Quote from: cjmoles on July 25, 2016, 09:48:58 PM

Quote from: DarkDays on July 25, 2016, 09:09:42 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on July 25, 2016, 09:02:58 PM

Okay....Look, twitchyseal gave me negative trust first and I responded to his unwarranted accusations in kind. Why would somebody have to pay me to defend myself? So, the answer to your crazy fucking question is NO!....Nobody had to pay me to defend myself; furthermore, I am retired, have plenty of money, and have no need for handouts. I sport Betcoin's signature because I believe in their product and I want to see them succeed. Any stipend I get from wearing the Betcoin signature, I throw back at the tables to support the platform. I'm not even sure if you are a separate entity from the other multi-accounters in this thread so it makes it difficult to assume your motivations.

So me asking you if they paid you to badmouth someone (which they've been caught doing in the past) is "crazy", but you accusing me of being a "multi-account" (which you've never proven anyone is) is not? #onlybetcoinlogic

You've exposed who your master is. Sad.

I never accused you....I think that I said that I am not sure so that it difficult to assume your motivations.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on July 25, 2016, 09:05:22 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on July 25, 2016, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: Lutpin on July 25, 2016, 07:52:06 PM

Quote from: cjmoles on July 25, 2016, 07:45:04 PM

The conduct against the participants of this signature campaign is unethical at best and dishonest on the face of it. At first I considered the fud just misinformed banter, but now I realize that it is more than just rash judgement. I am now under the impression that it is a concerted effort to shut down an effective signature campaign in order to re-direct player traffic. I understand betcoin's stance against the trolls because it is not possible to have rational discussions with irrational agitators.

I tried having a discussion with Betcoin, but the NDA by BetSoft preventing me from knowing any details about the jasonort incident doesn't really help any "rational discussion", does it?

Lutpin, I'll try to assume you don't grasp the full gravity of the Betsoft incident, it is much bigger than Betcoin, bitcoincointalk, or bitcoin. They are a huge gaming platform provider, they are licensed, and they have jurisdictions where remedies for arbitration can be conducted. If Betsoft is found to be rogue, then that will have an enormous impact on the entire industry. As is stands, the incident with jason was resolved and they are continuing to pay. However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams. As for the NDA, we have to respect that privacy. We cannot assume that a lack of detail is evidence of wrong doing because that, in and of itself, is an unsound argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence). Personally, I would be highly disappointed if Betsoft were found to be rogue because they provide some of the very best slot software in the industry but I would be the first to scream foul if their software continued to be offered after such a finding.

Cjmoles would be right if they hadn't lost their alderny license years ago. Their curacao license is essentially worthless, arbitration is not an option.

Are you sure about that?

https://validator.curacao-egaming.com/e55930b7-7152-40bf-97c6-410e25fc3c2b

yes