Topic: LFC_bitcoin sending PMs to his friends to oppose flag and bribing DT inclusion - page 14. (Read 5768 times)

So you are denying that LFC_bitcoin sent you PM and you did not see an opportunity to be included in his trust list?
https://bpip.org/TrustLog
https://prnt.sc/toyf4g

We can discuss it without flags too but if the thread is used as a reference for a flag then it needs to provide supporting information for it. I have serious doubts about the credibility of the author of the flag and so far all my suspicions have been confirmed so I'm not touching it.

Same here in this thread. The OP insists on discrediting opposition of the flag but it wouldn't have enough support even if nobody opposed it. I've been giving free advice how to fix the flag the whole day

^^
A benefits seeker? A shill of sportsbet.io?
Where do you come up with this shit
If you have seen my threads I promote for both stake and sportsbet.io in offering prizes for becoming a referral on both sites under their affiliate programs.Is it not allowed to promote for affiliate programs all the sudden now on the forums?
I support sportsbet.io because I have used the site, have won several times and had no issues cashing out on their site. So I favor them as a sportsbetting site that I like to use and have won a prize once and a while. So I do not see ayn harm in supporting a flag that opposes putting down a site I am active on and enjoy the service they provide.
So with this thread you are basically threatening people on what option they have on a flag.
That is utter nonsense. And all your deductions of your observations are just pure speculation and should not be taken with any truth to them.

May be because of my alt account you are not taking my posts in account and missing information. I hope I posted it from my main account but sorry I have my reasons to have this alt account anonymous.


In Wall Observer LFC_Bitcoin, El duderino_ are very close friends. Here you will find the other guy - BitcoinGirl, in the post he confessed that he received PM and the edited post (cut off part) clearly had LFC_bitcoin asking to oppose the flag. efialtis has screenshot available.

Look up post history of rdbase and see some of his posts. LFC_bitcoin knows he is a benefit seeker from sportsbet.io. See the thread he manages for sportsbet.io although they do not pay him. Plus rdbase is also fairly close to LFC_bitcoin in Wall Observer.

So El duderino_ does not have a paid signature but good guy can not deny the request from his friend.
rdbase saw an opportunity to gain some trust and accepted the bait from LFC_bitcoin and it worked. https://bpip.org/TrustLog
The other guy possibly could not connected his reasonings with LFC_bitcoin although they are good friends so he wanted to stay neutral but made the mistake of mentioning his friends in his innocent post.

DireWolfM14 may have some sense of humor but possibly he is sold because of the weekly payment he receives from SB so he really needed to save his ass by opposing the flag. Plus, this is very much possible that LFC_bitcoin sent him PM to support sportsbet.io

The rest other guys are clearly no way weight any value, they are fake users and not bringing any value to the forum except milking from signature campaign of sportsbet.io and bitcasino (both are same company), check their post history if you do not believe me. It was not very hard for LFC_bitcoin to convince them to oppose the flag by the PM he sent to them.

Ask LFC_bitcoin about how many PMs he sent to oppose the flag although I doubt he will tell you the truth.

May be the victim guy made mistake by creating type 3. One could suggest him to create flag 2. This way we do not see members are arguing with the wording of a flag instead of supporting or opposing it. First time I saw a clear mention of correct flag type.

I edited the thread title to LFC_bitcoin sending PMs to his friends to oppose flag and bribing DT inclusion
The bribing is a very silent work he is doing. Oppose the flag, the user finds his inclusion, speaks against sportsbet.io case, the user finds his distrust.
He also send a counter positive feedback which he deleted later to support his sportsbet.io employers.

Ok that's why I don't support the flag myself (the written contract part, not the amount), but I also think the matter should be dealt with. The post you linked was all about the amount.

I would have had no problem in supporting a type 2 flag.

I have the feeling we spend more time commenting if the right flag was used for the sake of the argument than actually discussing the matter, which could ultimately benefit the alleged perpetrator. Pitty.

I think the amount should be stated correctly. The dispute is about 271 mBTC.

There is also the inability of the alleged victim to produce a written contract supporting their statements, so using type 3 for this flag is also likely incorrect. I asked that question a few times and all I got back was some hypothetical doomsday scenario. A written contract flag should be bulletproof.

not surprised by this admission.  after all the shit stirring you are providing, You dont even have a dang clue on the matter.   the true definition of a SHIT POSTER everyone.

You are right about #1 my bad, wasn't watching the flag in 'dt-mode'.

I don't get your point about it being invalid?

If one says, take 30% of what I owe you or get lost, they are trying to steal only 70% of that amount? This is semantics and changes nothing about the matter.  The order of magnitude being the same.

I guess you noticed 271 + 102 = 373 mBTC, so we are all talking about the same thing here. I don't think after reading the story that there would be any misunderstanding about that.

I myself didn't support the flag, because I still hope sportsbet will answer and give some elements showing they do this in full respect of the law and their own T&Cs without abusing their power in saying the user failed KYC for no particular reason.

I mean even if the user was like from a country where SP is not supposed to be operating, what would have happened if it was the other way around, I mean if the net amount in the users account was lower than the deposits. Would SP still refund the entire deposits? If yes I'd be fine with their decision, in that particular case of KYC failure, if not it's not very fair, is it?

---

Thanks for the clarification

This:
I guess I'm just tired of the DT-drama.
But you're right, the rest of the post (and the posts he made after this) isn't worth it. Although I also use Merit as "this post says a lot about the writer", and in that case it fits well again.

Is there even an allegation that neymarjr12 did this? If not, I would classify this as speculation(or even something less), although this may be one legitimate reason to prohibit multi-accounting.

I want to know what specifically neymarjr12 is alleged to do to cause harm to SB.

Yeah what a travesty... people discussing something on a discussion forum. Unlike shit-stirring noobs like you, who pop up just to waste everyone's time. Get lost.


If we're talking about the flag - that's not true, unless you know something I don't. rdbase has a bustadice signature and El duderino_ doesn't have a paid signature. Meanwhile on the supporting side we have two users with signatures of other gambling sites (potential competitors?) and a bunch of game-protect alts and only one DT member. The flag simply doesn't have enough support and is likely invalid to begin with.

Good observation on this @OP: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54874768

But if you would post it from your main account then it could weight more. People don't show much respects to newbie alt account, and they do not take their words seriously.

Go away vispilio. This is way above your level.

Very interesting how people keeps using accounts with 0 posting history here.

Not sure what LoyceV found to merit...

Why would he accept the .12 vs the full amount if he actually believes he is right? I mean I don't actually know who is right or wrong here, but he does deserve an answer and a fair treatment.

If casinos are able to get away with 'the user failed kyc' it sets a dangerous precedent.

How did I miss this thread? Fuck I won't be able to sleep this night.  

Btw, wtf is a askgamblers? I've been around nearly for a decade and I hear about them only today. :/

I believe OP mentioned my name here due to the trust list. However, since my name mentioned here so I will clear about PM. No, I haven't received any PM from LFC_Bitcoin or Sportsbet as well regarding the support or oppose flags. I can't recall if I had chat with LFC_Bitcoin via forum PM. On the other hand, I haven't look into the case deeply so I can't judge anything right now. Due to lack of time sometimes it's not possible to reply to some accusations, also sometimes all DT members wouldn't interested in all cases, especially those who are not well aware of gambling like me.

Honestly LFC,

I dislike, on principle, the fact that

- all DT opposition is receiving payment from SB. I'm not saying, receiving SP doesn't allow you to have an opinion, but 100% is alarming.
- That you included several members in your trust list just after they opposed the flag. Maybe you took the time to review all of them and thought to yourself you like their judgment, but once again, that's not how it looks.


All your argument is based on the fact that SP says the user failed KYC. But once again, it's just their voice against the users. Bitcoin stands for transparency, this feels a lot like obscurancy/despotism.

I'm quite surprised that SP refuses to share why he failed KYC. It would cost them 0, and make all this noise and potential reputation harming story go away. This is the only reason I believe there is more to it, but again I can be wrong.

We need transparency, specially in crypto, and on this matter we have 0. And I find this sad, even more when you want to be N°1 like Sportsbet.

Once again, I'd love SP to show us that they are right to deny the full refund, but they aren't for some reason.

---

OP are you also a paid sportsbet campaign member? Because in any other case I don't see how using your main account would do you any harm. The only possibility is that your main account has big trust issues.

I'm not supporting the flag, but I'm also not comfortable with how the flag got supported by LFC and the brand new DT2 resulting of his trust list changes. I will change my trust list accordingly.

Free bets, promos, deposit bonus was already mentioned in the other thread I think. I will give you an example, how you could cheat the Multimaster Promo with heavy multi-accounting:


Source: https://sportsbet.io/promotions/weekend-multi-master

You have 15³ = 3375 different combinations, minimum stake 0.1 mBTC, so total stake 337.5 mBTC. But you will win 3000 mBTC every weekend (if no one else does the same)

---

Take 100% first deposit bonus. You deposit 100,- and get 100,- on top. You do this with multiple accounts and always place opposite bets on these accounts. The one account plays "over", the other "under". One account will be empty, but the other has double the amount. Onto the next account. Rinse and repeat, until rollover requirement is done and you can withdraw more than you deposited into all these accounts.

---

Some bookies don't want you at their site no more. My account at Sportsbet is limited to ridiculously low amounts, I have no price boost anymore, even my max bet button is gone. They want to get rid of me and achieve that by making my account unusable. If multi-accounting was allowed, they couldn't get rid of me (or not that easy), since I could just open new accounts all the time. This is industry standard and they have all the right to do it. I am ok with it, though it's a bit annoying always I must confess, but nothing I can do.

I totally agree with you, there are several events noted from same DT users you are concerned of in the past to manipulate trust lists and other persons view's via sending PMs, this even includes threading user's to kick out from DT in one way or another. You would be interested to know how Lauda would do this !

Many changes to trust lists indeed and I am doing none of these for "revenge" - I explained myself often enough and the people I distrusted know exactly why I am doing this - The whole "situation" is now two things:

1) Sportsbet's unprofessional behavior is alarming (I can live with people not 100% supporting or opposing)
2) Hypocrisy like pm'ing several users to oppose a flag (even ones that have absolutely no clue about gambling), manipulating trust lists, becoming extremely arrogant as if they were something better, actually lying in several occasions

I can not trust in such people's judgement.

- By the way - some food for thought here - it wouldn't be the first time the guys running sportsbet & bitcasino would act "shady" - don't believe? Head over to any reputable gambling forum (business as well as player forums) and ask - you may be surprised.

- Anyone trying to make me look ridiculous as for "PM'ing users to oppose" - There is proof of that and if that's not enough - there is also lots of proof the guys running this thing have been doing this for a long time - proof available, too.

- You might also be surprised to see what kind of messages I have received from Sportsbet in the past with regards to posts I made (not a lamer so I am not going to share publicly but don't get hypocrites plz. The people I am referring to know exactly what I am talking about and just in case, I have also saved these messages.

It is not like I made this whole thing up out of the blue when I first read neymarjr's accusation - again, any reasonable person should realize that you can't act like that if you are Sportsbet (who like to think they are the most reputable bookie out there)