Quote from: ndnhc on July 10, 2016, 07:01:21 AM

Do you mean all casinos, that still have BetSoft games on their site and, are or should be aware of this resolved accusation are scam?
If they had not updated the payout table I might have agreed with you.

The paytable being updated/corrected only resolves the specific issue that was originally brought up by the OP of the thread claiming non-payment of the jackpot, since that thread was created, several other issues have come to light.

Quote from: ndnhc on July 10, 2016, 07:01:21 AM

Do let me know which slots or feature of BetSoft is not working as it should be?

It appears that the jackpots are being paid out in a pattern that is unprobable, to the extent that it is fair to say that there is a serious problem with how BetSoft pays out jackpots. This issue is amplified by the fact that it is not possible to verify your "rolls" (bets) on BetSoft games. There are a number of articles on what appears to be online gambling sites warning about this issue (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- some of these may be somewhat duplicated).

BetSoft also appears to have lost their "Alderney Gaming License".

These issues appear to be severe enough so that bodiva (the largest online casino) has removed BetSoft games from their site.

BetCoin has specifically dealt with the issue regarding jackpots themselves, so they cannot deny that they are aware of the issue. As mentioned above, bodiva has apparently removed their BetSoft games from their casino.

Regarding the other casinos, yes they should be aware of the situation, however I can understand if they are not, and I can understand if it would take a long time for someone with the appropriate authority and expertise (this might be two different people) gets the message that there are issues with BetSoft.

There is also a thread that lists some fairly serious concerns about BetCoin.ag that are not BetSoft specific.

Quote from: ndnhc on July 10, 2016, 07:01:21 AM

Wait a couple of days and go ahead negging all the above and the members wearing any of their signature. Cool

There is no reason to make an example out of Lauda (although it appears that is what she wants currently), nor anyone else for that matter. The best resolution would be for Lauda to remove the signature and get on with her life.

Quote from: Lauda on July 10, 2016, 07:16:34 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on July 10, 2016, 01:20:28 AM

From the looks of it, the OP contacted one or more members of BetCoin's signature campaign, presumably asking them to remove their signature, and Lauda responded by posting a BS disclaimer (that is not even visible the majority of the time) that she does not endorse any website in her signature.

Incorrect. I have asked the OP (kindly; now I see that it was a mistake) to give me some time because I have a backlog that needs to be worked down from. I added that disclaimer temporarily until I am able to verify what is going on, yet I get attacked even for that.

Addressing a complaint that you are advertising what someone believes to be a scam should be your number one priority, and should take priority over anything else in your backlog of things to get done. When I was acting as escrow for a signature campaign for a site that turned out to be a scam, I PM'ed all of the participants letting them know that they were "officially" promoting a scam, and that they had the option of receiving payment for the posts they had made to date if they removed their signature, and I received an ~instant response from ~all of the participants, all of which (except one) removed their signatures. When "bitcoin black Friday" was uncovered as being a scam, theymos looked into the situation ~immediately, and addressed it ~immediately. I see no reason why you should not do the same.