Topic: Warning: Directbet selective scam 38+ btc CAUTION - page 6. (Read 7844 times)

Spare me the lecture directbet.eu, as discussed in my pms with you, Ive been in this business for many years.That is not how to make a book, not with those figures you've quoted (topic for another day folks). You might fool the majority here, but not me and not everyone.
 
But to risk your business and brand the way you have just now smacks of desperation and shows how irresponsible you are. I hope you have the funds for payouts when Djokovic eventually wins lol! Oh yeah I forgot. You've got hungers 38 btc to ease the pain.

Mods, I implore you to look into this case. This was a forum that battered quickseller for self escrowing, even though he did not steal a penny (not that I support self escrowing). But it was done on moral grounds. This same forum red trusted members that asked for loans without collateral. So how come you all sit silently and watch directbet.eu walk all over hungerstyle? Is it because he cannot express himself properly? Maybe because he is a newbie? Or is directbet.eu being protected by the powers that be? Fair is fair, the same rules should apply to everyone regardless of rank or stature.

Directbet.eu should be negative trusted until this issue with hungerstyle is sorted.  Someone higher up should step in and take a proper look into this case... With directbet.eu's co -operation off course.

 Directbet.eu cannot and should not be both plaintiff,  judge and jury in a case that it is involved in. This case should be arbitrated by a neutral party and until then directbet.eu should send the 38btc to a trusted escrow on this forum until it is proven beyond doubt that hungerstyle is a scammer and hacker and tried to dupe directbet.eu.

We have not made any manual adjustment to the max bet size, it's completely automatic.

The max bet size fluctuates based on various factors and it usually increases as we approach the event start time.

The reason why the max bet size on Murray is lower is because the odds are higher. The max bet size is determined based on how much you can net profit from the bet up to a maximum of 17.75 BTC. Currently the Match Odds bet on Djokovic and Murray is on the maximum, allowing a net profit of 17.75 BTC (this results in a max bet size of approx. 60 BTC for Djokovic and 7.4 BTC for Murray).

If you are still unconvinced you can check on future high profile events and see that it will be the same. The max bet size increases as we approach the event start time up to a maximum net profit of 17.75 BTC per bet.


The max bet size on Match Odds is usually much bigger than other types of bets.

Lol Lol  Lol!!!!  

Now I am convinced more than ever that you are a corrupt theiving book. Those amounts were adjusted a few minutes ago for the sake of this argument/thread. Anybody with brains between their ears can see through you. How come you have 60 btc on Djokovic but only 7 btc on Murray.  How come all of a sudden you have 60btc available on the one selection I quoted in my previous post? How come every other line still has low max bets and only this 1 selection accepts 60 btc? Do the right thing directbet.eu. people see through your underhand tactics.

And please don't speak for TwitchySeal and RHaver,  they are yet to say otherwise.  The only ones adamant it is a double spend is you.the only ones benefiting here is you.

If your bet size is over the limit, your bet will be rejected and refunded instantly and automatically.

In this case the bet was within the limits. For the higher profile events the max bet size is bigger.

For example, if you want to bet on Djokovic now, the max bet size is 60 BTC, you can see it here :

N Djokovic v A Murray

In our FAQ we explain in more details about the max bet size :

https://directbet.eu/FAQ.cshtml#MaxBet


RHaver and TwitchySeal remarks were made while they did not have all the information and we were unable to contribute since the investigation was still in progress.

Look at the additional evidence that we posted above. When you send out a transaction with extremely low fees and a few hours later double spend it with extremely high fees, and you then repeat on the same pattern over and over again, that can not possibly be wallet "misconfiguration" or "user error". That's fraud.


Since day 1 we informed hungerstyle that we are willing to return the coins as a goodwill gesture provided that he signs an agreement that will assure us that he will not attempt to defraud us again.

hungerstyle agreed he will not do it again. We wanted to make a formal agreement and he provided us with his contact information for that.

We suspected the contact information that he provided was faked, so we asked him to prove it, but he refused.

directbet.eu would have rejected the bet anyway or should have, double spend attempt or not. I've been placing small bets there in the past few hours and the one thing that struck me as very odd is the fact that their maximum bets for any selection/event is anything between 1btc and 4 btc.

Take the final match today between Djokovic and Murray... We are talking about the finals here, of the same tournament (French Open) the max bet permitted (for me at least) - Djokovic @ 1.26 is 3.782btc , and 1btc for Murray @ 3.05. I checked out their lines for every selection/sport and the maximum bet allowed is 4btc.

My question to directbet.eu is what happens when a bettor sends you an amount in excess of your maximum bet? Do you reject the bet automatically, or deduct the maximum permitted then refund the rest? Double spend attempt or not, would you have honoured the bet if it won, considering the stake involved is approximately 10 times  the size of your maximum bet?

It smacks of hypocrisy and serious double standards that directbet.eu would seize an amount/bet size that they would never have accepted or honoured in the first place. But they are happy to confisticate the said amount. This is clear scammy behaviour from directbet.eu.

I wonder why hungerstyle placed a bet size that would not have being accepted anyway. And I have pm'ed him to ask. However from my previous communication with him it is obvious that English is not a language he understands well and communicating is difficult.

Nowhere on directbet.eu bet confirmation page does it state clearly that bet stakes can be confisticated for whatever reason. This clause is nicely tucked away/hidden somewhere in their terms and conditions.  How many of us read these terms and conditions before betting? It takes away all the fun right? Then imagine how  difficult it would ve been for someone that  barely understands English.  Could this also be the reason why he sent more than the maximum bet permitted? 10 times more?

Was this a genuine double  spend attempt? I don't know and I have no idea. I am not a blockchain expert. But more knowledgeable members like TwitchySeal and RHaver have demonstrated that it may not be. The only ones that are absolutely sure are directbet. And they are the only ones profiting from it.

The problem with bitcoin sportbooks and casinos is they are unregulated. This is the wild west of online gambling. Books disappearing with deposits. Some needing days to grade bets (cloudbet) , not honouring bonuses (Jetwin), citing outrageous reasons + many other examples. It is left to us the community to police them. The very least we can do is shoot straight and be honest at all times. After all tomorrow it could be you or me on the receiving end.

directbet.eu should do the right thing and refund the stake back to hungerstyle. Think of how much goodwill this would buy you. Until then a mod should red trust them as a warning to others

TwitchySeal, Thanks for your suggestion on using a mediator for future disputes. We will consider it.

RHaver remarks were made while he did not have all the information and we were unable to contribute since the investigation was still in progress.

Look at the additional evidence that we posted above. When you send out a transaction with extremely low fees and a few hours later double spend it with extremely high fees, and you then repeat on the same pattern over and over again, that can not possibly be wallet "misconfiguration" or "user error". That's fraud.


Whether it was hungerstyle or a 3rd party responsible for the double spend, hungerstyle agreed he will not do it again. We wanted to make a formal agreement and he provided us with his contact information for that.

We believe the contact information that he provided was faked, so we asked him to prove it, but he refused.

If he is truly innocent, why was he willing to send us his contact information but not prove it's authenticate ?

I use third party, I give them money and they send bitcoin. I tell directbet this many time but they see chance to make quick btc.




Your so call fraud after nadal lose is already proven not true and people see your site not safe for large player


Directbet


1. This is all opinin and your biased.

2. I use a local exchange as told for quick btc. I am told to pay right after nadal win because on blockchain. I tell you this from day 1.

3. You never send an agreement so saying he not sign is not true bc you never send. My screenshot prove this. Agreement in btc is funny and mean nothing too but still you never send.  Also bet was make before event even start. You can tell by odds of bet URL and starting odd, also you claim after 1st set loss fraud send. So not live in play like you claim. You lie so many time and screenshot / odds / bet all show this.

4. Of course local exchange who english is not a skill not want to deal with you, they have they money. Deal with you is like pull teeth. 

5. They are my coin. I pay for and now you still not send agreement. I already post email screen show this.

6. I avoid posting original becuase as say not ideal address for send because much different now to send 3 weeks later.

7. Just since not log in for 24 hours does not mean guilty. Such bad logic.

8. Community agree you not as high mighty as you think you are, vote D by many senior people. You will lose big player  long run some have even message me.

I think you're right about Peeps.  I thought it was odd the way he was quick to jump all over you when other issues i brought up with him in the past he always responded so passively (ahem...betcoin.ag...)  He deleted this post of mine:


So I won't be contributing to his thread any more.  You should prob just forget about him too. 

As far as the double spend issue, peeps ended up on the same side as me out of convenience it seems.  But  don't think just because he didn't have the purest intent means I have any bias.  I am just giving you my honest opinion.

Hungerstyles defense of using a third party to transact the coins is totally plausible and he's been saying it since the beginning.  He only needs to prove there is a possibility he might be innocent, which basically makes your job impossible.  I know it sucks for you, and I know you have one of the better reps, but I don't think anyone in your position, considering weeks of emotional + the financial investment, could look at the situation objectively.  

RHaver has to be one of the most rational thinkers around and he's already disputed most of the argument you just made in this post. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15021563  


If you don't know much about him, go read some of his past posts, then read the one he made in response to you.

Idea: Find some very trusted members willing to act as independant mediators to rule on disputes in the future, put that in your terms, playing judge and plaintiff like you are now will rarely end well.

DirectBet Official Response to hungerstyle

hungerstyle is an hacker who attempted to defraud us.

He placed a live bet in-play on a Tennis match and funded it with Bitcoins that were already spent on another transaction as you can see here :



https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/89be96f6cecf47de065ea152b3d1bd969047cb282c61a4c30d82d78e38ef1ddd/

In addition, the transaction was sent with significantly low fees, more than 20 times lower than recommended !

Now why would anyone send $16,500 bet and not be willing to pay even 1 cent in fees ?

There is only one reason. This was done on purpose to give him the option not to pay for this bet in case it loses.

No one is sending $16,500 transfer without even 1 cent in fees and with coins that were already spent elsewhere, unless their intentions are fraudulent.

Upon some further investigation we found that we are not the only victims of his fraudulent activity.

The payout address that he used for this bet is 1E66h8kzMvmQobkQDDtSwxmR8SDzUxqzhd

As you can see from the link below, there is only one payment that he made from this address and it was also double spent :


https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/b8d63362b302c1a22fe821c9152ba9074e0ba51806c20cb3cd330170379baed7/

You will notice the transaction was double spent in the exact same manner he planned to double spend his bet in case it loses.

He deliberately sent it as a big sized transaction with significantly low fees at first, and later double spent it in a transaction with excessive
fees, much higher fees than required to ensure the double spend is executed immediately on the next block.

If you look at his posts you will see that for several days he tried to avoid posting the payout address of his bet, because he knew this would be an evidence of his fraudulent activity, and not just towards DirectBet.

When we first confronted him with our findings he did not deny his double spend attempt. Moreover, he agreed not to do it again if we return his original wager. However, when we asked him to sign a formal agreement he refused.

Later on he informed us that he is not the person who sent this bet transfer and that he does not own the payout address used for this bet.

When we asked to get in touch with the person who actually sent this bet transfer and who owns the payout address, he said that this person is "not available".

We will not be discussing this matter with hungerstyle any further and require that the person who sent these double spent transactions and who owns the payout address will get in touch with us and sign an agreement if he wants his coins back.

DirectBet is the most popular and trusted Crypto Currency Sportsbook. We would not have risked our reputation unless we were 100% certain this was a fraud attempt. We have additional evidence that we can not disclose for security reasons but believe that the evidence presented here is more than sufficient.

DirectBet pays out hundreds of Bitcoins in winnings every day. We have many high roller bettors who enjoy anonymous betting and instant payouts and have been voted the # 1 Sportsbook of the year by Bitcointalk members for two years in a row.

https://directbet.eu/

Directbet has ask to post btc address to remove doubt for all

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15022212

Technically it's not a "double spend" in question.  It's an "attempted double spend", and the debate isn't about whether or not it's possible.  It is.

It can happen for many non-malicious reasons.  It's happened to me several times, twice at Betcoin actually.  My wallet broadcasted a transaction with spent coins, so it never confirmed.



Still 0 confirms after 7 months.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/b42fd77a363f9d2f4ceb7bf0d55305b3ab9cdfac189a77ff21b5b06431675174

It was happening because of some issue with my electrum being out of date.  Betcoin requires 1 confirmation , so there was no issue. 

Not true. I pay for before match begin. And then you claim fraud after 1st set lost. Odds even show it was before , nadal lose one set so odd would be then later better.

As already pointed out, not possible for that tx to of occur before Nadal because input 1EN was spend over 24 hr before nadal.

Directbet is scam and all player should avoid if they can just take coin bc terms say so.

Term or no term big player should avoid.

It's not displayed on the site, but I found this in the api for 34a243727b11220c6ae3b03d189d8ba21561e4af5bc4fc99f7e704b91943a240/:

  "received": "2016-05-11T01:30:10.667Z"

https://api.blockcypher.com/v1/btc/main/txs/34a243727b11220c6ae3b03d189d8ba21561e4af5bc4fc99f7e704b91943a240?limit=50&includeHex=true






Oh my bad, I didn't realize that you reserved the right to confiscate funds and your decision is final.  Carry on then and don't mind us while we discuss your behavior.

https://directbet.eu/Rules.cshtml

Blockcypher does not show the exact time that the double spend transaction was received by their node. Do you happen to know when the double spend attempt transaction was first received? Was it first received at a time that would have made the bet for the other side of the match valid if it had confirmed? I might speculate that the OP had broadcast both bets and then had some way to influence which bet/transaction ultimately got confirmed

I looked through your site a couple of days ago for a clause that is similar to what you describe, but was unable to find it after briefly looking through your site. Can you point out exactly where this clause is located.

Yeah I was wrong about the date, I admit I am no expert at block chain analysis.  It doesn't seem like you are either though, or if you aren't explaining the situation very well.

I do understand ethics in gambling though.

To  ethically declare a bet void after the outcome has been decided, you need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the player:
a) Attempted to defraud you
b) Is capable of defrauding you.

Even if you are sure this guy tried to scam you, if you can't prove it, you gotta pay him anyway.  Anything without a fact to back it up is opinion.  Your opinion in this matter is biased due your ~50BTC being on the line.

I think the way you tried to twist his words into an admission of guilt is a red flag.

Another red flag, imo, was how you offered to keep only the winnings and return the deposit out of "good will"



Then after he wrote back and agreed you changed the agreement to include not making the issue public (discrediting you)  along with demanding his passport (!?):



Well that's just ridiculous.

By sending with very low fee there is an intention of double spend.

Yes.

The transaction was sent on May 12th during the game and was confirmed a day later on May 13th (UTC times).

also, what do you mean the bet was placed during the match?  was it live betting?