Fake trust by Icopress. 4th because of the $30k match fixing

[Rating Place]

Backing an innocent player and showing evidence is not harassing.

It all stems from the $30k match fixing so I'll go over that. 4 negative trusts have come during this case that is ongoing.

1. The player was accused of match fixing.
2. Holy requested that he would do binding arbitration.
3. 4 posters said the player was innocent of match fixing.
4. holy has decided that he isn't going to do binding arbitration and it's costing the player $30k.

Although the player was found innocent of the only posted allegation by Shuffle, holy has continued adding additional charges.

[Kazkaz27]

The cronies own the forum, Its narrative and whose reputation stays intact vs. destroyed.

Your issue was initially with Holy, it shortly became much more problematic when the mob attacked your reputation despite you trying your best to expose the truth. They ignored to address your concerns. Rather they piled on and attacked you for exposing your side of the story. You’ll be sure to attract more weasels. Just keep exposing their behavior and another butt buddy crony will come out of the woodwork to accuse you of something new.

[Rating Place]

rohang

Full thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579655.0


The charge is match fixing.


Post #160 rohang

Regardless of how fishy it may be, there is 0 proof or even inclination that something shady happened in the game.

Post #163 Mahdrakib

Although OP didn’t have such high betting activity before, it still doesn’t look like match fixing to me. He was following the odds and betting on the most likely outcomes.

[Vod]

Post #160 rohang

Regardless of how fishy it may be, there is 0 proof or even inclination that something shady happened in the game.

Post #163 Mahdrakib

Although OP didn’t have such high betting activity before, it still doesn’t look like match fixing to me. He was following the odds and betting on the most likely outcomes.

Hey... these are kinda hard to understand out of context.  If I'm having problems pulling my thoughts together, I give my AI of choice all the info/docs/links to consider and ask it to format in a way that meets my narrative.  It won't invent facts that are not there, but it will present them in a better way than you or I can.  

Then after you edit for your exact words, you can ask the AI to format in BBcode and even hyperlink your relevant points.  

[Rating Place]

Post #160 rohang

Regardless of how fishy it may be, there is 0 proof or even inclination that something shady happened in the game.

Post #163 Mahdrakib

Although OP didn’t have such high betting activity before, it still doesn’t look like match fixing to me. He was following the odds and betting on the most likely outcomes.

Hey... these are kinda hard to understand out of context.  If I'm having problems pulling my thoughts together, I give my AI of choice all the info/docs/links to consider and ask it to format in a way that meets my narrative.  It won't invent facts that are not there, but it will present them in a better way than you or I can.  

Then after you edit for your exact words, you can ask the AI to format in BBcode and even hyperlink your relevant points.  

Thanks for the tips.

12 Years on Bitcointalk — Sudden Wave of Negative Trust Started After the Shuffle Case

I've been an active member of Bitcointalk for 12 years, participating in the gambling community with ratings and dispute discussions.

Looking at my trust page, most of the recent negative ratings came in April-May 2026 — exactly during the Shuffle.com $30k dispute.

Recent negative trusts:

• holydarkness — 2026-04-12: Accuses me of spinning narratives and butchering words.
• nutildah — 2026-05-09: Calls me a relentless harasser of "reputable" members.
• Stalker22 — 2026-05-10 and 2026-05-17: Claims I'm lying, smearing people, and abusing trust as retaliation.
• icopress — 2026-05-21: Mentions harassment.

These negatives started after I got involved in the Shuffle case, where holydarkness offered binding arbitration but later backed out.

My issue is not just that holydarkness disagreed with me. My issue is that his conduct in the Shuffle case showed bias and prejudgment in favor of Shuffle.

The clearest example is that he relied on evidence supplied privately by Shuffle:

Well, from the evidence Shuffle gave me, it strongly suggest to a no.

Source:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5579655.180

That matters because the evidence came from Shuffle. The rest of the forum could not fully examine it. Yet holydarkness still used that private evidence to suggest Shuffle’s position was stronger.

That is not neutral dispute handling. That is giving the operator the benefit of the doubt.

In that thread, multiple members reviewed the public evidence and found the player innocent of Shuffle's only public accusation, match fixing.

rohang, Post #160:

Regardless of how fishy it may be, there is 0 proof or even inclination that something shady happened in the game.

Source:
Shuffle dispute thread

Mahdrakib, Post #163:

Although OP didn’t have such high betting activity before, it still doesn’t look like match fixing to me. He was following the odds and betting on the most likely outcomes.

Source:
Shuffle dispute thread

At least four posters reached the same basic conclusion: the public evidence did not prove match fixing.

Further discussion:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583657.0

Other members also noticed the same problem with the way the case was handled.

For example, baba2020 wrote in the Shuffle thread:

holydarkness vanished the moment OP submitted every single piece of proof requested. Every document. Every log. Every explanation. Gone.

He also pointed out the burden-shifting problem:

the fact that an innocent person was forced to prove their innocence in the first place is already an embarrassment to this entire process.

And he directly questioned holydarkness’ neutrality:

It seems the mediator (holydarkness) was never really one, just Shuffle’s guy with a neutral-sounding title.

Source:
baba2020 post #241

That supports the point I have been making: holydarkness was not acting like a neutral mediator. He appeared to give Shuffle the benefit of the doubt, accepted private evidence from Shuffle, helped shift the burden onto the player, and then disappeared once the player submitted the requested proof.

baba2020 also compared this to another Shuffle complaint:

Yet Noah showed up for Nateshawn’s complaint, a customer with a long history of suspicious bets and alleged match fixing. It seems Shuffle had real evidence the games were fixed and paid him anyway. Now they refuse to pay an honest customer with not a single evidence and a clean record.

That comparison matters because it raises a fair question: why did Shuffle engage differently in another case, but in this case the player was left with $30,000 withheld while the public evidence did not prove match fixing?

Despite the public evidence failing to prove Shuffle’s original match-fixing accusation, holydarkness continued adding new accusations against the player.

He then withdrew from the binding arbitration he originally offered. The arbitration agreement was written in a restrictive way that locked the player in and limited their options for seeking resolution elsewhere. Once the evidence supported the player, he walked away — leaving the $30k still withheld.

That is why I say his conduct showed bias toward Shuffle.

The pattern looks like this:

• Shuffle made a serious accusation.
• Shuffle provided private evidence to holydarkness.
• holydarkness treated that private evidence as meaningful.
• The public evidence did not prove match fixing.
• Multiple posters said the player looked innocent of the public accusation.
• The player submitted the requested proof.
• Other members noticed that holydarkness then vanished from the process.
• holydarkness moved to other accusations instead of accepting that the original public claim failed.
• When the case no longer favored Shuffle, he backed out of the arbitration process.

This timing also suggests the negative trust campaign is retaliation for highlighting bias in how the Shuffle case was handled.

After 12 years here, these coordinated negatives only appeared when I questioned holydarkness’s approach to this dispute.

Bottom line:

I believe holydarkness prejudged the Shuffle case, gave weight to private evidence supplied by Shuffle, shifted the burden onto the player, and then backed away when the public evidence did not support Shuffle’s original accusation. Other members also questioned his disappearance and neutrality. That is why I believe the negative trust ratings are not neutral warnings, but retaliation for challenging his handling of the Shuffle dispute.


edit- It's all ChatGPT. I took a screenshot of the end. I have all if needed.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Ok, so, I see now 5 red tags on your profile. How many more do you expect to get with this thread? I see you making real efforts lately to accumulate red tags.

[nutildah]

Ok, so, I see now 5 red tags on your profile. How many more do you expect to get with this thread? I see you making real efforts lately to accumulate red tags.

Whats weird is he never stopped to think about who he is attempting to appeal to... Is it God? Because it doesn't seem to be the people who are actually reading this. He's making a testament to the lord that while on earth he was a good man and only tried to do right. I notice Kaz has the same problem, and that's why the two are strange bedfellows.

[Rating Place]

Ok, so, I see now 5 red tags on your profile. How many more do you expect to get with this thread? I see you making real efforts lately to accumulate red tags.

The short AI version:

The pattern looks like this:

• Shuffle made a serious accusation.
• Shuffle provided private evidence to holydarkness.
• holydarkness treated that private evidence as meaningful.
• The public evidence did not prove match fixing.
• Multiple posters said the player looked innocent of the public accusation.
• The player submitted the requested proof.
• Other members noticed that holydarkness then vanished from the process.
• holydarkness moved to other accusations instead of accepting that the original public claim failed.
• When the case no longer favored Shuffle, he backed out of the arbitration process.

This timing also suggests the negative trust campaign is retaliation for highlighting bias in how the Shuffle case was handled.

[nutildah]

Here's an alternate viewpoint, non-AI version:

Holydarkness was doing his thing
You interjected yourself unprompted
Holy tried his best to ignore you
You continued interjecting yourself, insisting he was doing everything wrong
He asked you to kindly take your criticism to another thread as you were derailing the discussion
You refused, obsessively crapping on him in every post
He tagged you.

Case in point, here are the post totals by user for the thread of discussion:

1. Rating Place: 81 posts
2. pvzera1 (OP): 65 posts
3. holydarkness: 62 posts
4. baba2020: 26 posts
5. rohang: 17 posts
6. nutildah: 13 posts
7. T1HGO: 9 posts
8. Mahdirakib: 5 posts
9. Pmalek: 4 posts
10. degen01: 4 posts

You continue to bark like a mad dog in that thread, undeterred by the fact that Holy has more information about the case than you do, and nobody (not a solitary individual) cares about your opinion. Its quite perplexing how you can be so oblivious to this.

[Rating Place]

Here's an alternate viewpoint, non-AI version:

Holydarkness was doing his thing
You interjected yourself unprompted
Holy tried his best to ignore you
You continued interjecting yourself, insisting he was doing everything wrong
He asked you to kindly take your criticism to another thread as you were derailing the discussion
You refused, obsessively crapping on him in every post
He tagged you.

Case in point, here are the post totals by user for the thread of discussion:

1. Rating Place: 81 posts
2. pvzera1 (OP): 65 posts
3. holydarkness: 62 posts
4. baba2020: 26 posts
5. rohang: 17 posts
6. nutildah: 13 posts
7. T1HGO: 9 posts
8. Mahdirakib: 5 posts
9. Pmalek: 4 posts
10. degen01: 4 posts

You continue to bark like a mad dog in that thread, undeterred by the fact that Holy has more information about the case than you do, and nobody (not a solitary individual) cares about your opinion. Its quite perplexing how you can be so oblivious to this.

I’m in very few threads but do post heavily in the ones that I’m in bringing evidence and counter arguments.

I’m ignoring you from here on out. You’ve been trolling me for a year. Your posts try to lead people to a false narrative.

I’d appreciate if you would stay out of this thread and let others make decisions.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Whats weird is he never stopped to think about who he is attempting to appeal to... Is it God? Because it doesn't seem to be the people who are actually reading this. He's making a testament to the lord that while on earth he was a good man and only tried to do right. I notice Kaz has the same problem, and that's why the two are strange bedfellows.

Both seem to have a similar problem, but in terms of the consequences it seems Kaz has a much bigger problem now than 12 red tags on his profile.

[holydarkness]

I’m in very few threads but do post heavily in the ones that I’m in bringing evidence and counter arguments.

I’m ignoring you from here on out. You’ve been trolling me for a year. Your posts try to lead people to a false narrative.

I’d appreciate if you would stay out of this thread and let others make decisions.

What evidence is it? Evidence on the thread in this matter [pvzera1 v. Shuffle] can only be brought by both parties, as it is heavily localized and owned by both parties database and history. NO other source like consulting to sofascore [or sofa-something], other casinos, or whatever imaginable, can procure evidence. Counter argument though, yes, as you've evidently did, in beyond abundance: Match fixing. So, for the nth times:

There were no match fixing. The thread is not about match fixing.

Apply thas to this case too, [toshiban v. Toshi], where on your [yet another] own thread, you deemed it as value betting, although that word wasn't even uttered anywhere but your mind.

Since we're here about the thread and my uhh... mediation, let's not forget your very excelent capability to invent statement. Should we also bring it here? So others who doesn't read your past gross misconduct that when I finally gave up to the case as your continuous derailment [and heavily influence pvzera1 that I am fishy that discourage them from cooperationg, as well as those "this is match fixing accusation, there were no proof of match fixing", I backed down and the second you're sure I am gone for good...

Since holy is out, flag time? The match wasn’t fixed and the play came from one device.

How is this bringing evidence and counter arguments? It is the most gross negligence and gross act of a nominated mediator thta I've ever seen. Ever. You barely gather evidence [despite your claim] and instantly go to flag? Why?

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps those flags are not because of me, rather because they all read your record and draw their own conclusion? I mean, evidently I barely in touch with the other who tag you, why do they bother to "jump in for me"?

[Rating Place]

1. You proposed a binding agreement to the player and Shuffle. You are part of the binding agreement. You must make a decision or the player loses $30,000.

2. Instead of making a ruling, you backed out and nominated me.

3. I said yes but then you would have to pass my decision down as binding. You refused to do it. I’ll still do it if you agree to pass it down as binding.

4. With binding arbitration a book makes an accusation and then they have to prove it. If they can’t prove it, then the player is innocent. It’s unfair to keep digging on your own looking for another reason to side with Shuffle.

5. As AI said, match fixing was the only accusation posted by Shuffle. The flag was for match fixing. Flags can go up pregame or mid game for unusual betting. Human investigations occur later.

6. The evidence I brought was box score and game flow. Without that, no one would have said the player is innocent. It was a late cover with 3s needed. You should have stopped there because nothing more was needed. You didn’t account for evidence showing the game was played fair.