Topic: Bitcasino.io 171btc winner discussion - page 6. (Read 1924 times)

Sadly, that casino has always an advantage over the gambler.

As Bitcasino.io Support mentioned, casino has always instruments to investigate if a person played and won fair or not fair. But if a gambler losses, he can not check if he had lost fair of game algoritm was modified. And house edge everywhere makes statement "House always win" proven.

I have no more merit to share with  you but hey my head is still spinning around.

The account is frozen and will stay frozen. We have never made any settlements with the user in question.

Cheers,
Karl
Bitcasino.io

Strange, what the hell is going on? Whatever the case is, why would the user claim to have an settlement? If there was no settlement from Bitcasino, what was the motivation of that guy to claim that, while he got nothing at all although he already claimed to have received first installment of 4 BTC.
Seems there's something else too. Anyway, I will believe the response above from Karl.


Confirmed here.

Erm, that sure reads like a complete confirmation right there. What more do you want?

A strange little tale indeed and I've no idea what the scammer was hoping to achieve claiming to have reached a settlement.

Box office stuff, I’m glad Karl responded so thoroughly. You can’t argue with blockchain evidence, crazy that there are such highly skilled hackers trying to manipulate casinos for their own financial gain. I’d like to see others thoughts on this but it looks like he’s been caught red handed. I suppose the fact that he was filming his gameplay hinted at dishonesty to begin with, who even does that? He was then very keen after supposedly winning a massive jackpot to quickly type in the chat box to try & verify he was ‘playing with real money’.

Crazy stuff!

Can you confirm that you meant to say that the bitcasino.io account of user LAngel is still frozen and there were no settlement of giving him 48 BTC?

By the way, I am still swallowing the information you have provided. So, I will be giving my full feedback later once I will have a clear understanding.

Edit: Archived http://archive.vn/wip/Gg1nX

Hi everyone,

We were made aware of a thread recently created, the thread is now locked and contains incorrect information which we’d like to set straight.


Before getting into the case, I want to acknowledge a point that was made in the now locked thread around the gravity of the situation
and the potential positive or negative impact on our reputation.

With that in mind, we think it’s crucial to share some of our reasoning and proof behind why we’re certain that LAngel’s winnings
are not legitimate and are a result of fraudulently manipulating GameArt’s Dawn of Olympus.

This is not the first encounter we’ve had with this person and this was made crystal clear when we uncovered a 100% match to a previous user
who had been investigated and subsequently blocked for tampering with games.
We use a wide array of industry-leading detection tools, 100% across them is unambiguously a match.

Previously, this user managed to extract a large amount of BTC from ourselves and also hit a few other crypto casinos in a very similar manner.
For this reason this person is widely known to ourselves, other crypto casinos and at least GameArt, if not other game providers.

Furthermore, KYC has been consistently inconsistent and while for privacy reasons we can’t post the submitted KYC here,
we can say without any doubt that the KYC documents submitted are not valid.

We know however that our community here requires something more tangible than simply our word.
Below, you will see the publicly available proof from the Blockchain supporting our findings that there is indeed a pattern of a single individual
who we know to be manipulating and exploiting games across casino operators, and that LAngel is not as legitimately lucky as would have you believe.

Transaction 1 where 0.483 BTC is moved to 14t9Ff3yUgwcQm5HsAsL5Rq7meBBCDT8g5
68c63caf998c3e84f342caa988d1e439f8cd78174aa389185b3e4a06f0ecf27b

Transaction 2 where 0.1 BTC is deposited from 14t9Ff3yUgwcQm5HsAsL5Rq7meBBCDT8g5 to Account 1 deposit address in Bitcasino 3G4r8XMKgvKFq3M29kNuV9RE6kvq7eY5Qh
7dbd1fe62c6afb93ecaa8ce0eed7cb0e90210de93151eb29f894a81c32cacc25

Transaction 3 where 0.196 BTC is sent from 14t9Ff3yUgwcQm5HsAsL5Rq7meBBCDT8g5 to a new address 1BCeQTQWvq5gzk8yEBzwGrWuLYjHmvf3P2
571a8a4c2f6d59044e669f5f5956e4544970fce7aea21feb3d32caa577b35497

Transaction 4 where inputs from 1BCeQTQWvq5gzk8yEBzwGrWuLYjHmvf3P2 and 13mEeWBYtd4huuuWGTFbEvbH192uMGh3tF send 4.5 BTC to a Casino Operator 1 deposit address 1BnqgnQFVpevz7idhBHpdD2Axy7L9ZC42U and 0.134 BTC to a new address 1DFQ7ofFWf1yffqwQL1Jdv445ZeYxSuGiD 90eea9f590e77ce6e9e70de79911ef38275e0d22642b54c02d34343c3b59bbdb

Transaction 5 where inputs from 18qF5tBd175jfz3AwjtsbebTfn8nkfRGDm and 1DFQ7ofFWf1yffqwQL1Jdv445ZeYxSuGiD are sending 0.5 BTC to Bitcasino onto Account 2 deposit address 3Bn9pecZA6r3Z1bCYdh4GV5tM3DYXxMhzF and 0.055 BTC to a new address 1J14KoZVUXrG3P4Rcs6URZQ1dJHY77tVWQ 5a9b14457a493e6c237d1e38dd1b80082af45e217a77782fdd605fd5e09dd4ee

Transaction 6 where inputs 1J14KoZVUXrG3P4Rcs6URZQ1dJHY77tVWQ and 1JkAF2owb3QgXG1UN53yREFvogTWeLs1TZ fund a deposit of 0.5 BTC to a players deposit address 38492UnXhifAE4Yag26Lbp6beoxB1cLTDT within Casino Operator 2 52777ed072b6fdd1c3cbb8b14ce7fb37556d302a0e9eaa64e801731c8b92fcb3

The above combination transactions prove that the addresses involved are in possession of a single entity responsible of the deposits to
Bitcasino Account 1, Account 2 and also to Casino Operator 1 and Casino Operator 2.

Collection of the entity’s mentioned addresses:

14t9Ff3yUgwcQm5HsAsL5Rq7meBBCDT8g5
1BCeQTQWvq5gzk8yEBzwGrWuLYjHmvf3P2
1DFQ7ofFWf1yffqwQL1Jdv445ZeYxSuGiD
1J14KoZVUXrG3P4Rcs6URZQ1dJHY77tVWQ

Account 1 Bitcasino deposit address:
3G4r8XMKgvKFq3M29kNuV9RE6kvq7eY5Qh
Account 2 Bitcasino deposit address:
3Bn9pecZA6r3Z1bCYdh4GV5tM3DYXxMhzF
Casino Operator 1 deposit address:
1BnqgnQFVpevz7idhBHpdD2Axy7L9ZC42U
Casino Operator 2 deposit address:
38492UnXhifAE4Yag26Lbp6beoxB1cLTDT

Blockchain links to each relevant transaction:

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/68c63caf998c3e84f342caa988d1e439f8cd78174aa389185b3e4a06f0ecf27b
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/7dbd1fe62c6afb93ecaa8ce0eed7cb0e90210de93151eb29f894a81c32cacc25
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/571a8a4c2f6d59044e669f5f5956e4544970fce7aea21feb3d32caa577b35497
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/90eea9f590e77ce6e9e70de79911ef38275e0d22642b54c02d34343c3b59bbdb
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/5a9b14457a493e6c237d1e38dd1b80082af45e217a77782fdd605fd5e09dd4ee
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/52777ed072b6fdd1c3cbb8b14ce7fb37556d302a0e9eaa64e801731c8b92fcb3


Given the 100% match, our fraud team’s extensive findings supported by GameArt’s investigation and the history we have with this user
the account will not be unfrozen and the funds will not be paid out. There is no settlement, this is false information.

Bitcasino has been around for just over six years now, that type of longevity is not possible in our industry if you’re scamming or acting with ill intent.
On average we pay out legitimate winnings in two minutes but we will never be publicly blackmailed into paying out illegitimate gains.

There may be people here who, for their own reasons, will not want to believe or agree with our decision.
To that we can only urge everyone to think critically about this case and explore the evidence available.
There are plenty of red flags that can be seen in the original thread, from the YouTube video to now being private to the very fact that the
user has been withdrawing 25BTC over the past few days - something which has already been noted by Bitcointalk members.

We will continue to work with our fellow crypto casinos and game providers to ensure that we are aware
and can protect ourselves from future attacks on both the technical and reputational fronts.

Currently, we’re in talks with the other casinos and those businesses affected to see whether or not they are happy to go public with their encounters with LAngel.
While we can’t make them, we strongly believe it’s important for our community to be united against such manipulation.

Lastly, we say it a lot but fun, fast and fair isn’t just our marketing motto - this is what we work and live by at Bitcasino.
We’re hopeful that the community here will explore the case and support us on the matter as it has done so many times before.

Should any member of the community have more information about this individual please feel free to reach out to [email protected] or to myself.
You can also do so anonymously if you feel the need to.

Cheers,
Karl
Bitcasino.io

Alright , if that would be the case , why would bitcasino give him a quick settlement of 48 BTC ? Cause in this case player broke clearly the T&C ,  so all winning funds would be confiscated.

Because unfortunately it looks like it's a pretty common practice ,  they don't have a reason to ban a losing player . Only when one wins some huge amounts that's when   , country restriction , kyc , age restrictions and other stuff come in place.

As yahoo said , these are purely speculations on my side ,   though it's just what makes sense at this point , after 0 information by bitcasino , or the winning player after this sudden agreement.

Also one of the reasons I'm inclined to believe that they've asked him not to say anything about the agreement is that if the user admits in public he's from an restricted country on bitcasino's T&C list ,  they bitcasino could face serious legal issues . As they allowed the player to play , as they've made an agreement with him etc.

Injustice is profaned.. double edged sword!

They are fairly unfair with the decision they took with the winner.

what if they didn't know? idk what's Bitcasino stance on the use of VPN or Tor but some casinos/sportsbook allow users to use them, if LAngel was using one of these to hide the real IP and access the casino, well, as soon as the Bitcasino support asked for KYC, they found out LAngel's real location and it turned out to be a restricted country

then again, this is just speculation

They wouldn't know the person's real identity till KYC is verified.
He could be bypassing the restrictions through VPN..

Double-edged sword.

No one ever thought that one can win 171+ BTC from 0.035 BTC. So, casinos keep sucking the money of users that's how I am making sense from this.

The user played with 5700x return which means the chance of winning was too low. The bet amount was $250. He risked himself a lot. If he played 1000 times and lost $250000, would Bitcasino give him back $50000 or even $5000? I doubt they would. It's gambling. I don't see any reason to settle up such a win. It's untrustworthy behavior in my opinion.

Thanks for opening the thread. After seeing the thread on gambling section my expectation was to see a proper solution but now i am completely surprised. I can tell you that no one will get full payment after making a big win on bitcasino. Isn’t it a complete injustice?      

Bitcasino is running their platform for a long time and they have good reputation in the market. It doesn’t mean that they will take all decision from their end. There should be a valid reason for the settlement they done with that user.
 
Why they are trying to hide the real story from everyone ?  

Completely agree with you and hope they will give a valid explanation about it.    

Let's assume what AlexSimon is saying is true. If the user was from a country where gambling is illegal or something like that. If the casino knows he is from a restricted country, why allow him to deposit and play?

Deposit should be blocked/refunded and user not allowed to play. Allowing him to play and win big, then take 2/3rds of his winnings away is pretty nuts.

This is pure speculation at this point, but not much more we can think without a statement from the site rep.

This will leave a huge black spot on their reputation , and to be fair right now it's deserved.

Here's why I think the user was from an restricted country on bitcasino knew about it ,  thus their fast , non disclosed agreement  :
1. It was obvious the player was a high roller ,  so that means he's been on their radar since he started playing , it's a common practice for casinos to keep track of their whales and keep them happy .

2. If it was actually an exploit  , and the player took advantage of it  : bitcasino wouldn't have paid him anything !  Or even if he would have gotten a bug for it , it wouldn't have come anywhere close to the 48 btc. Maybe more in the lines of 0.2-0.3 btc.

3.  The period from the time KYC was asked , to coming to an agreement , was maybe less than 48 hours ?  Every other similar case , was never resolved in this small amount of time , literally these cases ( from examples we see here on bitcointalk , askgamblers etc ) take at least 5-10 days .  So literally the player passed the kyc , went through the security check + established an agreement with them in under 48 hours ?   In most cases players wait days/weeks for 20,000$ worth , so can't imagine they got 480,000$ green lighted so fast.

4. And most importantly , user agreed quite fast to the settlement , no one in their right mind will give up on 1,300,000$ worth of money , after 24 hours .
   But since user knows he was restricted to play there from the start / bitcasino knew this aswell , they had to come to an agreement not to have this thing blow out of proportion.



Just my 2 cents.... I might be competely wrong , but honestly for me this makes perfect sense.

Absolutely!
I think I am more into knowing if the winner was forced technically to settle for this amount. I even PMed him asking this but no response yet. I believe this is a matter which needs to be answered in public since IT IS public now.