think there is anything wrong (correct me if I am seeing thing wrongly). They might have a 7 day policy and it hardly matters as you will not be able to deposit and play within 7 days period, so basically your account is closed. The case would be made if the platform denied your request or manipulated you for depositing and playing.
Just let the 7 days passed and your account will be deleted.  

It is like a cooling down time, you can make a request of self-exclusion that last 7 days. After 7 days, you can request your account deletion but during 7 days, there is no option to cancel or reset that request and get your account back for playing.

Is it for security concern from Bitz.io as they want to have a time window in order to make sure that the actual owner, but not hacker makes that self-exlusion?
After there is no concern from the actual owner about any account hack, the procedure will continue with account deletion.

So if in the middle, during 7 days, it is a hacked account and the original owner files a support ticket, what will happen with the self-exlcusion?
How will Bitz.io handle it?

How about if the 7 day self-exclusion period is impossible to initiate for "technical" and "legal" reasons?

...

IMO, self exclusion request must be handled professionally and there must be an immediate pause on all deposits and gameplay. Every licensed casinos are usually bound by that. We have already seen a similar case in somedays back and it cost a lot of reputational damage.

The case would be made if the platform denied your request or manipulated you for depositing and playing.

These are the two valid points you have made...  The confusion is partly on me for introducing evidence piecemeal in the ANN.  However, I'm having a difficult time comprehending why you can't figure out or read in between the lines to see that no exclusion was ever granted besides numerous requests.  If we are discussing self-exclusion, there would be no dispute if self exclusion occurred. 

All your commentary about formal and informal channels is not accurate.  Bitz maintained the same stance regardless of channel that it was not possible to initiate self exclusion, account closure, deposit limits or the required 7 day self exclusion period.  Despite their terms stating that you could email support to activate all these tools, all requests were denied.

[yhiaali3]

To be clear about the issue being ignored. I registered at Bitz, made no deposits, and within three hours contacted support requesting self-exclusion and permanent account closure due to problem gambling and addiction. Bitz refused. Repeatedly. For days. They repeatedly claimed self-exclusion was legally and technically impossible. By the end of the week, through their own actions, that claim was proven to be a complete lie. This lie was being repeated via email support, live chat support and through personal manager/casino host. Calculated and coordinated deceit.

This is the type of casino Bitz is.

Has anyone here encountered a casino that advertises responsible gambling while refusing a self-exclusion request made before any deposit and instead encourages a player to be the "master of his mood"? That is not responsible gambling. It is the opposite.


If casinos are permitted to promote themselves on Bitcointalk through threads like this one and signature campaigns while ignoring player safety concerns raised, that is a problem. Players rely on this platform to surface exactly this kind of conduct.

Bitz’s silence, while continuing to market its casino, speaks for itself.

I don't understand your exact problem. You say you registered with Bitz but didn't deposit any money, and you contacted support requesting that your account be permanently closed due to gambling and addiction. Bitz repeatedly refused over several days, claiming that self-exclusion is legally and technically impossible....

If you submitted a self-exclusion request and they rejected it or ignored it, telling you it's legally and technically impossible, what's the problem?

Did you read the site's policy and find that they offer self-exclusion?
Did they force you to deposit or play? You can simply ignore the casino and not deposit or play. No one can force you, especially since your account is empty, as you say!

[ptaylor78]

To be clear about the issue being ignored. I registered at Bitz, made no deposits, and within three hours contacted support requesting self-exclusion and permanent account closure due to problem gambling and addiction. Bitz refused. Repeatedly. For days. They repeatedly claimed self-exclusion was legally and technically impossible. By the end of the week, through their own actions, that claim was proven to be a complete lie. This lie was being repeated via email support, live chat support and through personal manager/casino host. Calculated and coordinated deceit.

This is the type of casino Bitz is.

Has anyone here encountered a casino that advertises responsible gambling while refusing a self-exclusion request made before any deposit and instead encourages a player to be the "master of his mood"? That is not responsible gambling. It is the opposite.


If casinos are permitted to promote themselves on Bitcointalk through threads like this one and signature campaigns while ignoring player safety concerns raised, that is a problem. Players rely on this platform to surface exactly this kind of conduct.

Bitz’s silence, while continuing to market its casino, speaks for itself.

I don't understand your exact problem. You say you registered with Bitz but didn't deposit any money, and you contacted support requesting that your account be permanently closed due to gambling and addiction. Bitz repeatedly refused over several days, claiming that self-exclusion is legally and technically impossible....

If you submitted a self-exclusion request and they rejected it or ignored it, telling you it's legally and technically impossible, what's the problem?

Did you read the site's policy and find that they offer self-exclusion?
Did they force you to deposit or play? You can simply ignore the casino and not deposit or play. No one can force you, especially since your account is empty, as you say!

I think you are misunderstanding both the facts and how responsible gambling obligations operate.

This is not about being “forced” to deposit or play. Responsible gambling duties are triggered when a player requests self-exclusion or account closure due to gambling addiction. Once that happens, the casino has an obligation to act. The obligation exists regardless of whether the player later deposits.

Bitz’s own policy stated that a player who believes they are spending too much time or money gambling may request self-exclusion by contacting support. I did exactly that, in writing, before any deposits. Bitz acknowledged the request but refused to carry it out, claiming self-exclusion and even a temporary restriction were “legally and technically impossible.”

That is the problem.

If a casino advertises self-exclusion, receives a clear addiction disclosure, and then tells the player it is impossible to self-exclude, close the account, set limits, or even initiate the mandatory 7-day restriction, the casino has failed its responsible gambling obligations. Telling a problem gambler to “just walk away” is not compliance.

The situation is compounded by the fact that Bitz later did manually block the account, proving their repeated claims of impossibility were false. They then removed their Self-Exclusion Policy and Responsible Gaming links from the site on December 19 after the issue was raised publicly.

This is not a misunderstanding of RG obligations. It is a documented failure to honor them.

[yhiaali3]

I think you are misunderstanding both the facts and how responsible gambling obligations operate.

This is not about being “forced” to deposit or play. Responsible gambling duties are triggered when a player requests self-exclusion or account closure due to gambling addiction. Once that happens, the casino has an obligation to act. The obligation exists regardless of whether the player later deposits.

I understand self-exclusion very well and try to be as neutral as possible.

You said, "Responsible gambling obligations begin when a player requests to self-exclude or close their account due to gambling addiction." So, the reason is addiction, while in your case, we have:

A new account + no deposits + a clean gambling and loss record.

Don't you think there's something suspicious about the self-exclusion request?

The situation is compounded by the fact that Bitz later did manually block the account, proving their repeated claims of impossibility were false. They then removed their Self-Exclusion Policy and Responsible Gaming links from the site on December 19 after the issue was raised publicly.

If it's true that they manually blocked your account and removed the links to the self-exclusion and responsible gambling policies from the site, I hope Bitz will post their explanation here to clear up any confusion.

[ptaylor78]

I understand self-exclusion very well and try to be as neutral as possible.

You said, "Responsible gambling obligations begin when a player requests to self-exclude or close their account due to gambling addiction." So, the reason is addiction, while in your case, we have:

A new account + no deposits + a clean gambling and loss record.

Don't you think there's something suspicious about the self-exclusion request?

Despite your assertion that you understand self-exclusion very well, several points in your replies reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how responsible gambling obligations operate.

Self-exclusion is not contingent on account age, deposit history, or a prior loss record. It is triggered by a player’s explicit request to self-exclude or permanently close an account due to gambling addiction. Once that request is made, the casino’s obligation to act arises immediately and exists regardless of whether the player later deposits.

A casino is not permitted to speculate about motive, apply subjective suspicion, or delay safeguards based on assumptions about a player’s intent. Responsible gambling policies are preventative by design. They are meant to stop harm before it occurs, not after losses appear.

Framing an early self-exclusion request as “suspicious” misunderstands both the purpose and operation of responsible gambling protections.

Following your logic, this would be like an alcoholic walking into a bar for the first time, asking to be banned or excluded due to addiction, and you calling that request “suspicious” because he has not yet ordered a drink or gotten drunk at that specific bar.

If it's true that they manually blocked your account and removed the links to the self-exclusion and responsible gambling policies from the site, I hope Bitz will post their explanation here to clear up any confusion.

This is not a matter of “if it’s true.” The record is already public and documented in this thread.

On December 18, I posted screenshots showing the Self-Exclusion Policy and Responsible Gaming links as they existed on Bitz’s site at that time. Those materials were subsequently removed on December 19 after the deficiencies were raised publicly. That sequence is documented and preserved.

Since you are a Bitz signature campaign participant, please log into their site and confirm whether you currently see any Self-Exclusion or Responsible Gaming links available anywhere on the platform. Kindly post your observations following your review.

And yes, Bitz did manually block the account on December 16 after claiming for roughly ten days that any form of manual intervention was legally and technically impossible.

If and when I post the formal scam accusation, the evidentiary record on this point will be presented as well.

Does Bitz_Casino still stand behind the statements in your reply. Does Bitz take Responsible Gambling seriously. Does Bitz comply with its own Terms of Service, the obligations of its gaming license and industry norms.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Since you are a Bitz signature campaign participant, please log into their site and confirm whether you currently see any Self-Exclusion or Responsible Gaming links available anywhere on the platform. Kindly post your observations following your review.

Well, I can say that I logged in the casino yesterday when I saw your complaints and I couldn't see any of those features. I hope they will be available again as soon as possible.

I am not getting involved in the discussion you have had with others, but as a participant in the campaign, I would like to see those measures available again. I have often said in other threads that I am all for these measures, which have been increasingly implemented in casinos over the years.

[ptaylor78]

Since you are a Bitz signature campaign participant, please log into their site and confirm whether you currently see any Self-Exclusion or Responsible Gaming links available anywhere on the platform. Kindly post your observations following your review.

Well, I can say that I logged in the casino yesterday when I saw your complaints and I couldn't see any of those features. I hope they will be available again as soon as possible.

I am not getting involved in the discussion you have had with others, but as a participant in the campaign, I would like to see those measures available again. I have often said in other threads that I am all for these measures, which have been increasingly implemented in casinos over the years.

Thank you. Independent verification from a Bitz signature campaign participant that these safeguards are no longer accessible is noted. Yes, they were removed on December 19, during the course of this dispute, after deficiencies were raised publicly. That is why you no longer see them.

Unfortunately, removing self exclusion links and policies mid-dispute does not resolve the underlying failure. It only compounds it. As of today, Section 6.8 of Bitz’s own Terms and Conditions still expressly references responsible gambling and self-exclusion measures that are no longer accessible anywhere on the site. The failure to amend or remove Section 6.8 reflects either basic oversight or a rushed attempt to remove policies without properly updating and renumbering the governing terms.

Post-hoc concealment does not cure a prior breach, nor does it help Bitz’s position. If anything, it raises additional concerns about good-faith engagement.

[Tigerheart3026]

i can't access bitz.io website, if when i open, sorry you have been blocked, this website is blocked in my country or not, i can't find out,
anyone facing this issue? or i'm only cannot sign up in this platform. whatever, bitz.io and bitz19.io both of same casino platform?
i see both of looks similar, bitz19.io is accesible from my end.

[God Of Thunder]

i can't access bitz.io website, if when i open, sorry you have been blocked, this website is blocked in my country or not, i can't find out,
anyone facing this issue? or i'm only cannot sign up in this platform. whatever, bitz.io and bitz19.io both of same casino platform?
i see both of looks similar, bitz19.io is accesible from my end.

Yes. Bitz19.io is an official mirror of the Bitz.io casino. There are a couple more, including that one. Here is the list for you.

http://2bitz.vip
https://bitz12.club
https://bitz19.io
https://5bitz.net

I think Bitz has a few more, which I do not remember at this moment. But if you cannot access the website via the main domain, feel free to try any of the domain mentioned in this post.

[Finebone]

i can't access bitz.io website, if when i open, sorry you have been blocked, this website is blocked in my country or not, i can't find out,

Sorry for that, I haven't encounter any such problems since I signed up with Bitz, but if the restrictions is from your country or region, I would advice you try using a VPN and look if it will work out.

anyone facing this issue? or i'm only cannot sign up in this platform.

Just as I have said earlier, I have not experienced such since I signed up with Bitz, but I can't tell of others. Though I prefer using their app since I find it more easier and faster to navigate, than the website.


 

[Tigerheart3026]

i can't access bitz.io website, if when i open, sorry you have been blocked, this website is blocked in my country or not, i can't find out,

Sorry for that, I haven't encounter any such problems since I signed up with Bitz, but if the restrictions is from your country or region, I would advice you try using a VPN and look if it will work out.

i don’t know what's the issue actually, in my country a lot of popular casinos is also accesible, not banned a few top leading casino websites, but it’s blocked, then i tried with vpn, i connect "japan" then site is open, but vpn is not a solution, it might be breaks tos for this casino website, so my account can be banned. i want to sign up without connecting vpn. thanks

[mitchr4]

i don’t know what's the issue actually, in my country a lot of popular casinos is also accesible, not banned a few top leading casino websites, but it’s blocked, then i tried with vpn, i connect "japan" then site is open, but vpn is not a solution, it might be breaks tos for this casino website, so my account can be banned. i want to sign up without connecting vpn. thanks

If your country is restricted, it means you can't play here. I understand your concern about VPN. Even though they don't mention VPN rules in the TOS, it doesn't mean this site is VPN friendly. VPN usage might be considered if you have access issues due to connection problems, but not to bypass country restrictions. This is risky because your account could get banned.

My advice is to contact their support first to ask about VPN policy and confirm whether your country is on the restricted list or not. It's safer that way than playing at risk.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

i don’t know what's the issue actually, in my country a lot of popular casinos is also accesible, not banned a few top leading casino websites, but it’s blocked, then i tried with vpn, i connect "japan" then site is open, but vpn is not a solution, it might be breaks tos for this casino website, so my account can be banned. i want to sign up without connecting vpn. thanks

But have you tried accessing the site using the mirror links provided by God Of Thunder a few posts above? Several users on this thread reported problems accessing the site but they could access using mirrors. Anyway, always check if your country is on the banned countries list, so you don't break the ToS.