I think that that’s a sort of canard by omission. Are you purporting that that can be the only evidence of your abuse?
Betcoin.ag has stated himself here that this one of the "abusive patterns" they have caught, even mentioned a low level game where the two accounts in question accounted for all of the market.
So obviously they say its a strong argument. I have absolutely nothing against them showing it to the public.
I cant speak for the other person of course, but i will talk to him tomorrow and ask him to acknowledge his approval also.
Listen, i am 95% sure that they will not show the bets here, because their security system made a huge mistake
From some of their posts on this thread (including, but not limited to some that I have quoted), I took it as implied that Betcoin.AG must have some other forensic evidence connecting the accounts.
I strongly urge that the mediator should request this evidence from Betcoin.AG, and should NOT show it to you. If the evidence does not exist, of course, then the mediator should determine that, too; and in any event, all available evidence should be weighed fairly as to both sides of the dispute.
<snip>
The other "evidence" they have is the same bitcoin wallet address in deposit to my account, and account of the other guy. But is that against the rules? Does it prove anything?
It is probative. Indeed, I think that that in itself rises to the level of probable cause to believe that the accounts are connected, regardless of any other evidence.
So, you admit and stipulate to the wallet evidence? I have heard so many excuses about that type of evidence, from people who were guilty and caught dead to rights! In the real world, it is possible but improbable that “the same bitcoin wallet address” would “deposit to [your] account, and account of the other guy”, if the “other guy” is not actually you. And if the “other guy” is alleged by you to be just someone amongst a large crowd following your bets, it is highly improbable. It requires a clear, sensible explanation. (I can imagine some unusual scenarios in which this could occur; but for obvious reasons, I will not suggest any.)
I think that the mediator should weigh the preponderance of the evidence, which is a higher standard—but that is just my opinion.