“Anonymous casino” is a funny label, shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead

[Kasabus]

I think the real meaning of that tag is they promote anonymity by allowing VPN for player to play anonymously since they don’t require KYC as much as possible.

That makes sense, but only if they don’t require KYC. A VPN just hides your IP. Once you do KYC, they already have your real information, so they know it’s you no matter where you’re accessing from, what device you’re using, whatever. For it to feel truly anonymous, it has to be both, no KYC plus VPN. That’s the only setup that actually fits the word anonymous.

[Mahiyammahi]

To get a licensed casino you can't be a fully anonymous casino. So in this POV no casino can't be fully anonymous. If they are truly anonymouse casino , I would not go there and risk my fund to play games. Since they are anonymous if anything bad happens I can't take any legal action towards them. So it's better safe than sorry.

A player can be anonymous if they don't wants to provide their KYC info. Tbh I also don't like to provide KYC. There is option for lot of casino, so if anyone asks it to me , I just skip it and go another casino to play .

[danherbias07]

I have never heard one who claims they are an anonymous casino. Is this the cryptocasinos claims?

Well, I do believe that a casino owner should be transparent. We should have an idea about the capability of the owner to pay because if they are anonymous, they can just easily run and take our money, or they will not pay out whenever a big win from a whale gambler hits. It's scary to have that kind of system, and I'd rather pick the registered and regulated ones.

About the gambler being anonymous, that's only inside the casino. Why? It's to avoid illegal things from happening. Imagine if all of us could gamble without even passing anything, i.e., email or phone number. There's no way they can be tracked when an illegal thing happens like money laundering.

[libert19]

Just like PrivacyG, I don't remember coming across, 'Anonymous casino' label either, could you give some examples?

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

IDK about others, but for me, if I were to see such a term, I would think that it means casino customers are anonymous (and not as you imply that casino itself being anonymous).

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

When a casino says they are anonymous casino, it doesn't refer to the casino alone but to both the players and possibly they themselves are not bidding their identity as the owner of the casinos but they are rather not asking for KYC from customers which is why they labeled themselve as anonymous casino, it means that when you are using the casino, you will hand your information to them, so you are playing anonymously. Just take it that the term "Anonymous gamblers" Which you are trying to suggest is same thing that casino ment by anonymous casino.

[freedomgo]

Just like PrivacyG, I don't remember coming across, 'Anonymous casino' label either, could you give some examples?

There are 3 I can already see in the Gambling section under casino ANN threads, but I’m sure there are more.
I think I’ve also seen some of them outside the forum.

Here are a few:

1. Punkz.com | Anonymous Crypto Casino |
2. Betpanda.io | Anonymous Crypto Casino
3. BuckyLucky.com | Gaming & Crypto Predictions | No KYC, Fully Anonymous 👑 New

[libert19]

Just like PrivacyG, I don't remember coming across, 'Anonymous casino' label either, could you give some examples?

There are 3 I can already see in the Gambling section under casino ANN threads, but I’m sure there are more.
I think I’ve also seen some of them outside the forum.

Here are a few:

1. Punkz.com | Anonymous Crypto Casino |
2. Betpanda.io | Anonymous Crypto Casino
3. BuckyLucky.com | Gaming & Crypto Predictions | No KYC, Fully Anonymous 👑 New

Oh right, thanks for answering, I missed this because, I rarely check gambling sub.

On irrelevant note, I really feel elated, when somebody answers a question in this sub.

[Ziskinberg]

When a casino says they are anonymous casino, it doesn't refer to the casino alone but to both the players and possibly they themselves are not bidding their identity as the owner of the casinos but they are rather not asking for KYC from customers which is why they labeled themselve as anonymous casino, it means that when you are using the casino, you will hand your information to them, so you are playing anonymously. Just take it that the term "Anonymous gamblers" Which you are trying to suggest is same thing that casino ment by anonymous casino.

They shouldn’t be using the anonymous tagline just for their own benefit. If they claim that, it should be for the users, meaning you actually get an anonymous gambling experience, no KYC as a default, and only asked for it when truly necessary, like if an account gets flagged, and that should be rare.

But if we look at it honestly, most of these casinos aren’t really anonymous in the real sense. Players don’t actually experience anonymous gambling, so it starts to feel like a gimmick or marketing, not something real.

[Satofan44]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

You are confused about every concept involved here, it stems from misunderstanding of anonymity which is a technical concept here. Most people think that they understand it because they understand what the word means. These are different:

1) Anonymous casino. Operator of the casino is unknown and it is not registered anywhere. Dark web markets come to mind.
2) Anonymous players or No KYC casino. Players do not need to verify themselves in the case of No KYC. Although with anonymity it gets a bit more complicated and most people will just put everything in one group. There are different levels of anonymity. One would be a casino where you are directly and only interacting with your wallet, that would provide the highest level of anonymity especially if used with an anonymous currency like Monero. However, a casino may ask for some basic information such as email or other identifiers and gather some information about you. Just because you don't submit KYC somewhere, that does not guarantee that you are anonymous.

They shouldn’t be using the anonymous tagline just for their own benefit. If they claim that, it should be for the users, meaning you actually get an anonymous gambling experience, no KYC as a default, and only asked for it when truly necessary, like if an account gets flagged, and that should be rare.

It should not advertise itself as No KYC if it can ask for KYC under any case. That would be the most correct approach. If there are cases where they may ask for KYC then they should leave this out, but these days many services advertise themselves this way including swap services.

But if we look at it honestly, most of these casinos aren’t really anonymous in the real sense. Players don’t actually experience anonymous gambling, so it starts to feel like a gimmick or marketing, not something real.

You can't make general statements about this, you'd have to investigate each casino. That could be a nice project for someone to do and they can create a thread here with a table overview.

[Furball808]

To be honest, I can not remember even one Casino advertising itself as 'Anonymous'.  The closest thing is advertising themselves as 'no Know Your Customer', which is definitely in the advantage of the customer.  Do you have any examples non dubious Casinos that hide their own identity and advertise it as a feature?

Don’t they usually call casinos that require no KYC as decentralized casinos? Anyway, casinos that aren’t so strict most likely have not yet been registered that’s why.

[bubilas]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

If this is indeed the case, it sounds very strange, because the only thing that matters to any gambler is whether the casino requires a KYC , specifically whether they need to present their own documents or not. Whether the casino operator itself is anonymous or not is irrelevant. I even believe that the more famous the online casino operator, the better, because any scammer can be anonymous.
And if the operator is well-known and large, that's a good thing. After all, that means they likely have good support and are well-known online, and you can read reviews about them.

[bakasabo]

For me it looks like a game of words, meaning casino let gambler really stay anonymous. I can suppose that such casinos KYC standards might be lower. For example confirming registration by email might be enough. However, I would be very surprised to see if they accept fiat, because I have never seen fiat without detailed KYC. I can suppose such casino can be more neutral or light on doing AML check of deposit addresses.

[Eternad]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

If this is indeed the case, it sounds very strange, because the only thing that matters to any gambler is whether the casino requires a KYC , specifically whether they need to present their own documents or not. Whether the casino operator itself is anonymous or not is irrelevant. I even believe that the more famous the online casino operator, the better, because any scammer can be anonymous.
And if the operator is well-known and large, that's a good thing. After all, that means they likely have good support and are well-known online, and you can read reviews about them.

It’s because the world anonymous casino was literally interpreted while casino claiming anonymous casino emphasizes that they don’t want to require KYC with players hence anonymous casino in a sense that they want privacy for player while enjoying their services.

We are already pass on the era which most casino operators are anonymous and that’s worst since casino back then frequently scam user.

I don’t like the literal anonymous casino.  

[cryptoaddictchie]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

I see it mostly as marketing. In reality, anonymous casino often just means the operators are hidden, while players still give up privacy once KYC or tracking comes in. True privacy should protect the gambler first, not just make the platform harder to identify. So it doesn't make sense especially for those who asked for it on users.

[Satofan44]

To be honest, I can not remember even one Casino advertising itself as 'Anonymous'.  The closest thing is advertising themselves as 'no Know Your Customer', which is definitely in the advantage of the customer.  Do you have any examples non dubious Casinos that hide their own identity and advertise it as a feature?

Don’t they usually call casinos that require no KYC as decentralized casinos? Anyway, casinos that aren’t so strict most likely have not yet been registered that’s why.

If they do, that is wrong because those are completely separate things. A casino may be centralized and break the law by not asking for KYC. This may go on for quite some time until it catches the interest of regulators. It may result with fines or even a complete shutdown. It is a completely separate concept. A fully decentralized casino may not even have the possibility to implement KYC as it could be something as simple as a smart contract that is operating on some blockchain.

It’s because the world anonymous casino was literally interpreted while casino claiming anonymous casino emphasizes that they don’t want to require KYC with players hence anonymous casino in a sense that they want privacy for player while enjoying their services.

We are already pass on the era which most casino operators are anonymous and that’s worst since casino back then frequently scam user.

I don’t like the literal anonymous casino.  

You can't have everything, trade offs have to be made. This is why a reasonable and nuanced stance must be taken when evaluating these things. This is what frequently happens in dark web markets, either it leads to a seizure or eventually the owners end up scamming. Yet these is a need for such things too. Actually a fully decentralized casino should be anonymous, otherwise I can not really consider it secure. The authorities could arrest the owners which could be forced to use their control over the smart contracts. If the ownership of an SC is revoked, the owners retain full control over this "decentralized" casino.

[Akbarkoe]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

I've just heard about anonymous casinos, could that also be interpreted as decentralized casinos? I don't think it's a problem if it's the same, although there are some reservations about anonymous casinos. However, it's better to have anonymous gamblers than to have anonymous casinos, because we know that anonymous bookies are very questionable in my opinion.

[KTChampions]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Damn, after you showed it from this perspective, it's impossible to unsee, as they say 
What should really be advertised is anonymity for the customer, not for the service, which (as one might begin to assume) will be less responsible/reliable if it is anonymous. But such funny illogicalities are encountered quite often, and I don’t think they carry exactly that erroneous meaning.

[crwth]

I believe a decentralized casino would be a better approach to make sure that it is indeed anonymous, and no one could really force you to do KYC. It is definitely a marketing tactic to allow people who do not want to undergo KYC to play on their site. The predictions market could be better, in my opinion.

[Porfirii]

I keep seeing sites market themselves as an “anonymous casino”, but it feels like a weird flex. If the casino is “anonymous”, it usually just means we don’t know who’s behind it, while they can still know us anytime once KYC gets involved.

So shouldn’t it be “anonymous gambler” instead? Privacy should protect the player, not just hide the operator.

Do you see this as pure marketing, or does “anonymous” actually matter to you?

Damn, after you showed it from this perspective, it's impossible to unsee, as they say 
What should really be advertised is anonymity for the customer, not for the service, which (as one might begin to assume) will be less responsible/reliable if it is anonymous. But such funny illogicalities are encountered quite often, and I don’t think they carry exactly that erroneous meaning.

I guess that you are right KTChampions... I've never paid attention to this detail before, but deep down the OP is right, and I'm going to have a hard time not paying attention to the detail from now on.

In the end, what really matters are the conditions for the user's point of view, whatever you call it. Rather than from a literal semantic point of view, I think it is just a simplification.

You mentioned marketing and I agree it makes sense from a commercial point of view, but I don't think we should think too much about the name either, as I said, but about the real conditions of each site.

[Agbe]

What you said is not bad foe the gamblers to be anonymous and not the casino. And if I am to rename it, it should be "Gamblers Anonymous", and there should be no KYC either username with password or email address with password so that definition of the anonymous will be clearly known and not when it is said to be anonymous but when big wins are occured in the platform, KYC would be required and if the kyc is not clear enough to accept the gambler, the fu da are gone. That is not an anonymous casino.