As a commitment to be stay on topic and focus the discussion in one thread, I'll move your reply to me here and replied,
I hope this could be the last time I have to reply you here for the issue you currently have.
Nope. Betnomi can't be bothered to respond to scam thread so I'll just post here. In general,
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61267416 looks familiar. Passed veriff, like me, but Betnomi reject advance documents. Course it's "multiple accounts" excuse to the rescue. And there is the other recent two scam threads, which don't go away just because Betnomi backtracked and paid. All initially fraudulent, what a coincidence. Actually every accusation against Betnomi is somehow fraudulent, they must have the worst luck in the world.
Anyway, looks like the "I'm not biased but..." shtick dropped pretty fast.
First, I'd like to address the "in general" case that you provided in response to my request, you do aware that it's an... unfortunate first choice of link, right? The case you provide to give a better ground to your statement that Betnomi in general lied about KYC did not work in your favor, the case was deemed by the forum as a retaliatory from someone with 9 accounts who got caught. The request for KYC is clearly justified for this case, as Betnomi had explained, I've quoted their stance on their ANN, but allow me to quote another one they explained
from older day,
We do have a KYC procedure in place, but there are triggered under specific conditions such as fraud, suspected under age user etc
But as a general rule, not something you should be concerned about unless you are engaging in activities that violate our ToS.
[...]
Second, I think I'll need a little bit more context here as I am quite confused.
Basically the proof of bet history that OP claimed that
betnomi deleted was
these ones? At least some of them, as I understand a screenshot that size won't be able to fit OP's entire betting history.
And Betnomi's claim that OP manipulated his betting history, saying that he deliberately shows an empty page by utilizing a date filter is because on
this screen recording, dated 9 October as shown on his screen shows no history.
To better understand this case, I dared a mini aneurysm by re-reading the pages on their ANN thread
again, this time equipped with my notebook to write important timeline in dates, the event, and the post ID number --don't anyone dare asked me how long it took me to finish it this time-- and I have to say
Poika5 brought
one interesting point that I initially missed but now became clear as I have a mapped timeline.
I'd like to say that the possibility is there, that OP did not manipulate the data and that blank history is due to the system maintenance. OP had stated long before this thread was made that he hadn't had any access to his page
for seven weeks, dated 14 November forum time. Seven weeks prior to the date would match the time on the screen recording provided by OP that they have no access, and since OP was blocked two days later,
on the 16th, he can't provide a better screen recording or know whether his betting history has restored or not.
Don't worry, they've blocked access to the account which is one way of fixing it I guess. So that's voiding winners, when that don't work delaying the payout, and then locking the account. Betnomi would struggle with the Intertoto Cup, let alone the World Cup.
So, IMO, there could be a huge chance of misunderstanding here, both sides are wrong and right at the same time. No one erased betting history or manipulating through a date filter as it simply was under maintenance during the time the evidence was made.
If we still insist on who's right and who's wrong, may I suggest the easiest way to tackle this matter --which... wasn't OP's main point of accusation and counter-accusation, actually-- by allowing OP access to his account for a brief moment, so he can do another screen record to show that --whether-- his entire betting history is there or not.
Since Betnomi can restrict OP's attempt to withdraw his fund --let's suppose he tried to-- by rejecting it or even temporarily freezing it by voiding all his balance, OP basically can't do anything other than proving the betting history. I can't see any harm in that, unless someone else can show me one or two flaws in my logic?
It's the easiest way to tackle this minor issue so we can move on to the main topic of the accusation, as well as answered
BitcoinGirl.Club's
concern of manipulation as I think a video recording of screen would be harder to manipulate.
It came to my awareness that OP acessed the site through his phone, he can activate this "show taps" feature [OP has to enabled developer mode to access this feature, though] so we can see clearly that he select dates and any other taps made during the screen recording.
Question is, would both party meet in the middle and agree to this, i.e. Betnomi to grant a temporary access to OP so he can clear Betnomi's name --or prove his accusation to be correct-- of deleting bets, and OP agreed to record his attempt to retrieve the betting history.
