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

[khaled0111]

For example, if two or three persons are accessing the gambling from the same IP (because they are family members), they must have different KYC and that should be enough for the casino to continue allow them access gambling through that same IP.

Rules are the rules. If they say that only one account per household is allowed then you need to follow that.
Besides, I don’t think KYC can help in cases like this where a user gets accused of multi-accounting. Casinos know that the easiest thing to do is ask a family member to pretend the other account is his and he wouldn’t mind verifying it with his own documents. So the best thing to do to prevent getting into this kind of trouble is simply to prohibit more than one account per household completely.

So is it a problem if Bitz's rules say email support to request self-exclusion and after sending the email, they adamantly refuse to self exclude the player? Then after the issue is made public, they delete the policy from their website

I wasn’t aware of this and if they did it then this is not acceptabl and they need to explain what happened.

[ptaylor78]

Bitz has committed some of the most serious responsible gambling violations I have encountered in years of dealing with online casinos. These breaches first occurred at time zero. Before any deposit was made and before any gameplay occurred. An official scam accusation has not yet been posted.

Despite repeated opportunities, Bitz has refused to address these issues in this thread or elsewhere, choosing instead to post AI generated promo material every few days. Bitz has now begun stonewalling independent third-party mediation, including AskGamblers.

This is an ugly position for a casino that actively promotes itself on Bitcointalk through this ANN and through signature campaigns.

In an early preview of the scam accusation, imagine Bitz receiving a clear request for permanent self-exclusion and account closure on December 8, followed by the player explicitly agreeing to Bitz’s own stated 7-day exclusion process and instructing that it begin immediately. Bitz acknowledged the request and the agreement, yet refused to apply any restriction until December 16, only after a formal demand letter and escalation.



This evidence alone establishes a pre-deposit responsible gambling failure at time zero. It still does not capture the full scope of Bitz’s conduct. During this period, Bitz actively encouraged continued gambling, attempted to induce play through a personal manager, offered a $5,000 settlement to mitigate its exposure after the harm occurred, and then removed its Self-Exclusion Policy and Responsible Gaming links from the site once these failures were raised publicly.

Serious question for experienced players. When has an online casino ever offered $5,000 USD refund to a player if it truly believed it had done nothing wrong?


Responding to accusations is simple when there is nothing to hide.

I wasn’t aware of this and if they did it then this is not acceptabl and they need to explain what happened.

Rules are the rules. If they say that only one account per household is allowed then you need to follow that.

So is it acceptable for a casino to publish rules stating that self-exclusion may be requested by emailing support, then refuse to apply self-exclusion after receiving that exact request?

And if the issue is then raised publicly, is it acceptable for the casino to respond by deleting the self-exclusion policy from its website rather than following it?

If a casino sets out a procedure for self-exclusion in its own rules, it has an obligation to follow that procedure. Anything else renders the policy meaningless.

[Bitz_Casino]

🎻 International Cello Day at Bitz.io
Today is a day of deep tones, gentle rhythms, and music that doesn’t shout, but resonates.

At Bitz, the mood today feels especially calm:
🎰 measured spins,
💬 unhurried conversations in the chat,
🌙 an atmosphere of focus and soft immersion.

Like the cello itself, today’s play is about balance, tempo, and attention to detail.
Drop in for a brief pause or stay a little longer — simply enjoying the moment at your own pace.

International Cello Day at Bitz is about depth, harmony, and quiet pleasures 🎶💛

[jcojci]

Sometimes the cause is from your ISP because I still face this and only using the mirror site will help me to visit the site. The case will be like your government allows you to visit the site, but your ISP blocks the access.

If he can access the mirror site, that will still be the same. One day, he can visit the main site. But be careful using the mirror site and ensure that is the right mirror site.

Just always use the genuine ones so that you won't be problematic about it. Because if the ISP is the problem, later on it will be okay as long as there's no restriction from the government. Otherwise, there's no need to find the fault of it because it's certainly the problem of the website and they're in maintenance and that's why the usage of mirror links are advised temporarily.

Yes, that is recommended. Using the real mirror site will avoid us from trouble. We can playing gambling without problems and enjoy our time in gambling.

We are two days ahead from new year so I wish all of us have better chances in the next year. Many new hopes come with the new year and we can do our best to achieves our goals.

[Zanab247]

For example, if two or three persons are accessing the gambling from the same IP (because they are family members), they must have different KYC and that should be enough for the casino to continue allow them access gambling through that same IP.

Rules are the rules. If they say that only one account per household is allowed then you need to follow that.
Besides, I don’t think KYC can help in cases like this where a user gets accused of multi-accounting. Casinos know that the easiest thing to do is ask a family member to pretend the other account is his and he wouldn’t mind verifying it with his own documents. So the best thing to do to prevent getting into this kind of trouble is simply to prohibit more than one account per household completely.

So is it a problem if Bitz's rules say email support to request self-exclusion and after sending the email, they adamantly refuse to self exclude the player? Then after the issue is made public, they delete the policy from their website

I wasn’t aware of this and if they did it then this is not acceptabl and they need to explain what happened.

Many people have lost their benefits from some casino just because they disobey the rules and regulations of the casino. BITZ teams will not against rules they did not stated in their casino for players to obey, because they know it will make many players not to value or trust the whole casino, because they are seeing different rules that was not there in the casino.

Since this community is the largest community that contain many players from the whole world, if truly the fault is from the teams that is controling the casino they will surely apologize to the player that fall victim, because that is the only thing that will keep players in that casino.

[ptaylor78]

Many people have lost their benefits from some casino just because they disobey the rules and regulations of the casino. BITZ teams will not against rules they did not stated in their casino for players to obey, because they know it will make many players not to value or trust the whole casino, because they are seeing different rules that was not there in the casino.

Since this community is the largest community that contain many players from the whole world, if truly the fault is from the teams that is controling the casino they will surely apologize to the player that fall victim, because that is the only thing that will keep players in that casino.

Respectfully, your comment does not deal with the facts at all.

Are you suggesting that Bitz offered a $5,000 refund because a player disobeyed casino rules. If so, which rule was violated. Please point to it.

Casinos do not offer four-figure refunds when nothing went wrong. They do not delete policies mid-dispute when they are confident in their compliance.

Before defending Bitz, it would help to actually read what has been posted. Otherwise, you are arguing against a version of events that does not exist.

It appears signature campaign payouts are creating selective blindness for some participants. That incentive explains the reluctance to engage honestly with the facts.

Once this moves to the Scam Accusations board, responses will come from members who are not worried about losing a Bitz signature slot. Those voices tend to be clearer and more grounded in the record.

[xandry]

Respectfully, your comment does not deal with the facts at all.

It's unlikely he read all the thread's pages and understands you. More likely, he simply rushed to post in the thread to meet the weekly quota for the signature campaign (in other words, to get paid for the post, and the quality of the post is secondary to him).  

Ah, just checked it and wasn't chosen as one of them. Grats on winning though!

Thanks, but for some reason I haven't received my bonus yet...

[letteredhub]

My expectation is that the casino would actually know how to go about such scenario especially when the KYC are actually different, perhaps a face ID matching the data given for KYC might help in such case from a same household. Because you can't tell me that I can't use a casino am enthusiastic about just because a brother or sister from same household already has account with them.

They can, it all depends on the casino's rules. As others have already mentioned, if it's prohibited by the ToS, you won't be able to register and play (or you will face a ban and confiscation of funds for both accounts) . But as we were discussing in another thread, there are casinos that do allow it. However, the first thing you need to do in this case is contact them and tell them that two people want to play from the same IP address.

I think the only time you might get a positive response would be if the casino do allows multiple accounts because for a casino that doesn't, then it would be very difficult to convince them for what their ToS is against, that the IP address are from different users but same household. In that case the chances of not getting banned is narrow in my opinion.

By the way, check your signature. It appears as:

INVALID BBCODE: close of unopened tag in table (1)

Its being resolved, though wasn't an error from my end.
Thanks.