Topic: ★★★ Bitcoin Video Casino ★★★ - ||| Over 500 BTC in Progressive Jackpots! ||| - page 50. (Read 143509 times)

First post ever here...  I was prob down like 10k between all my user names...

About 20 minutes ago... yeah a screen shot would've been easier



Still waiting on the cashout

I do believe you should arbitrate the issue with a trusted user on the forum or within the community.

I don't see either sides coming to an agreement, and I believe the matter should be viewed and decided upon by a 3rd party. I can understand both sides of the argument here.

Unibtc.4real definitely seems sketchy and I feel that he is 99% guilty, but I have to give him the reasonable doubt. I believe cheaters and exploiters should be punished, but only if we know without a doubt that they are the culprit.

Going forward, as Dooglus said, maybe a re-design of the system to prevent this manipulation in the future?

If he's stolen your coins, he's stolen your coins. You don't get to give him any options.


Those sites are a joke. The reviews are way off base. I saw one where the reviewer was talking about having played poker on PrimeDice. I think they must be paid reviews by a competitor site deliberately discrediting the competition. Check the other reviews by the authors who reviewed this place and you'll find they had similarly horrible experiences everywhere else they played too.

hey ppl, bitcoin minefield admin here, just letting you know that Unibtc4real tried a double spend on my site too.
just in case anyone is unsure about if he is legit or not.

My opinion:

I'm looking at unibtc.4real signature address 1Uni1bGoEeDfdW2skwv2JihHrnrJe5RQf

All sent transactions here
https://blockchain.info/address/1Uni1bGoEeDfdW2skwv2JihHrnrJe5RQf?offset=0&filter=1
Mostly are .0002 fee, sometimes .0004 fee when many inputs.  So perhaps an older version of electrum which uses a .0002 btc/1kb default fee.

It is very inconsistent and shady to have such a low fee 0.000001 when you never customized your fee before.

Interesting that you prepared a defense for this already when nothing was mentioned about about location.



This is inconsistent on how you felt before:




Agree with dooglus here, no legitimate honest customer would be fine in parting ways if they were indeed scammed. Only a double spender would be happy to get back the deposit.

The fact that he will actually not give my whole btc back including the winnings since it will make him stupid and that according to previous history of the site,they never actually give back any btc they have stolen (basing on the reviews i found on the net), so im giving him the option to just give my deposit back, a 4 btc loss is better than a 14btc loss.

Basing on different scam reviews i found against them, its not the first time this has happened.
http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.bitcoinvideocasino.com
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/bitcoinvideocasino.com

You also can't reason out the location since i do use vpns to log and play on different sites.

I really hope this will get fixed soon.. And like you said from your previous replies, i think its good to require 1 confirmation for deposits like other casinos do.

The features I'd like to see OR improved are the following:

1. Deposit balance needs 1 confirmation. These days, 1 confirmation sometimes takes ages for bitcoin network to confirm. I'd like to see an instant credit even with 0 confirmation. Alot of gambling sites do this with no issues.

give back my deposit of 10btc since i never lost that at all and we can part ways

In reading through the thread, this comment struck me as unfair:


This isn't true. Fees are only required if the priority of the transaction is too low. You can figure around 1 "BTC day" of input weight as the threshold.

unibtc.4real's deposit has 3 inputs worth around 18 BTC in total, each about 4 hours old. That gives a weight of around 3 BTC days which should be plenty to qualify as a fee-free transaction.

While it seems strange that unibtc.4real is using the exact same fee as the attacker, it strikes me that they both may have just used something like the "frugal fee" box on blockchain.info's wallet webapp. It has been a long time since I used it, but from what I remember it has predefined fee settings. If the fee both these guys used corresponds to a preset in a popular wallet app then this looks much less suspicious.

The main thing that raised my suspicions wasn't any of the points you made, but this:


If I was falsely accused of cheating, there's no way I would propose settling for just my deposit back. "I risked my coins and won, dammit! Pay up!" would be my attitude.

I don't envy you the position you find yourselves in now. You don't want to let the scammer get away with it, but you also don't want to punish an innocent player. I guess the solution here is to either stop accepting zero-conf deposits or at least restrict the range of deposits you credit instantly. Maybe insist on a certain fee, only offer instant deposits up to a certain size, limit it to accounts with a certain betting volume, etc.

We are presenting our side of the story and hoping that the community can help resolve this issue.

The transaction has a very miners low fee of only 0.000001  BTC, which means that it will generally take a long time for the transaction to get confirmed.

I can only see three  things that will end this, one, you unlock my balance let me play normally like any other players, two, give back my deposit of 10btc since i never lost that at all and we can part ways.. or three, i will have to live to the fact that 10 btc was stolen from me, and you will have to live to the fact that you have stolen 10btc from someone you wrongfully accused. and ofcourse negative feedback..

BitcoinVideoPoker - I must say I find it disturbing you are so revealing about your user's activities on your site.  Do you not have a privacy policy?  Or do you ignore privacy if you feel you are being scammed?  

BitcoinVideoPoker - I must say I find it disturbing you are so revealing about your user's activities on your site.  Do you not have a privacy policy?  Or do you ignore privacy if you feel you are being scammed?  

Your Personal Information Using this website is completely anonymous. We do not collect any personal data, so we therefore have no personal data to give out. Our web server may sometimes record your IP address in its log files; however, we do not make use of that information and it will never be given out to anyone.

I will try my best to show what we know regarding Unibtc4real's account.

First things first, cheating is absolutely not allowed on this site. If you get caught cheating, you lose your account and all coins. We are very clear about that in the terms of service. We never cheat our users, and expect the same in return.

Below is an example of a recent double spend on BVC:

https://archive.is/hR49i

The 2.1 BTC was sent to 16nuq6EU9wRgpXK9BLN1iz5hEWb2Xg966o which is a deposit address on our site. The transaction has a very miners low fee of only 0.000001  BTC, which means that it will generally take a long time for the transaction to get confirmed.

However, this is the transaction that actually got confirmed:

https://archive.is/T1lGY

This new transaction has a higher miner's fee, and because it made it into the blockchain, it invalidates the first transaction.

This means that the user was able to credit his account on our site, play the games on our site, and then invalidate the transaction as though it never happened.

The reason why the user decided to try to invalidate the first transaction is that he played a single 2.1 BTC game of Dice and then lost. He can then revert the transaction and get his coins back. If he were to win in that game of Dice, he just lets the original transaction continue until it confirms and eventually he can withdraw his winnings.

In the past few days we were able to find quite a few double spend attempts with similar deposits, mostly coming from a handful of addresses. We were able to stop most of the attacks by making it impossible for the user to withdraw his winnings.

A lot of the double spend attacks were coming from this particular address:

https://archive.is/5bTKf

If you follow through some of the transactions you can see that blockchain.info is declaring them to be double spends.

So, we know without a doubt that some accounts were used for double spends. We can then compare these invalid accounts with the account that unibtc4real claims is legitimate, to see what similarities there are. If there are enough similarities, it should then be possible to associate this account with all of the other illegitimate ones, and declare this to be an attempted double spend.

I will list those similarities now:

=======

The double spend accounts all used a tiny 0.000001 BTC miner's fee. Unibtc4real's account also used a 0.000001 BTC fee.

The double spend accounts were created around the same time as Unibtc4real's account.

The double spend accounts played Dice, betting the full balance in giant bets. The double spend accounts would bet 10+ BTC in single bets. Unibtc4real's account also played dice for enormous bets. His account has giant bets for 11, 12, 13+ BTC. It is rare (and risky!) for our users to make such giant bets on our site. The reason for doing this in a double spend attack is to quickly win or lose the coins so that you have enough time to undo the transaction if you lose.

The double spend accounts mostly played Dice with about an 80% chance of winning. Unibtc4real's account also played Dice at the 80% win setting.

The double spend accounts sent me emails as two different people saying that their funds were locked. However, I was able to see that they are the same person, since both of those double spend accounts were funded by 18zRryZwo7KefNGiFM5SLBsMVZA4TPwaLd . So the double spend user has no problem sending emails pretending to be someone else. Unibtc4real also sent me emails saying that his funds were locked, but he accidentally used two different email accounts with two different names, despite the conversation continuing as though he were the same person. So the double spend users and Unibtc4real both switch between different aliases.

The double spend emails were sent at 7:56 and 8:27 am (EST). Unibtc4real sent his emails at 7:46, 8:02, and 8:51. So if you sort the timing of the emails, you get 7:46, 7:56, 8:02, 8:27, 8:51. These times are all very close to each other, and could imply that it is the same person writing all emails within the same timespan.

=======

Each single piece of evidence is not strong enough to claim that Unibtc4real's account is associated with with the double spenders (the accounts that we 100% KNOW were double spending). But taken together, all of these similarities lead us to believe that Unibtc4real's account is controlled by the same person that controlled the double spend accounts.

So that's what we know. Any feedback would be great!

Unibtc4real also sent me emails saying that his funds were locked, but he accidentally used two different email accounts with two different names, despite the conversation continuing as though he were the same person.