There are possibilities that some casinos are really doing the same, that if they don't want to pay the winning of the gambler, they can make accusations to suspend all of the accounts and give out nothing. But if that is the case, they should also watch all other players to be fair, basically strengthening their surveillance to their database to already prohibit players to play with multi accounts even before they lose a lot or win huge amount.
In addition, KYC will not solve the problem, if they will perform countless KYC and they still have TOS relating to multiaccounts detection that relies in IP address, I can say, these countless KYC will be disregarded.
Topic: Multi-accounts, the industry-standard and KYC. (Read 652 times)
1) Open a Crypto Casino.
2) Make unreasonable TOS, (nobody reads them anyway)
3) Pump money into a signature campaign
4) Give all payouts in the first year.
5) Borrow from banks if you go bust.
6) Once you have made a name for yourself, Use those TOS to Profit for life. Why settle for the house edge? When you can fuck with the players and scam them with TOS which they have happily agreed to? At this point anyone who will try to accuse you, nobody will believe them. Since you have already paid out in millions, Scamming a few thousand dollars which will cover your cost of hosting for a year would be "peanuts" for your loyal signature army who will standby to defend you. I mean why pay from your profits when you can fuck someone over?
7) Send some those shiny BTCs my way: bc1qzl3rnls6zfzsqnm7wwrg0y0ruuz6ge9cc6r3pv
This was sarcasm incase someone doesn't gets it.
At this point it is beyond obvious, I gave the Sportsbet.io thread a read @tyKiwanuka. It's just a mess. If they aren't willing to share how they identify multi-accounts that means their method isn't fool proof and can raise false positives. I just don't like the whole "Trust me" thing. People need to be aware of this stuff before they on goto gamble on these "trusted" books/casions. In the world of cryptos if you can't verify something then it's not something to be trusted, i just don't get why people dont get this...
2) Make unreasonable TOS, (nobody reads them anyway)
3) Pump money into a signature campaign
4) Give all payouts in the first year.
5) Borrow from banks if you go bust.
6) Once you have made a name for yourself, Use those TOS to Profit for life. Why settle for the house edge? When you can fuck with the players and scam them with TOS which they have happily agreed to? At this point anyone who will try to accuse you, nobody will believe them. Since you have already paid out in millions, Scamming a few thousand dollars which will cover your cost of hosting for a year would be "peanuts" for your loyal signature army who will standby to defend you. I mean why pay from your profits when you can fuck someone over?
7) Send some those shiny BTCs my way: bc1qzl3rnls6zfzsqnm7wwrg0y0ruuz6ge9cc6r3pv
This was sarcasm incase someone doesn't gets it.
At this point it is beyond obvious, I gave the Sportsbet.io thread a read @tyKiwanuka. It's just a mess. If they aren't willing to share how they identify multi-accounts that means their method isn't fool proof and can raise false positives. I just don't like the whole "Trust me" thing. People need to be aware of this stuff before they on goto gamble on these "trusted" books/casions. In the world of cryptos if you can't verify something then it's not something to be trusted, i just don't get why people dont get this...
I think it is interesting and quite interesting content.
If I want to state my own opinion about this issue, I would like to say that many businesses that provide gambling services with cryptocurrencies generally say that they attach importance to user anonymity, but they have to use an authentication system to prevent such situations. Instead of refuting their own claims in this way, I think that such services detect multiple memberships using different methods. I also think that although we think we are gambling anonymously, these services actually have a lot of information and data about us.
In short, I think that such services create obstacles to multiple memberships with their own methods, and with these measures they minimize the probability of having more than one membership.
If I want to state my own opinion about this issue, I would like to say that many businesses that provide gambling services with cryptocurrencies generally say that they attach importance to user anonymity, but they have to use an authentication system to prevent such situations. Instead of refuting their own claims in this way, I think that such services detect multiple memberships using different methods. I also think that although we think we are gambling anonymously, these services actually have a lot of information and data about us.
In short, I think that such services create obstacles to multiple memberships with their own methods, and with these measures they minimize the probability of having more than one membership.
Looking from a (FIAT) bookmakers perspective, KYC isn't the holy grail though. The reason to do multi-accounting is mostly for new customers bonuses or some other kind of free money. And because there is quite a lot of free money to get, and people would do a lot to get this money, even bookmakers with strict KYC have to take additional steps to keep multi-accounting at bay.
There are other reasons. I know people who bet on set matches and they have these "patrons" who make money out of it.
The way the system works is they hire people to manage multiple accounts for them, get them all register, bet around for a bit, los a bit of money to make the accounts look legit. Then when the tip comes they are given a lot of money to be distributed among all those fake accounts so that it doesn't look suspicious.
Of course Ip is not enough to decide who is evading a ban or not but KYC doesn't stop multi accounting.
If the main issue is with people using multi-accounts to abuse promotions, then I would much rather use a casino with no promotions than complete KYC.
That's the issue with the alt account issue as far as I can glean from OP's post. Not being a gambler, I had to read it several times before I figured out what the problem is.I also completely agree with your stance on KYC and the dangers of handing over your personal information to crypto casinos. I don't care how good a reputation a casino has, I think it's way too much of a risk to do the KYC procedure.
Imagine this. You are the casino, you establish a case for multi-accounts by merely using IP logs, according to your TOS. Let's say you are running low on the bankroll and some user X wins a large sum of Bitcoins and you can't pay that user out. What you can potentially do is bail yourself out by making a fake case against user X by merely showing countless other accounts which have been made by the same IP address, you could even make fake entries in your database to make an even stronger case for yourself. if you had been running for a few years you won't even have to worry about your reputation as one-off cases usually are dismissed by the community.
Yeah I'd say there's definitely a risk of this happening. If an IPs can't be used to identify the user associated with that IP because many different people could have the same IP address, that's obviously not a legitimate way to link accounts (and I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to computer knowledge, so I'll take you at your word that what you say is true).And you're always at the mercy of the casino's level of integrity. You're absolutely right: a casino with a solid reputation could pull off scams like this once in a while and there probably wouldn't be much of a fuss. One would hope that these crypto casinos follow the rules, but like everything else in this crazy world of cryptocurrency, you just never know.
I understand that we all appreciate our privacy but KYC is not a threath to it, it's actually for our protection too.
For some reason many think they have the right to stay completely anonimous in virtual world although that is not possible in real world. Some want to hide something and some are hiding behind illegal activities.
I think there is a lack of education and culture how to behave online, in virtual world.
Many people will not argue ar all when they have to show their ID in physical casino, bank or whatever place else but they are very angry when online casino asks the same. To be honest, I can't understand that.
For some reason many think they have the right to stay completely anonimous in virtual world although that is not possible in real world. Some want to hide something and some are hiding behind illegal activities.
I think there is a lack of education and culture how to behave online, in virtual world.
Many people will not argue ar all when they have to show their ID in physical casino, bank or whatever place else but they are very angry when online casino asks the same. To be honest, I can't understand that.
This case with Sportsbet is another example that fits quite well into this discussion. And it shows, what a powerful tool KYC can be and how gambling sites can use it to their advantage (not claiming that Sportsbet did it here).
There is multi-accounting and multi-accounting, this is the bottom line. If you are multi-accounting, but always lose all your money, then you are allowed to multi-account. If you are multi-accounting and winning, then you will be a victim of T&C's.
I am 100% sure that every casino/bookmaker knows about a lot of players doing multi-accounting at their sites - and they are fine with it, as long as it's giving them profits. If these players start to win, hit a bigger parlay or request a withdrawal, they can always user their power-tool, so this is a worthwhile, nearly risk-free, business, where you can never prove the operators being guilty.
Even if you choose to voluntarily do KYC once you opened your account, you are not safe from running into trouble in the future.
There is multi-accounting and multi-accounting, this is the bottom line. If you are multi-accounting, but always lose all your money, then you are allowed to multi-account. If you are multi-accounting and winning, then you will be a victim of T&C's.
I am 100% sure that every casino/bookmaker knows about a lot of players doing multi-accounting at their sites - and they are fine with it, as long as it's giving them profits. If these players start to win, hit a bigger parlay or request a withdrawal, they can always user their power-tool, so this is a worthwhile, nearly risk-free, business, where you can never prove the operators being guilty.
Even if you choose to voluntarily do KYC once you opened your account, you are not safe from running into trouble in the future.
I agree that's the problem, a lot of gambling casino only uses their ToS/T&C when they are going to benefit from using them. reading all that you said crypto gambling casino is sounding more like of a gambling trap where you are only allowed to break rules if you are losing money. in the end, it is a win-win scenario for the gambling site. I just wish gambling sites would use their NO multi-accounting rule and other rules even it won't benefit them.
I'm interested in hearing the opinion of you guys. Should these casinos adopt a KYC first policy, the industry-standard? If not then there is nothing stopping them to screw users over and vice versa. Without KYC both are parties are at risk of getting screwed over by each other. The users could find ways to create multiple accounts and casinos can bail themselves out by creating fake cases. So having a KYC first policy does seem to work.
KYC verification will merely add just one extra step to this lucrative type of behaviour from providers. It is a preventative method but it isn't 100% bulletproof.
Casinos can screw its members if they don't want to pay out large amounts and users can always be accused of running multiple accounts, and some can actually do so.
In my opinion there needs to be a different kind of policy in place to prevent this from reoccurring, KYC might not be the best option but perhaps instead some other sort of policy that can protect both parties - I'm not sure what will be the best though!
This case with Sportsbet is another example that fits quite well into this discussion. And it shows, what a powerful tool KYC can be and how gambling sites can use it to their advantage (not claiming that Sportsbet did it here).
There is multi-accounting and multi-accounting, this is the bottom line. If you are multi-accounting, but always lose all your money, then you are allowed to multi-account. If you are multi-accounting and winning, then you will be a victim of T&C's.
I am 100% sure that every casino/bookmaker knows about a lot of players doing multi-accounting at their sites - and they are fine with it, as long as it's giving them profits. If these players start to win, hit a bigger parlay or request a withdrawal, they can always user their power-tool, so this is a worthwhile, nearly risk-free, business, where you can never prove the operators being guilty.
Even if you choose to voluntarily do KYC once you opened your account, you are not safe from running into trouble in the future.
There is multi-accounting and multi-accounting, this is the bottom line. If you are multi-accounting, but always lose all your money, then you are allowed to multi-account. If you are multi-accounting and winning, then you will be a victim of T&C's.
I am 100% sure that every casino/bookmaker knows about a lot of players doing multi-accounting at their sites - and they are fine with it, as long as it's giving them profits. If these players start to win, hit a bigger parlay or request a withdrawal, they can always user their power-tool, so this is a worthwhile, nearly risk-free, business, where you can never prove the operators being guilty.
Even if you choose to voluntarily do KYC once you opened your account, you are not safe from running into trouble in the future.
Personally, I don't see any great harm to an online casino if someone uses multiple accounts. If they are afraid to spend money on additional welcome bonuses, then let them stop giving them out at all.
All these rules and prohibitions often complicate the life of honest players. It will not be difficult for cheaters to connect a VPN or buy someone else's documents in the darknet to pass the KYC.
Therefore, when the casino leaves the rules that they have the right to ban multi accounts, it leaves itself a loophole to ban the player it does not like. Not all casinos use it, but players should be aware of it.
Prelude:
So a few days ago, user @amelik2 created an accusation thread against FJ (Fortune Jack). Claiming that FJ had basically scammed out around 5 BTC from him with a fake case of multi-accounting. Due to some gap in communications, a potential case was being developed. Basically all FJ initially did was replied with a Screenshot of their TOS and bunch of IP addresses which was pretty vague on how they detected multi-accounts.
The initial impression I got by reading their thread was that only IP logs were being used to establish the case for multi-accounting. If you have the slightest bit of knowledge regarding networking or how ISPs work in general you will know that there are a very limited number of IPs out there. Basically we can't have a unique IP address for each and every one of us... Most of the time an IP address is being shared among thousands if not tens of thousands of users and it isn't an optimal way to establish that people are multi-accounting. You can read more about the subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
What I initially thought was that this could be exploited by any casino which has similar TOS, Imagine this. You are the casino, you establish a case for multi-accounts by merely using IP logs, according to your TOS. Let's say you are running low on the bankroll and some user X wins a large sum of Bitcoins and you can't pay that user out. What you can potentially do is bail yourself out by making a fake case against user X by merely showing countless other accounts which have been made by the same IP address, you could even make fake entries in your database to make an even stronger case for yourself. if you had been running for a few years you won't even have to worry about your reputation as one-off cases usually are dismissed by the community. Looks like a lucrative business doesn't it? You keep making money with the house edge and if someone hits a homerun your TOS has got you covered...
So a few days ago, user @amelik2 created an accusation thread against FJ (Fortune Jack). Claiming that FJ had basically scammed out around 5 BTC from him with a fake case of multi-accounting. Due to some gap in communications, a potential case was being developed. Basically all FJ initially did was replied with a Screenshot of their TOS and bunch of IP addresses which was pretty vague on how they detected multi-accounts.
The initial impression I got by reading their thread was that only IP logs were being used to establish the case for multi-accounting. If you have the slightest bit of knowledge regarding networking or how ISPs work in general you will know that there are a very limited number of IPs out there. Basically we can't have a unique IP address for each and every one of us... Most of the time an IP address is being shared among thousands if not tens of thousands of users and it isn't an optimal way to establish that people are multi-accounting. You can read more about the subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
What I initially thought was that this could be exploited by any casino which has similar TOS, Imagine this. You are the casino, you establish a case for multi-accounts by merely using IP logs, according to your TOS. Let's say you are running low on the bankroll and some user X wins a large sum of Bitcoins and you can't pay that user out. What you can potentially do is bail yourself out by making a fake case against user X by merely showing countless other accounts which have been made by the same IP address, you could even make fake entries in your database to make an even stronger case for yourself. if you had been running for a few years you won't even have to worry about your reputation as one-off cases usually are dismissed by the community. Looks like a lucrative business doesn't it? You keep making money with the house edge and if someone hits a homerun your TOS has got you covered...
This paragraphs really caught my attention because it really tackles the importance of having a KYC on most websites that is really usable. Creating Gambling accounts needs to require its users to have some credentials since having gambling accounts means you are playing it by yourself and no one else. Being in a Casino does not mean that you are poor person since you want to GAMBLE and gambling requires money which is why its impossible that you do not have some credentials on yourself. Having multiple accounts is like messing up the system since some websites gives away bonus when you create an account. It also feels much safer playing with users that accomplished KYC requirements since you know that you are playing with actual people since every account is unique.
This case with Sportsbet is another example that fits quite well into this discussion. And it shows, what a powerful tool KYC can be and how gambling sites can use it to their advantage (not claiming that Sportsbet did it here).
There is multi-accounting and multi-accounting, this is the bottom line. If you are multi-accounting, but always lose all your money, then you are allowed to multi-account. If you are multi-accounting and winning, then you will be a victim of T&C's.
I am 100% sure that every casino/bookmaker knows about a lot of players doing multi-accounting at their sites - and they are fine with it, as long as it's giving them profits. If these players start to win, hit a bigger parlay or request a withdrawal, they can always user their power-tool, so this is a worthwhile, nearly risk-free, business, where you can never prove the operators being guilty.
Even if you choose to voluntarily do KYC once you opened your account, you are not safe from running into trouble in the future.
There is multi-accounting and multi-accounting, this is the bottom line. If you are multi-accounting, but always lose all your money, then you are allowed to multi-account. If you are multi-accounting and winning, then you will be a victim of T&C's.
I am 100% sure that every casino/bookmaker knows about a lot of players doing multi-accounting at their sites - and they are fine with it, as long as it's giving them profits. If these players start to win, hit a bigger parlay or request a withdrawal, they can always user their power-tool, so this is a worthwhile, nearly risk-free, business, where you can never prove the operators being guilty.
Even if you choose to voluntarily do KYC once you opened your account, you are not safe from running into trouble in the future.
I completely agree. Completing KYC on exchanges is one thing, but completing it on casinos is something more. Gambling is still viewed in many cultures as somewhat taboo, and even in cultures it is widely accepted, many people wouldn't want their gambling behaviors linked to their real name and details. KYC for gambling seems completely counter intuitive. I also don't think it would particularly solve the issues raised here, for the points I've made above.
For the sake of completeness ... Offline casinos here in Central Europe usually require ID verification before you can enter them. You eg. have to show your passport before you are allowed to turn your money into chips to play. This is should protect addicts from playing 
This measure leads to the fact that your expenses and losses/profits are tied to you as a person. Additionally, casinos use the collected data to protect themselves from fraudsters ... or from people who are considered fraudsters due to lucky streaks
So yeah I still believe, we need to play a part in educating these people... Theymos's course idea comes to my mind when I think about it... There should be a whole board dedicated privacy IMO... how to handle your privacy both online and offline and why it is important.
Don't want to take your thread too off topic here, but I agree. There are a lot of great posts regarding general online privacy and security in the Beginner's board, which isn't really the correct place for them. Some get relegated to Off Topic where they aren't seen by anyone other than spammers. Part of bitcoin's appeal is to stop third parties having control of your money. It is logical that we should also help people to stop third parties have control of their data.I'm also concerned with my privacy and giving it up just to play is I considered not worth it. Privacy is one of the factors why I used Bitcoin in the first place and this kind of rule defeats the purpose of bitcoin.
I completely agree. Completing KYC on exchanges is one thing, but completing it on casinos is something more. Gambling is still viewed in many cultures as somewhat taboo, and even in cultures it is widely accepted, many people wouldn't want their gambling behaviors linked to their real name and details. KYC for gambling seems completely counter intuitive. I also don't think it would particularly solve the issues raised here, for the points I've made above. 
I am really glad someone came up with the point because people are worried that if they speak against the casino they will be treated with harsh statements and if you honestly ask me, any casino that wants to ask ID documents should ask as soon as the gambler registers because if the gambler does loose the money that money should also be count, I mean OP made a valid point as of how the casino can just swallow the money and ask no KYC if the gambler looses or wins small, but if they win big they will be passing through tough KYC process.
This does not make sense to me, either you verify all your gamblers or none. I was reading the thread in scam accusation and actually felt the gambler was robbed but that is just my personal opinion. Some reputed members were on the side of Fortunejack too so we all have different opinions.
This does not make sense to me, either you verify all your gamblers or none. I was reading the thread in scam accusation and actually felt the gambler was robbed but that is just my personal opinion. Some reputed members were on the side of Fortunejack too so we all have different opinions.
The people who would only try to avoid KYC are the ones who are trying to hide their identity because they did something. People with good intentions are most likely to provide their information to any platform without any hesitation and threat against it.
It is more than a little concerning how widely the "I have nothing to hide, therefore I have nothing to fear" argument is believed, when it is utterly nonsensical. There are a hundred reasons why I might want to keep my identity private, despite not doing anything illegal whatsoever. There are a hundred more reasons why I will never hand over my KYC to any crypto exchange, service, wallet, casino, whatever, regardless of how "reputable" or "trustworthy" they are. Having a basic concern for your own privacy and not wanting to have your life ruined from someone stealing your identity does not mean you are inherently doing something illegal or shouldn't be trusted. Governments and three letter agencies push this lie to justify mass surveillance and spying on their citizens. You shouldn't believe it.If you think that only people with bad intentions want to withhold their information, then please post your full name, links to all your social media profiles, email addresses, browser history, and all your passwords here. I want to go through your emails, social media, and history and publicly publish anything I find for all your friends and family to see. If you don't want to do that (definitely don't do that!), then you accept that there are legitimate reasons people might want to hide their identity. Please read my post here for why you should no longer believe this argument: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53499357
Quote from: o_e_l_e_o
That's part of the problem, sure, but another part is that many have little desire to learn.
The way I see it, they don't see cases of stolen identity on the media for that reason alone they might not have the desire to learn about this subject. Let's be honest people only care about things which they have seen on the media or if they hear about it from someone who they 'trust'... When is the last time you heard about a case of stolen identity on media or from a person you trust? The reason why they are spamming for bounties is that they have heard that there is an easy to make money... No one wakes up and gets a revelation about an internet forum where they can make easy money by simply posting on their social media handles... The information is passed on to them and this is what is lacking I believe for the subject of privacy. E.G I had never heard about the case of Anastasia... I haven't even heard about a single case of stolen identity in my entire life so far...
So yeah I still believe, we need to play a part in educating these people... Theymos's course idea comes to my mind when I think about it... There should be a whole board dedicated privacy IMO... how to handle your privacy both online and offline and why it is important... I remember reading an article about Jameson Lopp how he basically created a new identity from scratch... Basically what I am trying to say is we need to talk about it more so more and more people become aware about this subject and I believe bitcointalk can play an essential role in doing that...
The people who would only try to avoid KYC are the ones who are trying to hide their identity because they did something. People with good intentions are most likely to provide their information to any platform without any hesitation and threat against it.
It is more than a little concerning how widely the "I have nothing to hide, therefore I have nothing to fear" argument is believed, when it is utterly nonsensical. There are a hundred reasons why I might want to keep my identity private, despite not doing anything illegal whatsoever. There are a hundred more reasons why I will never hand over my KYC to any crypto exchange, service, wallet, casino, whatever, regardless of how "reputable" or "trustworthy" they are. Having a basic concern for your own privacy and not wanting to have your life ruined from someone stealing your identity does not mean you are inherently doing something illegal or shouldn't be trusted. Governments and three letter agencies push this lie to justify mass surveillance and spying on their citizens. You shouldn't believe it.If you think that only people with bad intentions want to withhold their information, then please post your full name, links to all your social media profiles, email addresses, browser history, and all your passwords here. I want to go through your emails, social media, and history and publicly publish anything I find for all your friends and family to see. If you don't want to do that (definitely don't do that!), then you accept that there are legitimate reasons people might want to hide their identity. Please read my post here for why you should no longer believe this argument: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53499357
The people who would only try to avoid KYC are the ones who are trying to hide their identity because they did something. People with good intentions are most likely to provide their information to any platform without any hesitation and threat against it.
It is more than a little concerning how widely the "I have nothing to hide, therefore I have nothing to fear" argument is believed, when it is utterly nonsensical. There are a hundred reasons why I might want to keep my identity private, despite not doing anything illegal whatsoever. There are a hundred more reasons why I will never hand over my KYC to any crypto exchange, service, wallet, casino, whatever, regardless of how "reputable" or "trustworthy" they are. Having a basic concern for your own privacy and not wanting to have your life ruined from someone stealing your identity does not mean you are inherently doing something illegal or shouldn't be trusted. Governments and three letter agencies push this lie to justify mass surveillance and spying on their citizens. You shouldn't believe it.If you think that only people with bad intentions want to withhold their information, then please post your full name, links to all your social media profiles, email addresses, browser history, and all your passwords here. I want to go through your emails, social media, and history and publicly publish anything I find for all your friends and family to see. If you don't want to do that (definitely don't do that!), then you accept that there are legitimate reasons people might want to hide their identity. Please read my post here for why you should no longer believe this argument: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53499357
Isn't there a regulating body that reviews and approves TOS of gambling sites before they are implemented?
That would be very nice
They can basically write anything in their ToS - but they don't do it. All ToS from bookmakers/casinos are more or less the same; industry standard so to say
And I think those ToS are fine. The bookmaker/casino deserves the right to protect himself against malicious people. The problem is, that they sometimes use their ToS to their advantage and there is not a lot you can do then. There is no "central gambling instance" and sueing the bookmaker is often not worth it. You would have to deal with some offshore jurisdiction and I have the strong feeling, there is a lot of nepotism. These little countries make a lot of money with giving out gambling licenses, but it's just a paper/certificate that means nothing in the end.
I once contacted the Malta Gaming Authority, because I had an issue with a bookmaker that operated under maltese license. Never heard anything back from them, gazillions of emails remained unanswered (and probabaly unread^^). And I suppose it's the same when you try to get in contact with authorities form Curacao, Belize, BVI etc. There some online communities (SBR or Arbusers forums) where you have way better chances to get your case solved somehow.
The people who would only try to avoid KYC are the ones who are trying to hide their identity because they did something. People with good intentions are most likely to provide their information to any platform without any hesitation and threat against it.
Some countries in the EU are forcing a requirement to wear your clear name on the Internet. They argue exactly like you do: "Someone who has nothing to hide can easily post under his real name". I think that's very dangerous, with this line of reasoning, it is very easy to separate "good" from "bad". The only question here is who decides what is good and what is bad. Would you like to post here with your real name? I don't think so
People want to play online anonymously for various reasons. Some are addicted and not allowed to enter casinos anymore, some just don't want to know anyone else that they gamble, some value their privacy as much as possible and don't want to be tracked etc.
Jump to: