Topic: Fortunejack turning into KYC hell trap! (Read 1179 times)

I do expect forum members to have a bit of leeway when it comes to situations like these.
Bitcointalk is a place where these companies market their product in a more direct way - and we are in constant communication with their representatives.

I don't expect us to have a different set of rules - but I do hope that the bookies understand that a person from BTT forum will be less likely to do KYC than a random Joe that saw the ad while shopping.
If I had such an issue with Sportsbet for example, I'd contact Steve for sure and expect him to solve it for me.

My comment was generic, it was not specific to FortuneJack or specific to your situation with them.

If customers are asked for KYC upon signing up it means they are probably going to find resistance but if they allow customers to sign up but implement KYC later it means even if the customers walk away without sending in their private details they will end keeping funds belonging to that customer.

A fair way for all businesses to operate would be allowing customers the option to withdraw funds and close the account if they do not want to send KYC and continue as a customers.

I'm not going to go through BitcoinGirl.Club's post history but regarding his feedback, he has one positive, one negative (retaliatory) and two neutral ones saying that his account was hacked in the past and returned to its original owner, so I don't know what you see wrong with that.

I wouldn't want us to go too off topic with this. Regarding your case, as I have commented I think there is an unstoppable trend to more and more KYC, but it would be much fairer if you were asked for it at the beginning. As much as it is in the TOS, the fact that certain houses only ask for KYC when you win a certain amount of money does not look good.

Thank you for support.
I am not asking anything from fj, but I am really disappointed with behavior of some bitcointalk members.
Some people probably have mash potatoes instead of brain in their skull, if they don't understand why I started this topic.

It looks like a trick trap to me, but I would understand if this rule was applied for cheaters and people who try to abuse casinos, not for casual gamblers.

It's all legal and done by the books, and fj is not controlling any funds after it goes to their legal team and third party partner.
Nobody ever asked who is this third party partner asking for kyc, but I guess it's nothing...  

I am not trying to make anyone look bad so this is baseless accusation against me,
but you should do something better in your life instead of posting so many times in this topic and supporting random KYC.
Judging by feedback and history you have on your profile you should not be trusted about anything you say.

Well, I don't think it's an insult calling him a "humanoid", given this quote below lol
And I am not blaming him for any of my troubles. I am just calling him for what he is.


@BitcoinGirl.Club, to save you the time and effort of being so obsessed about me, since you're a lowlife with nothing better to do, you're now on my ignore list.

Wouldn't it be funny? It's a forum not a gambling resolution center. Precisely it's bitcointalk not gamblingresolutiontalk. Does this go into your head?

If this is for only forum members then you are making different low for a certain community which shouldn't be. But yeah a clear KYC direction for any casino will be good. But mind that casinos are abide by their terms and conditions. These conditions actually made to favor them so they can get away with anything in most of the cases.

In this particular case KYC is not the problem but the OP's denial and making it a big issue to make FJ look bad.

Their behaviour is highly suspect. By not using your account they triggered a KYC requirement therefore it sounds like another excuse to seize customer funds that are sitting there.

I feel your frustration from the manner in which you expressed it strongly. I have to agree, a very large portion of the KYC implementation is effectively selective scamming because the businesses involved are fairly sure a small number will send KYC documents while a bigger number will let their account and funds be seized.

It is supposed be all about jurisdiction, some websites are operated in place where KYC will be mandatory but many of these websites are not even legally registered as LLC/LTD themselves and their ownership is anonymous yet they use the KYC excuse to happily seize funds. Regarding the 2FA issue, those websites forcing customers are making a mistake they should allow customers to decide their own level of security and in many cases people want to provide as less information as possible to various websites.

With more and more regulation going on in crypto within the mainstream it is different (such as sports sponsorship) because they it will be enforced but the small websites that is using crypto where there is no need or requirement for KYC there should be a heavy movement against it.

If websites ask for KYC upon signing up it is up to the customer whether to join. If the websites asks for KYC after funds have been won/traded/deposited then the customer should be allowed to withdraw them and subsequently have their accounts closed if they do not want to send KYC.

This is perhaps fantasy, but if the UN actually had an enforcing body, perhaps they could make rules about crypto currency bridges which exchanges would have to follow.

No, there is no worldwide law, what we do have are AML procedures and legislation accepted by most countries in the world and an increasing collaboration of all, including many of those that a few decades ago were tax havens with these procedures.

Specifically I believe that in the crypto world this is going to happen more and more, as it is already happening, and I can also believe that in some cases certain sites take advantage of it.

 

This thread is about selective KYC..
It is basically the same exact situation with a different company, and is happening to many many companies, almost all of them, all almost exactly the same way, to likely thousands upon thousands of users across the crypto world, and I can only guess how many users just choose to forfeit their coins instead of jumping through all these hoops...

Much of this discussion is about this topic and the ethics thereof..

Is their some worldwide law forcing all of these companies to do this?
Or did they all just learn a dirty little trick, that some will support, that they can use to keep some percentage of users coins?

Hi buddy. This thread is about Fortunejack. Are you sure this is the right thread to post that? I believe it would be better if you create a thread about nicehash with this post.

Damn nicehash hit me with KYC because I haven't used my account in a while!?

"Your account is labelled as inactive. Due to our internal security policy, we instruct our users with sleeping-inactive accounts (accounts that weren’t used for several months) to complete the KYC procedure. This procedure enables us to diligently detect and prevent any malicious or unlawful use or use prohibited by our Terms of Service.”

How the hell does KYC protect my account because I haven't used it in a while?
KYC me because of inactivity?

I'll say it..

THIS IS SELECTIVE SCAMMING!


You know what the last thing Cryptsy did in desperation to slow down withdrawals when the gig was up and they were running out of funds?
Enforce KYC for WDs ofcourse..

Times are tough in the crypto industry.. This selective scamming could be what's saving them from bankruptcy by the skin of their teeth..

And they won't even reply..


If I had many miners on different IPs all over the place looking like a botnet then maybe, but I have only ever had ONE miner on this account!
I have also never used their exchange or anything other than sell a tiny bit of hash..

Pisses me off too..
I haven't KYCd with them.. Yet.. Not sure if I ever will either..

Spent a lot of time earning a tiny bit of satoshis mostly for fun, because I like crypto, and they try to keep it..
As if they didn't make enough off of their cut..

These places know well that most people aren't going to KYC for a few bucks and that's money in their pocket..


This is why crypto is going to shit.. Especially "influential" crypto community members coming to threads like this supporting this BS..
I bet you support all laws everywhere and just want more and more laws all the time don't ya?
Bet ya wish you'd go to jail for not using only your 1 assigned public key too..

OMG people might launder money and avoid taxes!! How EVIL!




Shit isn't even $50!

Oh yeah and now they force me to use 2FA too to even log in and see my not even $50 that my account couldn't even WD if it tried!
["my not even $50" - ahem excuse me.. my account entry on their centralized ledger that says I have something on deposit. - Not your keys, Not your coins!]

You know why?
Another method of selective scamming..
You think if I lose my 2FA I would go through all the BS it takes to get my account back for <$50?
Maybe not.. Many wouldn't..
I'd probably put it off because I'm lazy (just like I am with KYC) and eventually forget about it..
Just another opportunity they use to possibly get to keep your coin!


I liked how coinbase said "your account is quite valuable ... we recommend you use 2FA"..
Ok yeah, probably a good idea to turn that on..

But for <$50?
It's just an unnecessary hassle..



KYC and 2FA...
"He he, lets see how many users don't make it through this maze so we can keep their coins!" (rubs hands together)


I'm with you OP..
This stuff grinds my gears too..
Any excuse not to shell out a single shekel..

I have mixed opinions about this. I am against regulation in bitcoin but I also think they are a good step forward in crypto gambling to protect both parties. Players and casinos alike. And they will prevent cases like OPs or hundreds of others where people have to go thorough checks to get their money and then it turns out they live in a restricted territory, they are underaged, they have had other banned accounts before, or any other rule violations. If these things had been proven during account registration, there would not be so many complaints.

In the past, many gambling sites did not require you to submit any documents. Nowadays it's gotten to the point where every other casino (and now almost every sportsbook) asks for your ID for KYC reasons. There are a few online casinos that are still no-KYC, but their number is very small since centralized entities such as governments and banks want to be able to track all your transactions.
But in my opinion, anonymous gambling (or rather, pseudonymous gambling) is still possible nowadays and I will keep using only gambling sites that don't require KYC info to gamble.

You just summed up perfectly the trend that I have commented on in other threads regarding privacy. We are coming from the far west of Bitcoin, as The Pharmacist has mentioned, and we are heading towards more and more regulation and control.

KYC requirements at crypto casinos are going to become more widespread and tougher in the coming years. Whoever is enjoying casinos without KYC should enjoy it for as long as they can.

And another thing that I think will change in the long run is that of having licenses from tax havens. I played at Pokerstars at a time when it had a license from a tax haven and operated all over the world. Today it has several country specific licenses where if it had not acquired a license from that country it would not be able to operate.

With cryptocurrency casinos it usually happens the same as it used to happen in Pokerstars, although they put in the TOS that they do not accept players from certain countries to cover their backs.

Same here in my country physical casino. All casino here is requiring all the players that entering the premises of the casino to provide valid ID before they can enter and play in the casino. This is due to the new regulations for gambling industry. Actually some casino also ask players for show money with specific minimum amount to make sure that they are really playing inside.

---

I know that this KYC in crypto is really a pain in the ass especially  if you are an old time player in the casino but there ToS clearly states this possibility since the beginning so its really hard to make a case here if there’s a ToS that supporting there action that users agreed upon registration.

The only inconvenience and I really understand on this kind of case was if it happened that you have a balance on the casino by the time this random KYC hits the account.

The NO-KYC casinos and sportsbooks are becoming hard to find. I can understand notblox1's frustration in submitting his personal data that will be stored in a server somewhere that can be hacked or accessed by people working in their support. In the past, we have had incidents where customer data has been hacked, and there were cases where staff accessed and stole data from their place of work. I also wouldn't be comfortable with random people having my personal info and knowing how to find me.

But we can clearly follow a trend here. Binance used to be a place where you could withdraw 2 BTC a day and no one asked you anything. It then became a place where you could withdraw $2.000 daily with no KYC. And now you have to do it immediately after you open a new account otherwise you won't be allowed to trade or withdraw your funds. Sadly, that's the reality. You either accept it and play ball, or you go elsewhere.

By signing up to FJ or any centralized exchange or casino we agreed to terms stating they have the right to ask us to verify our identities. And they sure as hell aren't going to do that in the beginning when you create your account because they will lose a lot of money that way.     

I live in the USA and I have to give my ID everytime I enter the casino. I don't know if that's a mandatory thing all over the USA, but where I live it is mandatory. They don't take your ID to tax you on the gambling but to verify your age and possibly check for warrants. You are the 1 responsible for any taxes on your gambling.

Statement does not compute.

Umm, that might be an issue of because-->therefore rather than a conflict of interest, so I've no idea why you said that.

If the ToS of a casino that you signed up to play on clearly states that you have to, or might have to, submit KYC docs at any time, there's really nothing to complain about if and when they do ask for those docs--or the consequences that result from an inability or unwillingness to provide them.

Goddamn, I'm starting to miss the wild west days of bitcoin already.

It is absolutely possible to require KYC as a requisite of registration; whether that would be a good thing for a casino (or any other crypto-related business) is another matter.  I think it's an awful idea and strongly oppose it, but it could be done--just imagine if a law were passed mandating it, for example.

But hopefully since you don't have to produce a photo ID when you walk into a physical casino in Las Vegas or anywhere else (in the US at least), regulation by governments won't go that far.

I find this debate interesting not so much for the specific case of notblox1, which I regret that he is in this situation, but for the general discussion about the implementation of KYC in casinos and when it should be required.


I think so too, but isn't there a contrary trend in casinos? As far as I remember when I registered on the forum in 2017 KYC was not that common. If it is being implemented more and more by casinos I understand that it is a trend that is going to continue and is in line with AML control and laws around the world.


I also understand that this should be the case.


To me this seems like an emotional response. The only reason I think you're saying that is because it would fuck up business. A lot of people who deposit and gamble (losing money in most cases), if they were made to pass a KYC before depositing, wouldn't do it.
 
That it will probably never happen, well, never say never.

Notblox1 is not the only case. We have seen a few in this section, or I would say it is more common in the Scam Accusations section. Sometimes they are cheaters who use that excuse but this of not asking for KYC if people deposit and lose the money and asking for it when they win above a certain amount seems to me at least ethically questionable.

If instead of having a tax haven licence, FJ had a licence from a European country, with the regulator supervising, it would not act in this way. Most likely scenario it would require KYC upon registration.