I do not trust bc.game (new info)

[LoyceV]

I recall you leaving out answers to key questions that otherwise validate what I'm talking about.

Nice try. I don't owe you anything, and especially not when it's totally off-topic.

I am clearly not approved by those who control the power here

When the whole world is against you, maybe you're the one who's wrong.

[BenCodie]

I recall you leaving out answers to key questions that otherwise validate what I'm talking about.

Nice try. I don't owe you anything, and especially not when it's totally off-topic.

I am clearly not approved by those who control the power here

When the whole world is against you, maybe you're the one who's wrong.

Nice try about what? Is what I said untrue?

I am clearly not approved by those who control the power here

When the whole world is against you, maybe you're the one who's wrong.

When you go against an agenda with a large payroll, you will always be told that you are wrong. In these cases, it's only a select few who are upset with what I am saying (understandably so, since it directly involves their conduct).

[holydarkness]

[...]

[...]

I also believe that holydarkness is not a random good Samaritan. There is incentive or motivation for him to do what he does from another party. I welcome him to publicly deny this officially for the record.
[...]

First of all, allow me to extend my deepest sympathy. Truly. It seems you're so much damaged and betrayed by the world that you find and perceive kindness and sincerity as rare as a unicorn with a mermaid tail flying above Avengers Tower.

That said, would you want to extend that question with other casinos too? Or is it strictly limited to BC?

Sportsbet? DuckDice? FortuneJack? Shuffle? Because I have their contacts too and they're one chat away from a discussion about cases, just like BC. Oh, Rollbit too, since I recently acquired their rep's personal contact.

How about Joya v. lightbet, since I even go to a length to get their attention, though the situation ended unresolved. But looking at how I exhaust a lot of effort to get them to address the matter, certainly the "incentive or motivation" is greater than what's with BC, who reachable through an instant app.

While we're at it, how about Roobet? I went far and deep to establish a contact, from reaching some contact, to reaching their live support, to emailing their support team as suggested, and repeating the process to other division as they dumped the situation to that division and they required me to explain from the beginning again.

Duelbits? I have email correspondencies with their rep to prove that I went to a length to get to the bottom of a case.

I don't have any intention to write this as a means to brag, simply to give an explicit picture of how I went deep on so many cases across casinos, not just BC. So, do you want to extend that question with those casinos too? And others that I don't bother to mention as it's in a distant past [and mentioning all of them would just make me sound like bragging]

[...]

You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.

Well, I actually need that to be very clear, for what I'll propose next, in regards to "publicly and officially deny" on the record... as I've made it quite abundance in many occasions, yet people keep questioning that. I need to be sure if you're referring to BC or all of the casinos mentioned and not mentioned on my above post.

Given you mention the plural, I'll guess it's safe to assume we're going with all of the casinos, that you accuse me of getting incentives from casinos for the work I've done.

Factually, I've addressed this several times on several occasions, but at this point, I am a bit tired and sick of the rambling of those people who can't appreciate a "Samaritan" work, of how many hours I pour to help others that at times need to take my own personal time, and I wanted to... play, so here's my counter proposal for your challenge for me to publicly and officially deny that I get incentivized for solving cases on the record:

This is the written ageement we'll enter, read carefully and give your consent, as your consent or non-consent is the answer of your own challenge:

"I, holydarkness, will give you, BenCodie, until end of this month, 28th of February 2025, to prove that I, holydarkness, get incentivized by any casino for resolving cases and acting as bridge between the casinos and people.

Should you, BenCodie, successfully prove that I, holydarkness, getting incentivized by casinos, I, holydarkness, will accept the punishment that the forum deemed necessary, be it negative feedback or flags or both, as well as will pay you, BenCodie, USD 5,000 for your effort to unearth the misdeed that I, holydarkness, has done all this years.

IF you, BenCodie, failed to provide necessary and solid-based evidence of said accusation before 28th of February 2025 though, you, BenCodie, shall pay me, holydarkness, USD 50,000 for the inconvenience you, BenCodie, caused to me, holydarkness, that I, holydarkness, perceived as a smear campaign and libel attempt."

Do we have a deal?


Edit: oh, I have no interest to wait for your agreement by 28th, where you can just back down on the last second when you realized you're neck deep in shit. So, I give you until 23:59:59 forum time to give your answer. Should you agree, I'll need you to escrow the fund to a trusted escrow provider [I shall do that too]. Should you disagree, then kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned.

Should you give no answer by 23:59:59, today, we shall conclude that you choose to back up from the deep shit you put yourself into.

Yes, you have freedom of speech, you're entitled to speak freely, but you have to remember that freedom of speech does not equal to freedom from consequences.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

When you go against an agenda with a large payroll, you will always be told that you are wrong. In these cases, it's only a select few who are upset with what I am saying (understandably so, since it directly involves their conduct).

Payroll, says the clown. Like the casino that pays you for your signature, which is the same one that pays me?

The person you're replying to has a signature that doesn't pay them, and the other one who just offered you a bet to see if you put your money where your mouth is doesn't have a BC Game signature either.

But keep making a fool of yourself. I'm having a good laugh!

 

[BenCodie]

Well, I actually need that to be very clear, for what I'll propose next, in regards to "publicly and officially deny" on the record... as I've made it quite abundance in many occasions, yet people keep questioning that. I need to be sure if you're referring to BC or all of the casinos mentioned and not mentioned on my above post.

Given you mention the plural, I'll guess it's safe to assume we're going with all of the casinos, that you accuse me of getting incentives from casinos for the work I've done.

Factually, I've addressed this several times on several occasions, but at this point, I am a bit tired and sick of the rambling of those people who can't appreciate a "Samaritan" work, of how many hours I pour to help others that at times need to take my own personal time and I wanted to... play, so here's my counter proposal for your challenge for me to publicly and officially deny that I get incentivized for solving cases on the record:

This is the written ageement we'll enter, read carefully and give your consent, as your consent or non-consent is the answer of your own challenge:

"I, holydarkness, will give you, BenCodie, until end of this month, 28th of February 2025, to prove that I, holydarkness, get incentivized by any casino for resolving cases and acting as bridge between the casinos and people.

Should you, BenCodie, successfully prove that I, holydarkness, getting incentivized by casinos, I, holydarkness, will accept the punishment that the forum deemed necessary, be it negative feedback or flags or both, as well as will pay you, BenCodie, USD 5,000 for your effort to unearth the misdeed that I, holydarkness, has done all this years.

IF you, BenCodie, failed to provide necessary and solid-based evidence of said accusation before 28th of February 2025 though, you, BenCodie, shall pay me, holydarkness, USD 50,000 for the inconvenience you, BenCodie, caused to me, holydarkness, that I, holydarkness, perceived as a smear campaign and libel attempt."

Do we have a deal?


Edit: oh, I have no interest to wait for your agreement by 28th, where you can just back down on the last second when you realized you're neck deep in shit. So, I give you until 23:59:59 forum time to give your answer. Should you agree, I'll need you to escrow the fund to a trusted escrow provider [I shall do that too]. Should you disagree, then kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned.

Should you give no answer by 23:59:59, today, we shall conclude that you choose to back up from the deep shit you put yourself into.

Yes, you have freedom of speech, you're entitled to speak freely, but you have to remember that freedom of speech does not equal to freedom from consequences.

I originally stated that you are welcome to plainly, simply and clearly state that you do not receive an incentive to do what you do for casinos.

I also believe that holydarkness is not a random good Samaritan. There is incentive or motivation for him to do what he does from another party. I welcome him to publicly deny this officially for the record.

All that you needed to reply from the beginning in response was something like this:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users..

The incentive being outside of the signature campaign (if that wasn't already obvious)

As for my second statement, what I had put in brackets was an alternative way of wording what you have not publicly denied (that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos - alternatively phrased (or, in other words) that you work for the casinos as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control:

You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.

I am obviously not interested in your bet as I don't have access to your private communications (which even so, messages can be deleted) nor do I have access to your wallets (also can be deleted). I have only been interested in a sentence along the lines of:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users.

Since I mentioned you. Not sure what the problem is with welcome you to post something so simple...I personally would have accepted that, as putting something in clear writing is something that a lot of guilty people around here tend to avoid doing. I have not actually accused you of any wrongdoing if you correctly read my posts, only stated my belief and provided alternative wording, with a welcome for you to clearly deny it.

When you go against an agenda with a large payroll, you will always be told that you are wrong. In these cases, it's only a select few who are upset with what I am saying (understandably so, since it directly involves their conduct).

Payroll, says the clown. Like the casino that pays you for your signature, which is the same one that pays me?

The person you're replying to has a signature that doesn't pay them, and the other one who just offered you a bet to see if you put your money where your mouth is doesn't have a BC Game signature either.

But keep making a fool of yourself. I'm having a good laugh!

 

No, payroll is not just in the scope of a signature campaign. Transactions outside of signature campaigns exist.

It's ironic that you came here claiming that I had a condescending tone, and yet both of your posts have been probably the most belittling and condescending posts I've seen on this forum in a while. Why are you either so offended or feel the need to come here just to insult me? Do you have some sort of involvement in the topic that you're reacting to, or what's your motivation for posting the way that you are?

When you go against an agenda with a large payroll, you will always be told that you are wrong. In these cases, it's only a select few who are upset with what I am saying (understandably so, since it directly involves their conduct).

The person you're replying to has a signature that doesn't pay them, and the other one who just offered you a bet to see if you put your money where your mouth is doesn't have a BC Game signature either.

LoyceV gets paid a handsome amount by Foxpup and go knows who/what else in relation to this forum, LoyceV has many other avenues to be paid outside of being a part of a signature campaign. The relevance of holydarkness having a bc.game signature or not is irrelevant too. As I've said, transactions aren't just from signature campaigns.

[uchegod-21]

Not going deep into investigating Op's claim, it is a common sense to agree that much complaints and scam accusations against BC.Game is not a good sign. I remember even reading in the BH section about BC.Games and the US citizens with KYC.

I see some people coming with the defence that some of those issues were solved. You should also ask if BC.Games would have willingly solved these issues assuming they were not called out by the victims. It will be beneficial to all if BC.Game pay attention to how they perform their business or reform some of their policies.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Not going deep into investigating Op's claim, it is a common sense to agree that much complaints and scam accusations against BC.Game is not a good sign. I remember even reading in the BH section about BC.Games and the US citizens with KYC.

I see some people coming with the defence that some of those issues were solved. You should also ask if BC.Games would have willingly solved these issues assuming they were not called out by the victims. It will be beneficial to all if BC.Game pay attention to how they perform their business or reform some of their policies.

See? That's what I was talking about before. What you're saying seems like a much more reasonable way to approach things, and if the OP had started a thread in that tone, things would be very different.

But no, he had to come around here with his superior attitude to give us all a lesson, to 'punish' the members who gave the casino positive feedback (justifiably), and when, quite rightly, people turn against him, he invents a conspiracy that basically the whole world is against him. All that's left is for him to say he's going to tell his mum.

[holydarkness]

[...]

This is the written ageement we'll enter, read carefully and give your consent, as your consent or non-consent is the answer of your own challenge:

"I, holydarkness, will give you, BenCodie, until end of this month, 28th of February 2025, to prove that I, holydarkness, get incentivized by any casino for resolving cases and acting as bridge between the casinos and people.

Should you, BenCodie, successfully prove that I, holydarkness, getting incentivized by casinos, I, holydarkness, will accept the punishment that the forum deemed necessary, be it negative feedback or flags or both, as well as will pay you, BenCodie, USD 5,000 for your effort to unearth the misdeed that I, holydarkness, has done all this years.

IF you, BenCodie, failed to provide necessary and solid-based evidence of said accusation before 28th of February 2025 though, you, BenCodie, shall pay me, holydarkness, USD 50,000 for the inconvenience you, BenCodie, caused to me, holydarkness, that I, holydarkness, perceived as a smear campaign and libel attempt."

Do we have a deal?


Edit: oh, I have no interest to wait for your agreement by 28th, where you can just back down on the last second when you realized you're neck deep in shit. So, I give you until 23:59:59 forum time to give your answer. Should you agree, I'll need you to escrow the fund to a trusted escrow provider [I shall do that too]. Should you disagree, then kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned.

Should you give no answer by 23:59:59, today, we shall conclude that you choose to back up from the deep shit you put yourself into.

Yes, you have freedom of speech, you're entitled to speak freely, but you have to remember that freedom of speech does not equal to freedom from consequences.

I originally stated that you are welcome to plainly, simply and clearly state that you do not receive an incentive to do what you do for casinos.

I also believe that holydarkness is not a random good Samaritan. There is incentive or motivation for him to do what he does from another party. I welcome him to publicly deny this officially for the record.

All that you needed to reply from the beginning in response was something like this:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users..

The incentive being outside of the signature campaign (if that wasn't already obvious)

As for my second statement, what I had put in brackets was an alternative way of wording what you have not publicly denied (that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos - alternatively phrased (or, in other words) that you work for the casinos as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control:

You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.

I am obviously not interested in your bet as I don't have access to your private communications (which even so, messages can be deleted) nor do I have access to your wallets (also can be deleted). I have only been interested in a sentence along the lines of:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users.

Since I mentioned you. Not sure what the problem is with welcome you to post something so simple...I personally would have accepted that, as putting something in clear writing is something that a lot of guilty people around here tend to avoid doing. I have not actually accused you of any wrongdoing if you correctly read my posts, only stated my belief and provided alternative wording, with a welcome for you to clearly deny it.

[...]

[Disclaimer: I always try my best not to swear with full heart and seriousness, to face situations on the forum with cool and level headedness, walking away for fresh air when things became incredibly stupid. This time though, I'll let go and express myself as some people needs to be pulled out from the dream world they're living in. So, my apology in advance if anybody find this post explosive or excessive or inappropriate --not you, BenCodie, I am referring to others who unfortunate enought to have to read this filthy post.]

You seemed very confident and mighty before, by criticizing my post, when all I tried was to be thorough before I complied to your request and upped the ante to make it more formal and serious. You even emphasizing the chance of me addressing the matter as per what I marked in red,

You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.

And when things become real, where push become shove, and reality slapped you so hard in your face that your eyes watered, that freedom of speech does not come with freedom from consequences, your tail tucked between your leg so quickly.

Does this mean it is safe for all of us to conclude that you're all bark and no bites? That you can talk the talk, but when it comes to the walk, you're limping?

To respond to your post, no, I will not just simply said, "I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users," and let it go.

What good shall it bring? People asked so many times, I patiently tell them that I am not, but that they're free to prove otherwise, yet it kept being asked over and over and over. Imagine being someone who spent a lot of time, literally handling situation and trying to help as many sides as I can, and the "pay back" I get was a fuckin shit trying to paint me as bad and question my sincerity by challenging me, welcoming me to publicly deny that I got incentivized, even upped the ante by doubting I will publicly address the matter. So this is me addressing it, just as you demanded by letting myself introduce you to real world and the definition of consequences:

Either you accept the deal, and start investigating me, my wallet address is there, it's a readily available information, if you can't find it, it means your intelligence is far lower than what you tried to cast to the public, but fret not, you should only ask and I will gladly provide it for you. And it can't be deleted [not sure where you get that idea, that "[...] wallet (also can be deleted)"]. Blockchain is there, and will stays there no matter what, I don't think anyone has control over what's shown and not shown on Blockchain, thus it can't be deleted. SMH.

You won't need to see my private communications, since if I do get paid by casinos, the damning proof will be there in the Blockchain, not in the conversation.

Or, back down from your own challenge, admit that you run your mouth too wide and you bite more than you can chew, that there are chances that you made post without thorough thinking, just a feigned intelligence, as when you're asked to prove your own accusation, it's all suddenly a tucked tail. It's ok, us the forum users are begin to get used with snowflakes. You're free to back down and disagree from the counter-challenge I propose.

But since you disagree, then, to quote myself, "kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned."

If you can't be man enough to accept the deal that you started yourself, then at least be a boy enough to accept the consequences of that freedom of speech.

Two hours and forty minutes. Tick tock.

[icopress]

Two hours and forty minutes. Tick tock. [...]

There are just toxic, bitter people who are masters at obscuring their true motives and resorting to techniques like "plausible deniability" (his response to your post is a great example). And as soon as you disagree with his inflated ego or make a reasonable contradiction, you become a target.

If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased [...]

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have [...]

We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum [...]

See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...]

[JollyGood]

How many members will congratulate the BetFury campaign manager for allowing the OP to participate in a high paying campaign knowing that he was a narcissistic loose cannon that points one way one day and in a completely different direction the next day.  Knowing this, he still enrolled him and welcomed him.

Before the BetFury campaign manager brought this egotistic deluded individual back to posting full time courtesy of enrolling him in the campaign, the OP was looking around for loans and was not getting much joy (nor did he have joy with signature campaigns).

Now that he back he has to meet his quota in order to get paid in full. The OP is posting new low level attention-seeking nonsense akin to OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and all of this is happening because of yet another in a long line of mistakes/errors/incompetencies/misjudgements by the BetFury campaign manager.

October 2024: $125 @ 12% repaid within 3 weeks
November 2024: 500 USD - 20% - 2 Months - To pursue potentially golden opportunity.
January 2025: 400 USDT, 480 USDT by March 30

[nutildah]

I tallied all the casino threads in Scam Accusations that were either posted or bumped in the last year (17 pages -- it should be noted that many of these complaints were resolved, miscommunications, erroneous or duplications), and here is a list of the top 10 casinos by total # of threads, along with their domain rating according to ahrefs (a rough indicator of the popularity of a website based on its number of backlinks):

BC.GAME: 44 - 79
Rollbit: 37 - 62
Stake: 28 - 80
Shuffle: 19 - 63
Sportsbet.io: 17 - 76
Freebitco.in: 12 - 80
TrustDice: 9 - 68
Fortunejack: 8 - 70
Chips.gg: 7 - 40
DuelBits: 7 - 66

So dividing the complaints by domain rating gives you an idea of how frequent complaints are relative to the site's number of backlinks:

BC.GAME: 0.557
Rollbit: 0.597
Stake: 0.35
Shuffle: 0.302
Sportsbet.io: 0.224
Freebitco.in: 0.15
TrustDice: 0.132
Fortunejack: 0.114
Chips.gg: 0.175
DuelBits: 0.106

So this does put BC.GAME on the high side.

Another way to measure would be by complaints/traffic (in thousands of hits per month, also from ahrefs):

BC.GAME: 44/649.7 = 0.068
Rollbit: 37/22 = 1.68
Stake: 28/1700 = 0.016
Shuffle: 19/15.3 = 1.24
Sportsbet.io: 17/560.2 = 0.03
Freebitco.in: 12/431.1 = 0.028
TrustDice: 9/17.3 = 0.52
Fortunejack: 8/8.4 = 0.952
Chips.gg: 7/0.666 = 10.5
DuelBits: 7/12.7 = 0.551

Here the results are much more varied, but BC.GAME is much lower than average.

The point being, if a site get a lot more traffic, its bound to have more complaints.

[DiMarxist]

Lolz! I see this thread as a kind of trust conflict. The Op who is accusing people of trust others for commercial transaction also trust another for the same commercial purpose. So who is to blame is unknown. The only thing is he (the Op) didn't use another account for this thread but his main account. In most cases we see people creating newbie account for threads like this.
BC.Game was accused of scamming and many threads were created as of then and when they came back, they created a thread to solve all the genuine accusations and they did. And if anyone is still having issue with them, they should visit the ANN thread or the thread created to solve scam cases. There is no hidden places for a shy person in cases like this. Come out and solve your problems. I am not speaking for bc.game but telling the truth.

[BenCodie]

Two hours and forty minutes. Tick tock. [...]

There are just toxic, bitter people who are masters at obscuring their true motives and resorting to techniques like "plausible deniability" (his response to your post is a great example). And as soon as you disagree with his inflated ego or make a reasonable contradiction, you become a target.

If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased [...]

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have [...]

We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum [...]

See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...]

What personal motivations could I possibly have for calling you out? It does no good for me to expose that you are a shady person. It only paints a target on my back for negative and neutral trust like yours and JollyGood.

Do you deny that you could have done better as a business person here? Do you deny that what you advertise/have advertised has involved scams or bad end user outcomes?

How many members will congratulate the BetFury campaign manager for allowing the OP to participate in a high paying campaign knowing that he was a narcissistic loose cannon that points one way one day and in a completely different direction the next day.  Knowing this, he still enrolled him and welcomed him.

Before the BetFury campaign manager brought this egotistic deluded individual back to posting full time courtesy of enrolling him in the campaign, the OP was looking around for loans and was not getting much joy (nor did he have joy with signature campaigns).

Now that he back he has to meet his quota in order to get paid in full. The OP is posting new low level attention-seeking nonsense akin to OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and all of this is happening because of yet another in a long line of mistakes/errors/incompetencies/misjudgements by the BetFury campaign manager.

October 2024: $125 @ 12% repaid within 3 weeks
November 2024: 500 USD - 20% - 2 Months - To pursue potentially golden opportunity.
January 2025: 400 USDT, 480 USDT by March 30

"Narcissism is a self-centered personality style characterized as having an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, often at the expense of others."

I am very concerned with malpractice and corruption about the forum, and asking the questions/saying the things no one else will always expense people who don't want to talk about those topics. Though, it is not out of being self-centered or preoccupied with myself. I am simply disappointed with the forum and how it has turned into a community that is not completely in-line with Bitcoin and its values, and yet succeeds and feeds unaligned people on the back of Bitcoin's name.

You have called me a narcissist and someone with OCD in a single post...Though being that you are clearly a manipulative person, your comments don't particularly bother me. I believe that a good chunk of the forum who have interacted with you are aware that you are the true narcissist, and either use you as an asset in their power game, or fear getting on your bad side (otherwise attacks just like the one's you follow me with would likely ensue).

[Disclaimer: I always try my best not to swear with full heart and seriousness, to face situations on the forum with cool and level headedness, walking away for fresh air when things became incredibly stupid. This time though, I'll let go and express myself as some people needs to be pulled out from the dream world they're living in. So, my apology in advance if anybody find this post explosive or excessive or inappropriate --not you, BenCodie, I am referring to others who unfortunate enought to have to read this filthy post.]

You seemed very confident and mighty before, by criticizing my post, when all I tried was to be thorough before I complied to your request and upped the ante to make it more formal and serious. You even emphasizing the chance of me addressing the matter as per what I marked in red,

You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.

And when things become real, where push become shove, and reality slapped you so hard in your face that your eyes watered, that freedom of speech does not come with freedom from consequences, your tail tucked between your leg so quickly.

Does this mean it is safe for all of us to conclude that you're all bark and no bites? That you can talk the talk, but when it comes to the walk, you're limping?

My tail is not tucked between my legs and the reality is still the same. I am allowed to have my beliefs that are based on likelihoods and probabilities, and that's all I've done here. I've not come here saying "I am certain of this" or "I am certain of that", I've had doubts and beliefs.

I believe there is truth in my beliefs, I have no motive to just make up nonsense.

To respond to your post, no, I will not just simply said, "I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users," and let it go.

What good shall it bring? People asked so many times, I patiently tell them that I am not, but that they're free to prove otherwise, yet it kept being asked over and over and over. Imagine being someone who spent a lot of time, literally handling situation and trying to help as many sides as I can, and the "pay back" I get was a fuckin shit trying to paint me as bad and question my sincerity by challenging me, welcoming me to publicly deny that I got incentivized, even upped the ante by doubting I will publicly address the matter. So this is me addressing it, just as you demanded by letting myself introduce you to real world and the definition of consequences:

I find it odd that you are doing and saying just about everything that you can just to avoid saying something that affirms to me and everyone else that you a good samaritan with no financial motivation?

Either you accept the deal, and start investigating me, my wallet address is there, it's a readily available information, if you can't find it, it means your intelligence is far lower than what you tried to cast to the public, but fret not, you should only ask and I will gladly provide it for you. And it can't be deleted [not sure where you get that idea, that "[...] wallet (also can be deleted)"]. Blockchain is there, and will stays there no matter what, I don't think anyone has control over what's shown and not shown on Blockchain, thus it can't be deleted. SMH.

You won't need to see my private communications, since if I do get paid by casinos, the damning proof will be there in the Blockchain, not in the conversation.

Or, back down from your own challenge, admit that you run your mouth too wide and you bite more than you can chew, that there are chances that you made post without thorough thinking, just a feigned intelligence, as when you're asked to prove your own accusation, it's all suddenly a tucked tail. It's ok, us the forum users are begin to get used with snowflakes. You're free to back down and disagree from the counter-challenge I propose.

But since you disagree, then, to quote myself, "kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned."

If you can't be man enough to accept the deal that you started yourself, then at least be a boy enough to accept the consequences of that freedom of speech.

Two hours and forty minutes. Tick tock.

The problem with your deal is that you can easily have dealt with people with addresses that you've never posted publicly. You are acting as if this investigation is a doable one, however your private communications with casino administrations and the fact that you can use addresses that have never been posted before effect whether it is possible or not.

The alternative is to simply get a statement from you, one that says that you have no financial motivation for what you do, and out of all the words you've posted, you have continued to refuse to make a clear and concise statement that you have no financial motivation, and instead have chosen to abuse and threaten me over a fair belief.

I will not be posting an apology as you've come at me from a very aggressive angle just for doubting your motives, all to avoid giving your word in a clear statement that explicitly says that you have no financial motivation for what you do, in a forum where the attitude even by well-respected members is financially motivated:

Who would that be, and how much should they be paid  

You can question my trust all that you want, however my thoughts and my questioning of the gambling lobby that clearly exists in this forum is not an indication that I am not a trustworthy person, and the trust tool is being used by upset people like icopress who don't like what I'm posting about, and wish to discredit and suppress any such talk.

I tallied all the casino threads in Scam Accusations that were either posted or bumped in the last year (17 pages -- it should be noted that many of these complaints were resolved, miscommunications, erroneous or duplications), and here is a list of the top 10 casinos by total # of threads, along with their domain rating according to ahrefs (a rough indicator of the popularity of a website based on its number of backlinks):

BC.GAME: 44 - 79
Rollbit: 37 - 62
Stake: 28 - 80
Shuffle: 19 - 63
Sportsbet.io: 17 - 76
Freebitco.in: 12 - 80
TrustDice: 9 - 68
Fortunejack: 8 - 70
Chips.gg: 7 - 40
DuelBits: 7 - 66

So dividing the complaints by domain rating gives you an idea of how frequent complaints are relative to the site's number of backlinks:

BC.GAME: 0.557
Rollbit: 0.597
Stake: 0.35
Shuffle: 0.302
Sportsbet.io: 0.224
Freebitco.in: 0.15
TrustDice: 0.132
Fortunejack: 0.114
Chips.gg: 0.175
DuelBits: 0.106

So this does put BC.GAME on the high side.

Another way to measure would be by complaints/traffic (in thousands of hits per month, also from ahrefs):

BC.GAME: 44/649.7 = 0.068
Rollbit: 37/22 = 1.68
Stake: 28/1700 = 0.016
Shuffle: 19/15.3 = 1.24
Sportsbet.io: 17/560.2 = 0.03
Freebitco.in: 12/431.1 = 0.028
TrustDice: 9/17.3 = 0.52
Fortunejack: 8/8.4 = 0.952
Chips.gg: 7/0.666 = 10.5
DuelBits: 7/12.7 = 0.551

Here the results are much more varied, but BC.GAME is much lower than average.

The point being, if a site get a lot more traffic, its bound to have more complaints.

This doesn't take into account cases that were never posted by more vulnerable victims, which is a key point of this thread.

[yahoo62278]

This feels more like a personal vendetta against the manager or the site, not sure why without going through all of your posts @BenCodie or without you stating why. If it's against the manager shouldn't you take the issue private unless you have specific complaints that show they are shady? If it's about the site in general, many have given you reasons/proof that more than 1 site(BC.Game) has plenty of accusations against them. Solved and unsolved. Nutildah provided you a nice bit of info in their last post.

I would think that someone who thinks they are an intelligent person (i'm not saying you are or aren't) would post more than what you have. Managers in general, at least most of them, do not seek out scams. If actual legit scam accusations are coming up and not getting solved, generally it is the manager stopping the campaign and all advertising either permanently or until accusations are acknowledged and dealt with.

Go back through your research and show us only unsolved accusations that are actually legit. Show the accusations the casino is refusing to acknowledge. Show us proof the casino is stealing from players. I think you'll get more support for a thread like that vs calling out everyone and being an ass to reputable members like you are in this thread. You have to handle a situation better IMO otherwise noone is going to take you serious and you only lose credibility.

[BenCodie]

This feels more like a personal vendetta against the manager or the site, not sure why without going through all of your posts @BenCodie or without you stating why. If it's against the manager shouldn't you take the issue private unless you have specific complaints that show they are shady? If it's about the site in general, many have given you reasons/proof that more than 1 site(BC.Game) has plenty of accusations against them. Solved and unsolved. Nutildah provided you a nice bit of info in their last post.

I would think that someone who thinks they are an intelligent person (i'm not saying you are or aren't) would post more than what you have. Managers in general, at least most of them, do not seek out scams. If actual legit scam accusations are coming up and not getting solved, generally it is the manager stopping the campaign and all advertising either permanently or until accusations are acknowledged and dealt with.

Go back through your research and show us only unsolved accusations that are actually legit. Show the accusations the casino is refusing to acknowledge. Show us proof the casino is stealing from players. I think you'll get more support for a thread like that vs calling out everyone and being an ass to reputable members like you are in this thread. You have to handle a situation better IMO otherwise noone is going to take you serious and you only lose credibility.

I did not once mention icopress in the original thread. It seems like a personal vendetta because icopress promotes campaigns that have had shady elements, and because bc.game is one of those campaigns.

bc.game have a lot of cases that are popping up consistently (which only seem to be resolved after they've been posted), which not only proves time and time again that they are an unreliable platform for players, though raises the question of how many vulnerable victims there are who have not posted publicly and have accepted that their funds are lost with bc.game.

I would think that someone who thinks they are an intelligent person (i'm not saying you are or aren't) would post more than what you have. Managers in general, at least most of them, do not seek out scams. If actual legit scam accusations are coming up and not getting solved, generally it is the manager stopping the campaign and all advertising either permanently or until accusations are acknowledged and dealt with.

Go back through your research and show us only unsolved accusations that are actually legit. Show the accusations the casino is refusing to acknowledge. Show us proof the casino is stealing from players. I think you'll get more support for a thread like that vs calling out everyone and being an ass to reputable members like you are in this thread. You have to handle a situation better IMO otherwise noone is going to take you serious and you only lose credibility.

I could have done a better job in the OP and the presentation of the problem, and while that does not make the problem any less legitimate, I could have put more time into making that aspect of this thread better.

[nutildah]

Who would that be, and how much should they be paid  

You can question my trust all that you want, however my thoughts and my questioning of the gambling lobby that clearly exists in this forum is not an indication that I am not a trustworthy person, and the trust tool is being used by upset people like icopress who don't like what I'm posting about, and wish to discredit and suppress any such talk.

You're taking what I said waaay out of context. That post isn't even from this thread; its addressing an entirely different subject. And that issue was that no matter how you dice it, theymos would have to rely on somebody to manage forum donations.

This doesn't take into account cases that were never posted by more vulnerable victims, which is a key point of this thread.

How is the non-existence of something evidence of anything?

[BenCodie]

Who would that be, and how much should they be paid 

You can question my trust all that you want, however my thoughts and my questioning of the gambling lobby that clearly exists in this forum is not an indication that I am not a trustworthy person, and the trust tool is being used by upset people like icopress who don't like what I'm posting about, and wish to discredit and suppress any such talk.

You're taking what I said waaay out of context. That post isn't even from this thread; its addressing an entirely different subject.

The point was that a current theme of the environment of the forum is financial motivation over being a good Samaritan, hence my belief about holydarkness.

If what you were saying, that someone should be paid to simply manage a key of a multi-signature wallet (which to me is still laughable if it's in the name of a community like this one) doesn't apply to my point, then how about this one where another highly reputable member stated that a salary is needed just to get advice from trusted forum members before spending money on development?

I think creating an advisory board of trusted forum members before spending any money on development would help a lot.

First point on the agenda: the salary of the forum board members

Who would that be, and how much should they be paid 

You can question my trust all that you want, however my thoughts and my questioning of the gambling lobby that clearly exists in this forum is not an indication that I am not a trustworthy person, and the trust tool is being used by upset people like icopress who don't like what I'm posting about, and wish to discredit and suppress any such talk.

And that issue was that no matter how you dice it, theymos would have to rely on somebody to manage forum donations.

No, theymos does not need to rely on anyone to manage forum donations if it was managed by a council of multi-signature key holders. The control that he has over forum donations is not a necessity, it's a choice (a choice that lead to the irresponsible management and ultimate outcome of the new forum software).

This doesn't take into account cases that were never posted by more vulnerable victims, which is a key point of this thread.

How is the non-existence of something evidence of anything?

If I own a casino, a very large casino, and my pattern of behavior is to freeze people's accounts, hold them hostage of KYC, and wait for them to either seek legal help, give in to my demands and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the accounts - then it is reasonable to assume that there are a portion of people who do not seek legal help, give in to demands, and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the account.

If we were to go deeper into your question, I'd ask a few back:
- How can you prove that bc.game is not swindling more vulnerable players/the portion of people I just described?
- Doesn't bc.game's track record and long list of accusations and problems increase the probability that this portion of people exists?
- Does their current track record deserve a +20 / 0 trust rating? Shouldn't there at least be a warning of their history of poor behavior?

It would be good to have your opinion through answering those questions.

[nutildah]

then how about this one

I'm not going to indulge your whataboutisms as its a pointless exercise.

How is the non-existence of something evidence of anything?

If I own a casino, a very large casino, and my pattern of behavior is to freeze people's accounts, hold them hostage of KYC, and wait for them to either seek legal help, give in to my demands and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the accounts - then it is reasonable to assume that there are a portion of people who do not seek legal help, give in to demands, and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the account.

So you're operating under an assumption, and its unfair to single out bc.game from all the other casinos that are potentially doing the same kind of thing when making this assumption.

- How can you prove that bc.game is not swindling more vulnerable players/the portion of people I just described?

The burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the claims.

- Doesn't bc.game's track record and long list of accusations and problems increase the probability that this portion of people exists?

You're ignoring my demonstration that this casino is considerably more popular than most of its peers, so like I said before, its bound to have more complaints against it than less popular casinos.

- Does their current track record deserve a +20 / 0 trust rating? Shouldn't there at least be a warning of their history of poor behavior?

If you dig into the trust rating, which isn't shown to people not logged into the forum, you'll see most of the positive trusts are for fulfillment of promises & financial obligations. I have no problem with casinos having negative trusts as well, if they are based on legitimate reasons. Yours is based on unfounded allegations, and it really does seem like you are simply trying to punish the campaign manager for perceived wrongdoing.

[BenCodie]

then how about this one

I'm not going to indulge your whataboutisms as its a pointless exercise.

Can you help me to understand why we have such a contrasting opinion here? That is that in my opinion these answers are key for your input on the main topic, while in your opinion they are pointless to answer?

How is the non-existence of something evidence of anything?

If I own a casino, a very large casino, and my pattern of behavior is to freeze people's accounts, hold them hostage of KYC, and wait for them to either seek legal help, give in to my demands and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the accounts - then it is reasonable to assume that there are a portion of people who do not seek legal help, give in to demands, and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the account.

So you're operating under an assumption, and its unfair to single out bc.game from all the other casinos that are potentially doing the same kind of thing when making this assumption.

So what you are saying that is if I am to raise awareness about this problem (that definitely exists on more casinos than just bc.game, as we've already established with your data), that I must do so for all casinos at once? In my mind that does not sound like a very natural process, and a bit of an unreasonable expectation/pressure to put on someone, is it fair for me to be thinking this way?

Of course I'm already of the assumption that you and many others in this thread instead prefer me to just stop speaking about it at all. Is that a rightful assumption?

- How can you prove that bc.game is not swindling more vulnerable players/the portion of people I just described?

The burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the claims.

There is proof that there is reasonable cause for concern that there is theft occurring on an unspoken level, theft from parties who do not speak on this forum. This proof that there is reasonable cause for concern are the amount of threads that had to be posted before they were resolved, and the high probability that not 100% of the cases have been posted and have not been resolved (as it is unreasonable to assume that every single person was firstly willing to meet KYC demands from bc.game, and additionally that they would come to bitcointalk to post about the problem).

- Doesn't bc.game's track record and long list of accusations and problems increase the probability that this portion of people exists?

You're ignoring my demonstration that this casino is considerably more popular than most of its peers, so like I said before, its bound to have more complaints against it than less popular casinos.

Firstly, what's the score on ignoring certain parts of each others post? I hardly skip over something, while you and others consistently ignore key details. Have you noticed that? Or do you think that is untrue?

As for your demonstration, that's not how I see it. How I see it is that bc.game and its peers exhibit the same problem, and bc.game is one of the most prominent and (in my eyes) the most shadiest from my witnessing and research that spans over a year, hence I'm looking most closely at them over time and why I posted about them first.

- Does their current track record deserve a +20 / 0 trust rating? Shouldn't there at least be a warning of their history of poor behavior?

If you dig into the trust rating, which isn't shown to people not logged into the forum, you'll see most of the positive trusts are for fulfillment of promises & financial obligations. I have no problem with casinos having negative trusts as well, if they are based on legitimate reasons. Yours is based on unfounded allegations, and it really does seem like you are simply trying to punish the campaign manager for perceived wrongdoing.

I am not targeting icopress, and I promise you that it only just so happens that I also believe he is shady while he manages the campaign for this casino. The two issues are not intertwined, but are probably correlated. That's my honest position. I am not raising awareness about this casino just because I believe that icopress is a corrupt and shady character. That would be unacceptable.

I made this thread as part of raising awareness of a genuine problem that I believe exists, and that you and others are now (seemingly purposefully) dismissing - That a form of corruption and/or scam exists, where a casino freezes players and keeps confiscated money from people who are not willing to both do KYC, and who do not become a part of the bitcointalk community to have the problem resolved. Traditionally, Bitcoin is more aligned with those who believe in privacy than those who believe that KYC is a fair and necessary practice, making anyone who is not willing to complete KYC is a large and vulnerable group of people - people who casinos would take advantage of.

I personally believe that you are are ignoring that this problem exists, or that you believe that it is not a problem (for some reason). I believe there is a reason why the problem is ignored and that the shared attitude by established members, and that it relates to corruption that I believe has influence from the gambling industry (and mixer industry) and relationships with the upper echelon of Bitcointalk.

What do you think about that? You're welcome to call me a crazy conspiracy theorist and that everything I said above is 100% untrue. In fact, if you, LoyceV, JollyGood, icopress, holydarkness, theymos and any other upper echelon members are all welcome to clearly that you believe it is 100% untrue, like so:

I, /username, believe that the quote below by BenCodie is 100% untrue

Traditionally, Bitcoin is more aligned with those who believe in privacy than those who believe that KYC is a fair and necessary practice, making anyone who is not willing to complete KYC is a large and vulnerable group of people - people who casinos would take advantage of.

I personally believe that you are are ignoring that this problem exists, or that you believe that it is not a problem (for some reason). I believe there is a reason why the problem is ignored and that the shared attitude by established members, and that it relates to corruption that I believe has influence from the gambling industry (and mixer industry) and relationships with the upper echelon of Bitcointalk.

I will definitely think more about my position if the entire theory and its possibility is denied outright by many respected members.

[nutildah]

Skipping everything that is a waste of time. My words stand for themselves, as do his, and the reader can form their own opinions.

So what you are saying that is if I am to raise awareness about this problem (that definitely exists on more casinos than just bc.game, as we've already established with your data), that I must do so for all casinos at once?
...
Of course I'm already of the assumption that you and many others in this thread instead prefer me to just stop speaking about it at all. Is that a rightful assumption?

No, stop assuming things.

Firstly, what's the score on ignoring certain parts of each others post? I hardly skip over something, while you and others consistently ignore key details. Have you noticed that? Or do you think that is untrue?

Untrue, and more whataboutism.

I am not raising awareness about this casino just because I believe that icopress is a corrupt and shady character.

I don't believe you.

You are entitled to your opinion. Have a great day.