M
So now they are as well turned to scamers? Like duckdice.io is turned to scame and bitcointalk wll oneday give you red tag dont forget that bitcasino
Topic: BitCasino.io - 1.43BTC + 1.6BTC Scammed (Read 1123 times)
Too much going on at bitcasino really....
M
M
So now they are as well turned to scamers? Like duckdice.io is turned to scame and bitcointalk wll oneday give you red tag dont forget that bitcasino
So wwzsocki isn't missing something...
TBH in this particular case, we just don't have enough info to be able to say if it was indeed a scam and what sort of (double-spend, suspicious activity, cheating, AML, etc).
In last few days, I have read a couple of threads about scams in casinos and now I know that the fraud prevention teams investigate involved accounts deeply and many times the summary of their findings confirm or deny if the user indeed tried to scam, was lucky or maybe found a bug in the system. Without all these pieces of information, we are just not able to judge because many scams are much more sophisticated and involve many accounts, addresses, deposits, withdrawals, transfers, additionally can be exploited for a longer period of time.
Just like in this particular case the latest deposits/withdrawals don't have to be the reason for account suspension and limited withdrawals.
I Think you didn't understand.
I Deposited http://i.epvpimg.com/7nHNeab.png
And i think i mistyped instead of 1500 mbtc i withdrew 500 mbtc but was cancelled for kyc reasons, then i did kyc
http://i.epvpimg.com/LUwNeab.png
then like few days later i got this weird email http://i.epvpimg.com/QDzIcab.png
and then finally: http://epvpimg.com/kKYzaab
Crazy people really.
\\
quote author=TwitchySeal link=topic=5256938.msg54768140#msg54768140 date=1594390299]
So wwzsocki isn't missing something. Why deposit again 6 days later when your first withdraw was flagged?
[/quote]
I Deposited http://i.epvpimg.com/7nHNeab.png
And i think i mistyped instead of 1500 mbtc i withdrew 500 mbtc but was cancelled for kyc reasons, then i did kyc
http://i.epvpimg.com/LUwNeab.png
then like few days later i got this weird email http://i.epvpimg.com/QDzIcab.png
and then finally: http://epvpimg.com/kKYzaab
Crazy people really.\\
quote author=TwitchySeal link=topic=5256938.msg54768140#msg54768140 date=1594390299]
Yeah
So wwzsocki isn't missing something. Why deposit again 6 days later when your first withdraw was flagged?
[/quote]
Yeah
So wwzsocki isn't missing something. Why deposit again 6 days later when your first withdraw was flagged?
Yeah as you can see my ending balance there is 1.13btc + 500 mbtc = 1.63 btc, they cancelled it obviously and 15 months later we're still here..
Definately missing something deposited 0.43 btc played roulette brought it up to ~3-4 btc and chased some slots on 2-10 mbtc a pop Lost a whole lot and decided to take a 4x deposit balance home
I played around 5-7 hours straight >.>
Looks like a week before you tried to withdraw a little less than you deposited 1 hr 3min earlier.
https://i.gyazo.com/d8816a36729201a5855e4747d79affd2.png
Do I understand this correctly?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
Definately missing something deposited 0.43 btc played roulette brought it up to ~3-4 btc and chased some slots on 2-10 mbtc a pop Lost a whole lot and decided to take a 4x deposit balance home
I played around 5-7 hours straight >.>
Looks like a week before you tried to withdraw a little less than you deposited 1 hr 3min earlier.
https://i.gyazo.com/d8816a36729201a5855e4747d79affd2.png
Do I understand this correctly?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
Definately missing something deposited 0.43 btc played roulette brought it up to ~3-4 btc and chased some slots on 2-10 mbtc a pop Lost a whole lot and decided to take a 4x deposit balance home
I played around 5-7 hours straight >.>
Looks like a week before you tried to withdraw a little less than you deposited 1 hr 3min earlier.
As we proceed almost 3 weeks AFTER complaint was sent out, and almost 15 months in total.
We have received an email from the curacao gaming comission
http://i.epvpimg.com/71bycab.png
The e-mail where bitcasino.io has to reply to: http://i.epvpimg.com/QGu4cab.png
As bitcasino.io refuses to answer anything and only hides behind the curtains; http://i.epvpimg.com/SDpSdab.png
I'm anxious to find out what's happening next.
We have received an email from the curacao gaming comission
http://i.epvpimg.com/71bycab.png
The e-mail where bitcasino.io has to reply to: http://i.epvpimg.com/QGu4cab.png
As bitcasino.io refuses to answer anything and only hides behind the curtains; http://i.epvpimg.com/SDpSdab.png
I'm anxious to find out what's happening next.
still no update.
Please just shut the fuck up, they reject my claim because they don't want to put their head in ''casino term violations''
stop riding bitcasino's dick already jeez.
Definately missing something deposited 0.43 btc played roulette brought it up to ~3-4 btc and chased some slots on 2-10 mbtc a pop Lost a whole lot and decided to take a 4x deposit balance home
I played around 5-7 hours straight >.>
You were already found out to be a liar in this post - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54689091
AskGamblers rejected all 5 of your claims. You are wasting your time!
stop riding bitcasino's dick already jeez.
Do I understand this correctly?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
Definately missing something deposited 0.43 btc played roulette brought it up to ~3-4 btc and chased some slots on 2-10 mbtc a pop Lost a whole lot and decided to take a 4x deposit balance home
I played around 5-7 hours straight >.>
You were already found out to be a liar in this post - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54689091
AskGamblers rejected all 5 of your claims. You are wasting your time!
Do I understand this correctly?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
Definately missing something deposited 0.43 btc played roulette brought it up to ~3-4 btc and chased some slots on 2-10 mbtc a pop Lost a whole lot and decided to take a 4x deposit balance home
I played around 5-7 hours straight >.>
You were already found out to be a liar in this post - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54689091
AskGamblers rejected all 5 of your claims. You are wasting your time!
Do I understand this correctly?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice it?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
Definately missing something deposited 0.43 btc played roulette brought it up to ~3-4 btc and chased some slots on 2-10 mbtc a pop Lost a whole lot and decided to take a 4x deposit balance home
I played around 5-7 hours straight >.>
Do I understand this correctly?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
OP wanted to use double-spend to play in the casino and if he would lose then the scam is obvious because the deposit would be never confirmed and if he wins?
They push deposit with a higher fee to be accepted immediately and try to withdraw ASAP, hoping that the Bitcasino fraud prevention team wouldn't notice?
It looks pretty dumb to count on their mistake, knowing that the fraud prevention team is monitoring "double-spend" attempts non-stop.
Or I am missing something?
The thing is, after all this research there aint no ds on the blockchain to be seen which makes their accusation invalid
In a double-spend scenario, the dropped transaction would have stopped broadcasting from a while ago and thus you would not be able to find the evidence of the other transaction that uses the same txinputs. What I can assume happened (in the case of a double-spend) is the following: there is another transaction B0 where the 1EA address sent a large amount to the deposit address with a small fee. Later, the same txin is spent in the confirmed transaction B when the deposit fails to make money, and the user tries again at the casino for a successful gamble. This time, we quickly change it so that the large movement from 1Ea to 128pfp is confirmed as soon as possible by creating a CPFP transaction with a massive fee.
It would be useful to check the mempool at this time, and make sure that the 2+ sat bucket exceeds 1MB (including SegWit size compression).
Then thirdly "Transaction C", the major address from "Transaction B" 128pfpJvTPhweAEHRzBv1q5DSvawpjTCSB sent here to 1CjYNz5Bat5RkP69msyY4QiXUBrARZgky7 and 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 3 which is the second address that combined input to fund the deposit, with a fee 143.462 sat/B (but the fee here definitely wouldn't matter with two parent transaction of 2.545 sat/B pending right ?)
The fee most certainly does matter. Be aware of transaction A and B, but you should consider the following:In a double-spend scenario, the dropped transaction would have stopped broadcasting from a while ago and thus you would not be able to find the evidence of the other transaction that uses the same txinputs. What I can assume happened (in the case of a double-spend) is the following: there is another transaction B0 where the 1EA address sent a large amount to the deposit address with a small fee. Later, the same txin is spent in the confirmed transaction B when the deposit fails to make money, and the user tries again at the casino for a successful gamble. This time, we quickly change it so that the large movement from 1Ea to 128pfp is confirmed as soon as possible by creating a CPFP transaction with a massive fee.
It would be useful to check the mempool at this time, and make sure that the 2+ sat bucket exceeds 1MB (including SegWit size compression).
Then thirdly "Transaction C", the major address from "Transaction B" 128pfpJvTPhweAEHRzBv1q5DSvawpjTCSB sent here to 1CjYNz5Bat5RkP69msyY4QiXUBrARZgky7 and 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 3 which is the second address that combined input to fund the deposit, with a fee 143.462 sat/B (but the fee here definitely wouldn't matter with two parent transaction of 2.545 sat/B pending right ?)
The fee most certainly does matter. Be aware of transaction A and B, but you should consider the following:In a double-spend scenario, the dropped transaction would have stopped broadcasting from a while ago and thus you would not be able to find the evidence of the other transaction that uses the same txinputs. What I can assume happened (in the case of a double-spend) is the following: there is another transaction B0 where the 1EA address sent a large amount to the deposit address with a small fee. Later, the same txin is spent in the confirmed transaction B when the deposit fails to make money, and the user tries again at the casino for a successful gamble. This time, we quickly change it so that the large movement from 1Ea to 128pfp is confirmed as soon as possible by creating a CPFP transaction with a massive fee.
It would be useful to check the mempool at this time, and make sure that the 2+ sat bucket exceeds 1MB (including SegWit size compression).
Can you please explain to me in normal-people language what this all means?
I'll make it even more simple.Whoever sent the bitcoin to fund your account was planning on scamming the casino if you lost. The transaction was created so that it would take a while to confirm, and during that time it could be redirected to another address.
No i dont keep btc i only keep xmr and xrp so first i switch with coinswitch direct to bitcasino or i send to wallet and then send to casino
i only use btc for gambling purposes
i only use btc for gambling purposes
From what I can tell, whether or not you deposited directly or from coinswitch as you've said;
From the transactions I posted in my first response, It shows that:
1. All Addresses involved in those transactions are Legacy (starting from 1...) which means they are likely controlled by one person and the outputs linking addresses from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd transactions to the Bitcasino's address further increases the likelihood of that.
2. There is no point of splitting coins between several of one's addresses with a very low fee before combining unconfirmed input to make a deposit to Bitcasino if the purpose wasn't to double spend to begin with.
The best case scenario in your defense would have been if you had purchase the coin from a local vendor and perhaps, the vendor was aware that you're making deposit to a casino, and while hoping you'd lose, he decided to play both parties... This being said is very unlikely
...And if this deposit had come from coinswitch, of which I think is not true, reason being Coinswitch would not initiate an exchange with unconfirmed tx, so they wouldn't spend an unconfirmed transaction, and they surely wouldn't send way below the regular fee for a transaction.
Quote
I really want to believe you don't know what this all means, and for the sake of giving you the benefit of doubt as well, I'll explain further in more simpler terms all possible scenario of what could have happened, but only if you can answer this question first,
Did you send the deposit to Bitcasino address yourself or you withdrew/purchased from someone/somewhere to the Bitcasino address directly ?
Did you send the deposit to Bitcasino address yourself or you withdrew/purchased from someone/somewhere to the Bitcasino address directly ?
No i dont keep btc i only keep xmr and xrp so first i switch with coinswitch direct to bitcasino or i send to wallet and then send to casino
i only use btc for gambling purposes
Hey sir,
thanks for taking the time for puzzling it out.
Can you please explain to me in normal-people language what this all means?
kind regards and once again thanks for taking the time
thanks for taking the time for puzzling it out.
Can you please explain to me in normal-people language what this all means?
kind regards and once again thanks for taking the time
I really want to believe you don't know what this all means, and for the sake of giving you the benefit of doubt as well, I'll explain further in more simpler terms all possible scenario of what could have happened, but only if you can answer this question first,
Did you send the deposit to Bitcasino address yourself or you withdrew/purchased from someone/somewhere to the Bitcasino address directly ?
Hey sir,
thanks for taking the time for puzzling it out.
Can you please explain to me in normal-people language what this all means?
kind regards and once again thanks for taking the time
thanks for taking the time for puzzling it out.
Can you please explain to me in normal-people language what this all means?
kind regards and once again thanks for taking the time
Hi Everyone,
I think I have some findings that could be of help to this thread/Issue
Addresses that are of worthy note
1. 3PqZ8bsdV91X2PSZeTFGj78jabJbiBuH5f Bitcasino's
2. 1P8p24gbmhgxS2gPJjZJwYS4KDUiTcqd4c and 3. 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 OP's which combined inputs for the deposit
Firstly, I'll start from this "Transaction A" TXID from 15gekRPKCyetqS2jJf85fXuvzjDcooCEbN majorly to 1EaAQ8iqdPMvCGkrkMpMkpoW5LLjwcZ6xu (0.75216549 BTC)
and some change to 13N2CFwTLobJihSGQUYmWk8VrsyRqDicSp (0.00217148 BTC), with transaction fee of 2.547 sat/B. Time stamp of transaction is 2019-04-07 20:28
Secondly, a similar "Transaction B" happened from the major of the output above 1EaAQ8iqdPMvCGkrkMpMkpoW5LLjwcZ6xu here majorly to 128pfpJvTPhweAEHRzBv1q5DSvawpjTCSB (0.74890254 BTC) and another change to 1FvUNiDDdyRsLSuzEDVatcpMXJUGXaihsw 0.00325722 BTC, with the same transaction fee of 2.547 sat/B.
Then thirdly "Transaction C", the major address from "Transaction B" 128pfpJvTPhweAEHRzBv1q5DSvawpjTCSB sent here to 1CjYNz5Bat5RkP69msyY4QiXUBrARZgky7 and 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 3 which is the second address that combined input to fund the deposit, with a fee 143.462 sat/B (but the fee here definitely wouldn't matter with two parent transaction of 2.545 sat/B pending right ?)
The major odd thing is that the both addresses that received small changes from "Transaction A and B" 13N2CFwTLobJihSGQUYmWk8VrsyRqDicSp (0.00217148 BTC) and 1FvUNiDDdyRsLSuzEDVatcpMXJUGXaihsw 0.00325722 BTC combined inputs to this address 1P8p24gbmhgxS2gPJjZJwYS4KDUiTcqd4c 2 which subsequently combined with 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 3 to fund the deposit and So, those coins never actually moved elsewhere until more than half of it had funded the deposit.
I strongly believe that Transaction A, B (2.5 sat/B) and C are most probably a decoy, just to reach the end goal for funding the Deposit Address (relatively high fee) while some of the parent transactions aren't confirmed.
I think I have some findings that could be of help to this thread/Issue
Addresses that are of worthy note
1. 3PqZ8bsdV91X2PSZeTFGj78jabJbiBuH5f Bitcasino's
2. 1P8p24gbmhgxS2gPJjZJwYS4KDUiTcqd4c and 3. 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 OP's which combined inputs for the deposit
Firstly, I'll start from this "Transaction A" TXID from 15gekRPKCyetqS2jJf85fXuvzjDcooCEbN majorly to 1EaAQ8iqdPMvCGkrkMpMkpoW5LLjwcZ6xu (0.75216549 BTC)
and some change to 13N2CFwTLobJihSGQUYmWk8VrsyRqDicSp (0.00217148 BTC), with transaction fee of 2.547 sat/B. Time stamp of transaction is 2019-04-07 20:28
Secondly, a similar "Transaction B" happened from the major of the output above 1EaAQ8iqdPMvCGkrkMpMkpoW5LLjwcZ6xu here majorly to 128pfpJvTPhweAEHRzBv1q5DSvawpjTCSB (0.74890254 BTC) and another change to 1FvUNiDDdyRsLSuzEDVatcpMXJUGXaihsw 0.00325722 BTC, with the same transaction fee of 2.547 sat/B.
Then thirdly "Transaction C", the major address from "Transaction B" 128pfpJvTPhweAEHRzBv1q5DSvawpjTCSB sent here to 1CjYNz5Bat5RkP69msyY4QiXUBrARZgky7 and 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 3 which is the second address that combined input to fund the deposit, with a fee 143.462 sat/B (but the fee here definitely wouldn't matter with two parent transaction of 2.545 sat/B pending right ?)
The major odd thing is that the both addresses that received small changes from "Transaction A and B" 13N2CFwTLobJihSGQUYmWk8VrsyRqDicSp (0.00217148 BTC) and 1FvUNiDDdyRsLSuzEDVatcpMXJUGXaihsw 0.00325722 BTC combined inputs to this address 1P8p24gbmhgxS2gPJjZJwYS4KDUiTcqd4c 2 which subsequently combined with 1NCjM2vqdoJ5BX6wEN1j23cUCthA3QGRH3 3 to fund the deposit and So, those coins never actually moved elsewhere until more than half of it had funded the deposit.
I strongly believe that Transaction A, B (2.5 sat/B) and C are most probably a decoy, just to reach the end goal for funding the Deposit Address (relatively high fee) while some of the parent transactions aren't confirmed.
Jump to: