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

[Andrei3344]

I have learned to discover this about people, they will always stand in the position of shifting blame on what they know was caused by them, that is why they begin to lobby around to look for who to put the blame on, this is where anything we do while gambling should fully be our responsibility, we should stop blaming orders for any mistake we did that cost us so bad, we can work on ourselves and be more discipline in gambling if you don't want any repetition in this manner.

Having an official license is precisely why a casino must strictly enforce self-exclusion policies. If a platform allows a user to bypass self-exclusion and deposit during a block period, it directly violates its licensing obligations and Responsible Gambling regulations. A licensed casino cannot just pick and choose when to follow its own rules to protect its revenue.

Could you clarify which question you believe I avoided? While it is true that a player should exercise self-control,

But do you only use bitz casino?

Can you provide a quality answer to that's?

My faith is that, you use multiple casinos. Because no gambler can become so seriously addicted or unbalanced in just a few months. Not just through one casino. If my assumption is wrong and your screenshots are indeed true, then it will come to the attention of the bitz authorities. And if the truth is verified, this case will definitely be resolved.

As I mentioned above, if you bet on multiple casinos, then you will never be able to improve yourself. And you will not be free from mature addiction. So, you cannot blame one casino for this mistake.

No, I don’t play at casinos anymore; I’ve blocked myself from every site where I used to be active, and it was no problem at all.

[Dave1]

I thought that it was already permanent when we're no longer required to ask for logging in when we'd done that. But it has asked me again so, I think that it's back to that part again that we'll asked to log in from time to time. And my bet has lost with the 76ers against the Pistons, the odds of 1.92 for the 76ers were quite good, and the Pistons' odds were lower yesterday. Another lose for betting but, moving on and Alex Eala has got a match this day and won against Mika Stojsavljevic for the round 32 in the Toray Pan Pacific Open. Tomorrow she'll play against Talia Gibson.

And it looks like Alex might be back to her old form as recently, she experience setbacks after setbacks specially after the SEA game. Maybe she is getting media fatigue and can't concentration as I saw a post that her trainer is really pushing him this time because of that unexpected losses.

Maybe she and that made her a bit of overwhelmed due to the attention she's getting from the media. But I hope she realized that and back on her focus again, her past opponents were just also good and that's why she's been beaten.

Anyhow, let's see, Australia's Talia Gibson is also good dispatching Daria Kasatkina 6-0, 7-5. So another big test for the Filipina here and she needed at least one win before the end of the year to keep her standing and momentum going into 2027.

Odds for her is 1.33 and I'm not sure if that's worth it to bet for. While for Talia it's 3.3 as per bitz. I guess supporting her right now through moral instead of betting isn't that bad either.

Yes, not worth that much unless we throw thousands of dollars on Eala and get a decent return. I might not able to watch the game though as it's going to be too late for me as the game is like 6-7 hours from now.

So with that, I will just skip the game and just hope that she will win and maybe in the next round, we might see a decent odd that we could bet.

Critical for her to not lose focus here as this is where it separates winning this tournament or not.

[Asuspawer09]

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

Good afternoon. Could you clarify which question you believe I avoided? While it is true that a player should exercise self-control, a casino has no right to prematurely lift a self-exclusion. The terms of the Anjouan license were flagrantly violated. Furthermore, a ruling by Casino Guru has determined that the casino, Bitz, breached every possible rule regarding self-exclusion.

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-was-improperly-unblocked

So after you did the self-exclusion for 3 months, is it true that you did request the reactivation of your account?

Because if that is the case, for sure it can be used as a valid reason, and It's difficult to argue for the refund, since this is still a centralized platform they have control over the money but definitely don't want to freeze or block an account just because of self-exclusion, because there can be an emergency if the user actually needs the money.

I believe the best settlement is at least half of the money, since you have or atleast do a part of it since you are the one that gamble the money in the end. I'm not taking their side, but I think the casino is not going to easily refund that money because you are the one gamble it willingly so for sure they could easily argue that.

[Andrei3344]

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

Good afternoon. Could you clarify which question you believe I avoided? While it is true that a player should exercise self-control, a casino has no right to prematurely lift a self-exclusion. The terms of the Anjouan license were flagrantly violated. Furthermore, a ruling by Casino Guru has determined that the casino, Bitz, breached every possible rule regarding self-exclusion.

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-was-improperly-unblocked

So after you did the self-exclusion for 3 months, is it true that you did request the reactivation of your account?

Because if that is the case, for sure it can be used as a valid reason, and It's difficult to argue for the refund, since this is still a centralized platform they have control over the money but definitely don't want to freeze or block an account just because of self-exclusion, because there can be an emergency if the user actually needs the money.

I believe the best settlement is at least half of the money, since you have or atleast do a part of it since you are the one that gamble the money in the end. I'm not taking their side, but I think the casino is not going to easily refund that money because you are the one gamble it willingly so for sure they could easily argue that.

Hello. It is a casino’s responsibility—and a licensing requirement—to restrict a player for the duration they have requested. I specifically asked that my account not be unblocked under any circumstances for a period of three months. The casino assured me that they wouldn’t be able to bypass the restriction even if they wanted to, so I had nothing to worry about—yet, just one day later, they unblocked it at my request.

[Andrei3344]

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

Good afternoon. Could you clarify which question you believe I avoided? While it is true that a player should exercise self-control, a casino has no right to prematurely lift a self-exclusion. The terms of the Anjouan license were flagrantly violated. Furthermore, a ruling by Casino Guru has determined that the casino, Bitz, breached every possible rule regarding self-exclusion.

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-was-improperly-unblocked

So after you did the self-exclusion for 3 months, is it true that you did request the reactivation of your account?

Because if that is the case, for sure it can be used as a valid reason, and It's difficult to argue for the refund, since this is still a centralized platform they have control over the money but definitely don't want to freeze or block an account just because of self-exclusion, because there can be an emergency if the user actually needs the money.

I believe the best settlement is at least half of the money, since you have or atleast do a part of it since you are the one that gamble the money in the end. I'm not taking their side, but I think the casino is not going to easily refund that money because you are the one gamble it willingly so for sure they could easily argue that.

Hello. It is a casino’s responsibility—and a licensing requirement—to restrict a player for the duration they have requested. I specifically asked that my account not be unblocked under any circumstances for a period of three months. The casino assured me that they wouldn’t be able to bypass the restriction even if they wanted to, so I had nothing to worry about—yet, just one day later, they unblocked it at my request.

And most importantly, it hasn’t been three months—it’s been 24 hours.

[Asuspawer09]

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

Good afternoon. Could you clarify which question you believe I avoided? While it is true that a player should exercise self-control, a casino has no right to prematurely lift a self-exclusion. The terms of the Anjouan license were flagrantly violated. Furthermore, a ruling by Casino Guru has determined that the casino, Bitz, breached every possible rule regarding self-exclusion.

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-was-improperly-unblocked

So after you did the self-exclusion for 3 months, is it true that you did request the reactivation of your account?

Because if that is the case, for sure it can be used as a valid reason, and It's difficult to argue for the refund, since this is still a centralized platform they have control over the money but definitely don't want to freeze or block an account just because of self-exclusion, because there can be an emergency if the user actually needs the money.

I believe the best settlement is at least half of the money, since you have or atleast do a part of it since you are the one that gamble the money in the end. I'm not taking their side, but I think the casino is not going to easily refund that money because you are the one gamble it willingly so for sure they could easily argue that.

Hello. It is a casino’s responsibility—and a licensing requirement—to restrict a player for the duration they have requested. I specifically asked that my account not be unblocked under any circumstances for a period of three months. The casino assured me that they wouldn’t be able to bypass the restriction even if they wanted to, so I had nothing to worry about—yet, just one day later, they unblocked it at my request.

And most importantly, it hasn’t been three months—it’s been 24 hours.

So you blocked your account for 3 months, and then requested an unblock after 24hours?

Then the case was that they should not allow the unblock even if you say so because the agreement should be 3 months, then the T&C changes after that they fix it as after your incident?

However, upon the player's request, the account may be unblocked through their personal manager.

After the account was blocked, the player contacted their personal manager and requested that the account be unblocked. The manager confirmed with the player whether he genuinely wished to restore access to his account. The player confirmed his intention, and the account was subsequently unblocked in accordance with his request.

I don't know how this case is going to end up, but you're in a pretty bad spot in my opinion. If you did request the unblock, even though they fixed the T&C or something, it makes sense to me to unblock the account if someone requested it, I think it's a good think rather than a casino holding the funds long term and not allowing the user to log in at all, anytime.

[bhadz]

Yes, not worth that much unless we throw thousands of dollars on Eala and get a decent return. I might not able to watch the game though as it's going to be too late for me as the game is like 6-7 hours from now.

So with that, I will just skip the game and just hope that she will win and maybe in the next round, we might see a decent odd that we could bet.

Critical for her to not lose focus here as this is where it separates winning this tournament or not.

Well, just gonna wish her luck this time without any bet due to that odd. The match is about to start within the next 10 minutes or slightly more. Don't worry about not watching the game because once it's done, headlines and articles are already there of who has won the match. Otherwise, there are a lot of replays that we can watch with covering this match most of them are on youtube but it's easier on our local stream provider like blast tv.

[Bitz_Casino]

🔥 Today is an important date in Bitcoin history!

📉 The First Bitcoin Short Sale

On October 28, 2010, the first Bitcoin short sale took place when nanotube lent 100 BTC to kiba, facilitated by the #bitcoin-otc marketplace.

💲 On every historical date — go to the Bitcoin Rewards and claim a no-deposit bonus in SATS with no wagering.

[Andrei3344]

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

Good afternoon. Could you clarify which question you believe I avoided? While it is true that a player should exercise self-control, a casino has no right to prematurely lift a self-exclusion. The terms of the Anjouan license were flagrantly violated. Furthermore, a ruling by Casino Guru has determined that the casino, Bitz, breached every possible rule regarding self-exclusion.

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-was-improperly-unblocked

So after you did the self-exclusion for 3 months, is it true that you did request the reactivation of your account?

Because if that is the case, for sure it can be used as a valid reason, and It's difficult to argue for the refund, since this is still a centralized platform they have control over the money but definitely don't want to freeze or block an account just because of self-exclusion, because there can be an emergency if the user actually needs the money.

I believe the best settlement is at least half of the money, since you have or atleast do a part of it since you are the one that gamble the money in the end. I'm not taking their side, but I think the casino is not going to easily refund that money because you are the one gamble it willingly so for sure they could easily argue that.

Hello. It is a casino’s responsibility—and a licensing requirement—to restrict a player for the duration they have requested. I specifically asked that my account not be unblocked under any circumstances for a period of three months. The casino assured me that they wouldn’t be able to bypass the restriction even if they wanted to, so I had nothing to worry about—yet, just one day later, they unblocked it at my request.

And most importantly, it hasn’t been three months—it’s been 24 hours.

So you blocked your account for 3 months, and then requested an unblock after 24hours?

Then the case was that they should not allow the unblock even if you say so because the agreement should be 3 months, then the T&C changes after that they fix it as after your incident?

However, upon the player's request, the account may be unblocked through their personal manager.

After the account was blocked, the player contacted their personal manager and requested that the account be unblocked. The manager confirmed with the player whether he genuinely wished to restore access to his account. The player confirmed his intention, and the account was subsequently unblocked in accordance with his request.

I don't know how this case is going to end up, but you're in a pretty bad spot in my opinion. If you did request the unblock, even though they fixed the T&C or something, it makes sense to me to unblock the account if someone requested it, I think it's a good think rather than a casino holding the funds long term and not allowing the user to log in at all, anytime.

No, it was actually like this: 1. There was no money in the account balance, so I requested that the account be locked for 3 months, with no option to unlock it early. 2. Technical support locked the account for 3 months and confirmed that, technically, they would be unable to unlock it within that 3-month period. 3. 24 hours after my request, they went ahead and unlocked it anyway.

[Dave1]

Yes, not worth that much unless we throw thousands of dollars on Eala and get a decent return. I might not able to watch the game though as it's going to be too late for me as the game is like 6-7 hours from now.

So with that, I will just skip the game and just hope that she will win and maybe in the next round, we might see a decent odd that we could bet.

Critical for her to not lose focus here as this is where it separates winning this tournament or not.

Well, just gonna wish her luck this time without any bet due to that odd. The match is about to start within the next 10 minutes or slightly more. Don't worry about not watching the game because once it's done, headlines and articles are already there of who has won the match. Otherwise, there are a lot of replays that we can watch with covering this match most of them are on youtube but it's easier on our local stream provider like blast tv.

She won the match, but it was not as easy, like just a two set domination win. She lost the first set, and obviously, she didn't like the way she lose the point as she has no chance as the ball just bounces back in the net.

But you can see the frustrations on her face after that and it's good that it did happen because she almost didn't give Gibson any room as she score 6-2, 6-0 in the next two sets to complete the comeback. She is now on the quarter finals and the next opponent is Diana Shnaider.

[#CapsLOck]

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

Good afternoon. Could you clarify which question you believe I avoided? While it is true that a player should exercise self-control, a casino has no right to prematurely lift a self-exclusion. The terms of the Anjouan license were flagrantly violated. Furthermore, a ruling by Casino Guru has determined that the casino, Bitz, breached every possible rule regarding self-exclusion.

I just see it today, seems like he already open a scam accusation thread, well it's the right move to do. Well for sure there are a lot of newbies that would make sure a claim, but it doesn't matter even if it was just a newbie since for sure the community is going to look at it if he has some kind of evidence about this case, for sure BITZ is atleast going to settle this case to end the discussion.

I don't know, how effective that player complaint can be. How true is the information he provided. Because I cannot understand the language of the screenshots. I'm aware of his scam thread but he has avoided one of my questions. However, how fair is it to rely on others to protect one's own weaknesses.

When a gambler is unable to be self-reliant, that gambler is always faced with risks. If the casino he used is closed until the specified deadline according to the self-exclusion policy law. Still, he has alternative casinos available. So instead of blaming the casino, must learn to control oneself.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-was-improperly-unblocked

So after you did the self-exclusion for 3 months, is it true that you did request the reactivation of your account?

Because if that is the case, for sure it can be used as a valid reason, and It's difficult to argue for the refund, since this is still a centralized platform they have control over the money but definitely don't want to freeze or block an account just because of self-exclusion, because there can be an emergency if the user actually needs the money.

I believe the best settlement is at least half of the money, since you have or atleast do a part of it since you are the one that gamble the money in the end. I'm not taking their side, but I think the casino is not going to easily refund that money because you are the one gamble it willingly so for sure they could easily argue that.

Hello. It is a casino’s responsibility—and a licensing requirement—to restrict a player for the duration they have requested. I specifically asked that my account not be unblocked under any circumstances for a period of three months. The casino assured me that they wouldn’t be able to bypass the restriction even if they wanted to, so I had nothing to worry about—yet, just one day later, they unblocked it at my request.

And most importantly, it hasn’t been three months—it’s been 24 hours.

So you blocked your account for 3 months, and then requested an unblock after 24hours?

Then the case was that they should not allow the unblock even if you say so because the agreement should be 3 months, then the T&C changes after that they fix it as after your incident?

However, upon the player's request, the account may be unblocked through their personal manager.

After the account was blocked, the player contacted their personal manager and requested that the account be unblocked. The manager confirmed with the player whether he genuinely wished to restore access to his account. The player confirmed his intention, and the account was subsequently unblocked in accordance with his request.

I don't know how this case is going to end up, but you're in a pretty bad spot in my opinion. If you did request the unblock, even though they fixed the T&C or something, it makes sense to me to unblock the account if someone requested it, I think it's a good think rather than a casino holding the funds long term and not allowing the user to log in at all, anytime.

No, it was actually like this: 1. There was no money in the account balance, so I requested that the account be locked for 3 months, with no option to unlock it early. 2. Technical support locked the account for 3 months and confirmed that, technically, they would be unable to unlock it within that 3-month period. 3. 24 hours after my request, they went ahead and unlocked it anyway.

The problem with this is that it's not the same as a normal account closure, it's a time-limited self-exclusion to stop gambling. The later reversal is interesting if support explicitly stated that it was technically not possible to unlock the phone early. The self-exclusion period isn't very useful if it can be avoided at a bad time. What the policy was at the time and whether or not the casino adhered to its own promises are key considerations.

[Betwrong]

I still don't know how to get there any other way. I mean which of these should I click(I tried all of them):

to get there(probably Bitz working differently on different OSs), but it's okay, I bookmarked the page. Thanks again, mate!

I use the bitz27.io mirror site. Follow the steps below to check the transaction history.

Touch the 3 bar line>profile>my profile. Then Scroll down and see the transaction history section.


Which website (mirror or main) do you use? I can try to find out once.
~

I'm using the main site and thanks to your instructions I was able to find my transaction history



 here:



Now I can easily find my recent transactions



(no need to bookmark the page as used to do earlier). This is what I like this forum for - helpful people like you reply with some really useful comments. Surely, you deserve a merit for that, but unfortunately I have 0 sendable merit at the moment. Anyways, thanks a lot, mate!

[stadus]

Sharing my NBA bet for tomorrow.

I will choose the Portland vs Memphis game, both have undefeated records, but I like the spread for the home team here.
-7.5 for Portland might look high but this is a home game, I believe they'll win by double digits.

[Bitz_Casino]

🎰 Who Even Comes Up With Slot Names?
Sometimes it feels like slot developers have their own random word generator. 😂
Take a fruit, throw in a mythical creature, sprinkle in a little Mega or Super — and boom, you've got a brand-new slot!
And some of these names are actual masterpieces: Chicken Drop, Fat Rabbit, and Barnyard Megahays Megaways (good luck saying that one on your first try!). 🐔🐰
The funniest part is that names like these make you want to check out the games just to see what on earth is going on in them. 😄

What's the weirdest or funniest slot name you've ever come across? Let's collect some real gaming masterpieces in the comments! 👇

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I've found this website tracker which has the recent data for the holdings and activities of El Salvador.
https://dropstab.com/p/el-salvador-bitcoin-holdings-gai1gqe3ma

I don't know why did you need to post it and share that website because I already posted in in my post.
Did you miss it in my post by reading only a first website I shared?

This previous post is like this and you shared exactly the site I wrote there.

This one is more with transaction history since 7 September 2021.
https://dropstab.com/p/el-salvador-bitcoin-holdings-gai1gqe3ma

[Taskford]

Sharing my NBA bet for tomorrow.

I will choose the Portland vs Memphis game, both have undefeated records, but I like the spread for the home team here.
-7.5 for Portland might look high but this is a home game, I believe they'll win by double digits.

Nice choice actually, since if we compare the roster of those teams. We could see that Portland have higher advantage, because they have more great experience compare on the young players of Memphis.

But for many times Memphis pull some impressive win on supposed to be much experience teams than them. Also they have promising players which could possibly lead them to get a spot on playoffs.

So well lets find out on Portland will win tomorrow or they will taste their first defeat on that young team. Also odds seems interesting between this match up https://oddspedia.com/us/basketball/portland-trail-blazers-memphis-grizzlies-277473