Privacy almost looking abnormal online.

[Orpichukwu]

If a casino is not regulated then it is better not to use such casino to be on a safe side Incase of any situation how do you get yourself and game secured, those casinos cannot be trusted as it can easily be used by scammers and fraudsters, any gambler that falls into them are bound to be risking themselves since no guaranty of privacy, no KYC involvement which exposes you to danger.

Being regulated does not make them free from scamming people. Any establishment that has plans to scam can do that very well even with their regulation, and they will still be retaining their licence. A good example of such a casino is 1xBet; with how people have complained of being scammed by the casino, they still remain operational and have been running adverts all this while.

[alastantiger]

My idea is simple, that is, no one should bet except on popular and trusted casino sites. And there are many betting sites on the forum, most of them are trusted. If a site is a scammer, it is also identify easily . And there are many casino sites now without KYC. And especially I don't think any trusted casino site will do this kind of thing, which will cause any security problems for their users. Where their identity or data will be given to the government or any other organization. However, one should be careful before registering or using any new casino sites.

I have my suspicions that some of the popular casinos are working hand in hand with the government and providing them with informations from their customers, why I say this is because the government love to spy on their citizens and one of the best ways of spying is by knowing the gambling habit of their citizens they also do this with collaboration with other platforms that their citizens are known for using.

Just because a casino has a good reputation to be transparent and fair that does not mean they cannot have other reputation in working with the government and not being safe because our privacy are being stolen is just that they have not been caught so I won't trust a reputed casino to safeguard my privacy but then I can trust a new casino that launches with the aim of safeguarding the privacy of their customers.

[Julien_Olynpic]

There's a paradox and a certain dialectical contradiction here. On the one hand, cryptocurrency users are against fraud and don't like it when bookmakers and casinos freeze their money for bizarre reasons. On the other hand, no one likes KYC procedures. So, when you advocate for decentralization and, consequently, complete privacy, you simultaneously advocate for conditions that favor fraudsters. This dialectical contradiction is very difficult to resolve. It seems that true decentralization is only possible in finance, in cryptocurrency. Although, perhaps in the future, we will see true decentralization in gambling as well.

[Fortify]

Just a brain waving thought for us to reflect on.
For casinos that operates unregulated does that actually makes them illegal casinos (a bad casino to use). Isn't it just one of those socio-economic construct moulded by the centralized authority for usjto believe and generally accepting that once a casino isn't under a regulation through license then it's a red flag and a bad casino.

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

It actually becomes a paradox like you say - you ideally want to be using reputable casinos online, but that's usually going to mean they are headquartered in Europe or North America. Those places have strict controls on gambling, because it has been used to clean money in the past - it was a heavy cash business which meant criminal proceeds could be mingled into regular cash flow. While the reality is that most shell companies operate from these locations, they might display a license from an offshore location because it creates a veil of secrecy for the owners to hide behind. When that veil is uncovered though, it can put the owners of these companies at high risk of criminal prosecution if they don't follow all the laws and lots of people want to push them out of business.

[DrBeer]

Unregulated can also mean illegal but that is also in the eyes of the regulators of course. Illegal is another word for bad to use (they say) but it may still be risky for those who deal with it, in a way that they can track us and prepare some consequences for doing so.

Though I think there are literal risky unregulated casinos too. So this is why what they say that it is recommended to use a regulated one can make sense sometimes. Shady casinos obviously choose to not comply because they are shady at the first place. Regulation is tied with KYC may be because taxes can come after. After all, that still destroy our privacy indeed even if we are not also planning to do shady stuff like evading the taxes.

Yes, that's correct; casinos should be categorized as
- “illegal” from the perspective of a country whose jurisdiction prohibits the operation of any casino
- “illegal” from the perspective of a country in whose jurisdiction the casino has not completed the registration process or complied with that country's legal regulations
- “illegal” from the perspective of a website that presents itself as a casino but is not actually a casino, and is designed for fraudulent purposes.

[donnajackson75]

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

I completely agree with you bro, the main purpose of this regulation ado is to impose KYC hassle on everyone on a mass scale. They want to make privacy a dubious practice whereas we came into the crypto world to get free from this surveillance

However @teddybear bro is not wrong either. The way the rug pull and project going public are happening in the market has created a demand for accountability in my mind too. Gamblers has been caught so many time lol now they want someone to blame

If you ask me what is the best combination? I would say that the best combination for me is provably fair, no KYC and on chain liquidity. Where I can check rtp & seed by myself and smart contract will handle the other thing, then we will not need govt signature to feel safe

The problem is that we’ve traded the 'Don't trust, verify' mantra for a false sense of security provided by a piece of paper from Curacao. Most users here fear unregulated sites, yet they forget that a license doesn't prevent a bookie from freezing your funds. Real accountability should be in the code, not in a legal department. That's why I find the EOS/Web3 betting model way more honest-platforms like sportbet.one don't even have the technical ability to hold your money hostage. It’s not 'abnormal' privacy, it’s just how blockchain was supposed to work before we got lazy.

[Dunamisx]

If we are more conscious of using privacy gambling platform, then probably we should be more concerned about how we could get used to casinos that does not require kyc for their proceedings on the platform, the actually exist but we have to go in search for them at our own risk and also discover how we could get them, but more people are using casinos that request for kyc because of trust and that is all.

[donnajackson75]

True, but I think most people confuse 'legal compliance' with actual 'safety.' Giving your ID to a casino doesn't make them more honest, it just gives them more leverage over you. To me, the biggest risk isn't about finding a no-KYC site, it's about the data leaks. I’d much rather trust a smart contract that I can verify than trust some centralized operator not to lose my passport scan in a database breach. It’s a different kind of trust, but it’s a lot more 'crypto' if you ask me.

[Ever-young]

If we are more conscious of using privacy gambling platform, then probably we should be more concerned about how we could get used to casinos that does not require kyc for their proceedings on the platform, the actually exist but we have to go in search for them at our own risk and also discover how we could get them, but more people are using casinos that request for kyc because of trust and that is all.

it should be a suspected thing if any casino is not doing any kyc verification just as you said, it will be of more harm and cause damage to their lives, that's why they are advised to know for casino that do verification for their own protection. Though, some persons might not be happy with it as they may feel awkard about it but they should understand that its more safer and better that way because the rate at which scammers are having their ways to take people money is so alarming and its not getting funny anymore, that's why people should also stay at alert.

[Somegory]

Just a brain waving thought for us to reflect on.
For casinos that operates unregulated does that actually makes them illegal casinos (a bad casino to use). Isn't it just one of those socio-economic construct moulded by the centralized authority for usjto believe and generally accepting that once a casino isn't under a regulation through license then it's a red flag and a bad casino.

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

Unregulated is red flag, unless you need to avoid KYC verification by all means, still it doesn't do you any good because those people might not be loyal, and if something bad happens, the law will blame you for trusting an unregulated casino.

There is a good reason why KYC verification is a must on casinos, it's not just about you risking your identity but its also about reputation and reliability for the online casino.

An unregulated casino can easily exit scam if they want, a unregulated casino can decide to do anyhow with their customers, no reputation build anywhere and there is no one to question them.

[nimogsm]

True, but I think most people confuse 'legal compliance' with actual 'safety.' Giving your ID to a casino doesn't make them more honest, it just gives them more leverage over you. To me, the biggest risk isn't about finding a no-KYC site, it's about the data leaks. I’d much rather trust a smart contract that I can verify than trust some centralized operator not to lose my passport scan in a database breach. It’s a different kind of trust, but it’s a lot more 'crypto' if you ask me.

I think most players are actually more afraid of data leaks than of checks and other such things. I wouldn't want someone registering with a dubious service using my documents and doing something illegal in my name. I also prefer services without additional identity verification, not because I have anything to hide, but because I want privacy.

[tread93]

Just a brain waving thought for us to reflect on.
For casinos that operates unregulated does that actually makes them illegal casinos (a bad casino to use). Isn't it just one of those socio-economic construct moulded by the centralized authority for usjto believe and generally accepting that once a casino isn't under a regulation through license then it's a red flag and a bad casino.

We can't deny that the primary reason for this formulation is to have every online casino users under KYC, making privacy look abnormal wherever it tries to relatively exist.

I like the refer to unregulated and ilicit casinos as virtual crypto casino pirates. It sounds way more bad ass. Cyber pirates maybe we can even call them. So many of these casinos are registered in these tiny country group of island or island and I feel like its just a lot easier to operate like that, you know as pirates lol

[Strongkored]

Well, I can think of two more recent cases: the casinos owned by Lightlord, which are still operating but are terrible—if you win money and try to withdraw it, you’re in for a world of trouble—and another one is freebitco.in, which for a long time operated without KYC verification or a license, but apparently ended up obtaining some kind of license and introduced theoretical KYC requirements, though as far as we know, they never actually asked for them. It ended up being an exit scam.

I've never used Lightlord's casino, even though I've seen it frequently in members' campaign signatures. Freebitcoin was the best no-KYC casino of its time, but it ended up in a sad state, never imagined it would end like that.

Ultimately, casinos have to comply with certain regulations because history has shown time and again that if left unchecked, they will abuse their power. The downside is that this usually goes hand in hand with KYC requirements.

Players cannot have both, free from KYC in a licensed casino, so like it or not they have to start accepting this reality.