Topic: TrustDice.win:💰Bitcoin Casino + Free Spins + Bitcoin blog - page 18. (Read 15216 times)

@Coinbox1, I would like to bring the discussion here as you have announced this today in the 'scam accusations' board:


What actually happened in this case? We (some forum members) have guessed that his bet was rejected by the baccarat game provider as the user placed bets on both hands through two casinos.

---

BTW, I just noticed this thread which was created by you in the January month. I feel sorry for you as you felt pressure both mentally and emotionally. But you should continue to post in the scam accusation thread (related to TrustDice) for the transparency of your casino.

Happy Valentine everyone!

Unfortunately we don't have such an option yet. But if you have any specific suggestions you have all my ears.

TrustDice Team

Happy Valentine to trusdice and their team of management, i am glad to see that this casino already offers fee spin as a bonus for the 14th of February to mark the month of love and to show some love to their community members.

Happy Valentine in advance. Thank you for the Valentine gift from you and the team. We the participants also join you to celebrate the love festival season and period. Is there any bonus for the participants apart from the from soon?  . So far and the long run with Trustdice, I appreciate their good work and trustness in the forum and their casino platform. Keep it up with the good work. Once again happy valentine. One love

Goodday Bitcointalk Community

Celebrate the month of love with a chance to win up to 100 Free spins and more

• 10 / 25 / 50 / 75 / 100 Free Spins
• Free bet: 0.2 mBTC / 0.4 mBTC
• Feb 08 - Feb 22 2023

Anyone can win and play!

You can learn more here: https://trustdice.win/promotions/feb-promo

Happy Valentines

TrustDice Team

Anyone that see the feedback and is ready to check the status of the feedback can check and if the linked thread states resolved in then mean the user is free to make a deal with the casino even though there is a red flag, we have so many reputable members in this forum with the red flag but that does not stop them from proving themselves trustworthy in the forum.
*Not all feedback on the op's profile is necessary or valid we all are aware of the levels of abuse in the trust system.
*While we wait for the feedback to be corrected back to normal by ops who left it on the trust dice profile, that may never happen so at that we have to move on and overlook the feedback.

I didn't see any red flag of now but I don't know if it was there, and what I see on the OP feedback is neutral tag and the trust board. If you see any feedback tag on a user, you can check the causes of the feedback on the users trust system or board. There is a scam accusations on Trustdice in the Scam Accusation Board. So even though it is pure there is an accusation on it. Probably worldofcoins did a mistake on the statement.

Your statement is contradicting itself. You said that you don't have much experience with this casino but you are sure they never faced any issue before? Besides this is not even a red flag but rather just a red trust for an issue that really has grounds since it was not explained well on how late bets are not allowed in the casino. I suggest reading the reference link for the red trust since the author of that thread outlined it well the details of the issue. This case is new so we as a forum user needs a clear explanation from Trustdice on why the account is locked for the late bets/

• [fhttp://tp]BTC
  [/font][/pre][/ftp]

Trustdice its so intresting casino , they have fantastic crash game and cool bonuses  

In fact, they did not fight over their beliefs, but in the problems they faced, they had different arguments and thoughts from each other.
I'm sure no one wants to give in because they only give and rely on their own truth without wanting to find a solution and the real truth.

Pardon me, I got notified that you replied me on this thread yesterday and was intended to reply you right away as I have been drafting and weighting my next action and reply toward that case for a while, even before you posted your latest reply, but I was catching myself up with certain case of a hacked issue on the neighboring thread --it's eleven pages that's quite heavy to digest-- and fell asleep right in the middle of the read. Let it be known to public that my mind and consideration was already made before you post your reply that's addressing and questioning my feedback, so that there's no future impression by you that I'm... obsessed with you, or with tagging you with negative feedback.

In fact, I initially have no intention to reply here and was planning to quote your post to the referenced thread based on the snippet of your answer from the notification that I got. But as it turns out your whole post has a chance of misleading people for my judgment --which I'll admit I played certain part on this misunderstanding--, I have to straighten one specific thing.

I'll divide your post into two parts where I'll post the snipped version --and more case centered-- into the more appropriate thread, and address the situation that's more general and had to be straightened out here, with the point in question marked in red.

Just so everybody is clear and there's no question for my standing for AG, as well as for future reference, when I said "arbitrary platform", i was meaning to say "arbitrator", with regards to this definition:


Not knowingly that there's a difference between the two terms. I owned my language barrier and stand corrected

I have been following this accusation discussions for a while now, and with every sense of responsibility, trust dice has done its best to resolve the situation to the best of its ability.

And to that point their cab be given fair treatment, natural trust is ok, since the casino is up and doing in this forum.

Just to avoid any confusion, we have addressed this in this thread:

Mr. holydarkness,

It is funny that you ask this now. Because right in the beginning you had been told exactly why we cannot publicly show such sensitive information.

So again, just so this is clear: We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours developing mechanisms to combat abusers. By publicly showing these sensitive details as evidence, the abusers lurking for abuse opportunities will figure out ways to beat our mechanism. In fact, this has happened before and we had been burnt.


Tbh, mister, we don't know why you are so obsessed with us. By refusing to update the feedback over a resolved case, you already made your reputation questionable.

By siding with a confirmed abuser according to AskGamblers and calling this most reputable gambling mediator "an arbitrary platform", you made your reputation further questionable.

And now, by pretending not knowing something that you'd been explained to in the very beginning, you are making your reputation more questionable than ever.

But after all, it is your life and your reputation at stake. So if this is how you'd love to spend your life, there is really not much we can do, and we can only wish you good luck with your life.

This is our last message to you Mr. holydarkness. Involving in this kind of conversation with you isn't in line with our code of conduct. We would appreciate if you can leave this thread alone to forum members who are genuinely interested in our product, but since this is a public forum in a free world, well, guess we can only hope.

We wish you happiness in your life.

Best,
TrustDice Team

Sometimes they are more concerned about the behavior of the casino more than the result itself. A casino may have solved the case but how they reacted in a particular situation can draw criticism or appreciation from the community. I feel a neutral tag is warranted in such cases that are solved but you have a strong opinion based on that case.

And as Solosanz mentioned, it's a open forum and anyone is free to give any feedback although DT are more careful because their feedback carry more weight. It would be ideal to solve the problem via direct communication with the DT members and explaining to them.

I've been seeing this Trustdice here on the forum for a long time, it's one of the ones that can be said to be legitimately operating here in crypto gambling. I was a bit curious so I tried to create an account on their platform, and I received bonus rewards as a new member on their platform.

Then what I like is that they also have rewards that are given every week in addition to the free faucets that we can get for free as long as we do the task that they ask us to do. So for me so far, it's 2 thumb's up from me.

Not taking any sides but I have had several cases with stake and sportsbet.io where my bets were reversed because a particular market remained open by mistake and bets accepted did not stand. Now I understand from a player's perspective that it's frustrating to see your bets reversed but it could have been a case of the player taking advantage of the situation as well.

I haven't went through the entire accusation thread but from the feedback title it seems like TD failed to provide evidence to back up the late betting claim which is surprising because it doesn't take much to show the bet placement time and event time.

Anyways I have played here in past so I may play again and the feedbacks don't mean too much to me but TD should have never let this happen for a few thousand bucks.

If you think there's a DT members leaving a wrong feedback you can message them and ask them to revise their feedback or you can create new thread in reputation to give explanation why their feedback are wrong. You can also distrust them in order to reduce their strength in DT network.

Creating such this post doesn't solve anything, so if there's no one judge their feedback, it mean everyone are agree with the negative feedback.

In the spirit of justice since both of them have their issues resolved they should do the needful by removing the tag since leaving them at this point make their feedback wrong since the problem mentioned is already solved by the trustdice team.

And regardless if the members are on DT or not a tag is a tag anyways and once given for a specific reseason it should be reviewed from time to time if and when the issues are resolved.

Hello, I will shows a good gesture by pretending that you missed my standing and opinion for the tag which I wrote here


And to fulfill your wish to be more in line with the community spirits and forum rules, I'll replace the tag to reflect a more accurate reference, Poika5's case.

If people probably missed the entire case, Poika5's case is indeed also marked as solved by AG, but it was not before Poika5 can give their defense, and Poika5 has to resort back to this forum to give their defense here. Wrong thread, I know, and I've told them about it, but they haven't been online since last week, not sure if they gave up or got caught red handed and hide, and we'll probably will never know as Coinbox1 wouldn't share their evidence here, or addressed the counter-defense by Poika5.

Again, yes, AG had marked this situation as solved, but that's one of the downside of an arbitrary platform, the decision is made by one person instead of the public eyes and opinion, we can't be sure how accurate and unbiased their decision are --no disrespect to AG, just stating my opinion-- especially as Poika5 actually still have things to say, so the ticket on AG probably was prematurely closed.

So, my standing is still the same. I'll be more than happy to revoke my tag if you can address the concern properly. Meanwhile, I'll change my feedback with the more accurate reference so it won't be "misleading" and repost Poika5's last saying to the more proper thread so you can address it properly. Rest assured, I am just, if you didn't give me any reason to tag you, I won't, and I am more than eager to remove the tag, so please give me a reason to do it.

As a side note, the other case marked as solved is not actually solved per se... wait, I'll just requote myself of what I said about this: