Quote from: ghostingura2 on March 04, 2024, 03:54:49 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on March 04, 2024, 03:53:34 PM

Regarding this matter, do I understand correctly that you state that condition of yours [I took a screenshot of the part of the conversation I am referring to] right after you made a deposit?

[image snip]

It was after I had some nice wins! I wanted to Withdraw and I couldn't until the KYC was finished (I understood)
They knew my condition for two weeks, so in my opinion they should rollback everything to that moment, and refund the remaning funds.
Apart of that they should fix their ToS or implementing the missing protection features to prevent issues like this.

Actually, I don't think it was after you had some nice wins. I decided to spend some time to go frame by frame and captured each of them [I believe I missed one frame, but it didn't change much of the context and I was too lazy to get back to freezing each second just to get it], and you asked for it right after your deposit, given they ask you to fulfill wager requirement in accordance to their AML policy.

Unless I understand it wrongly, even after your nice wins, you still have not meet the 1x wager requirement at the time when you asked for withdrawal, so even when you said that you're an addict and thus asked to withdraw everything and then lock your account, they can't comply to it [with "it" referring to withdrawing everything, not the exclusion] due to the AML policy.

Tricky situation, I know, but they can't grant a full withdrawal that is yet to meet the AML policy simply because someone said he's an addict. Otherwise, someone can just cheat the system, depositing a large sum of money, proclaimed that they're an addict and asked for total withdrawal to bypass the AML requirement.

Suppose you ask to withdraw everything after the AML policy fulfilled, or you ask for self exclusion and tell them to return the fund to the originating address [thus, the money laundering possibility can be minimized], I somewhat believe they'll comply.

One thing that I can't help but notice, though, is that you complained about a missing bet in an earlier chat with Doris and the bet ID. It's 2370640190927671368, is it? For reference, the missing bet ID in full that made you reopen the case and brought us to this point, was 2374266505778049437

Though I am not their staff and know the exact way their betting ID system works, I think it is safe to assume it works like usual tickets do, where the number gets greater with each bet someone placed. So... you previously already have an issue with missing bet which later re-appear, you know about this, and know it's just a matter of time before they shown and settled. So why protesting about it much later, with #...9437 and not when you had the #...1368 issue, which I shall boldly assume happened before or around the time of your first complain about the changing odds?

I'll appreciate if you can give us more insight regarding this. We'll hopefully get a better context with it and proceed further from your explanation.

Quote from: ghostingura2 on March 04, 2024, 03:54:49 PM

@BC Support - can you please share your license holder contact? it seems it isn't available anywhere

It's there at the bottom of their page, they're sub-licensed under CIL. Clicking the logo will bring you to the file issued by CIL for the sub-licensee. Note that unlike other master license holders, CIL does not provide a verification page. Instead, they issued a certificate [such as the one shown on BC's] to the casinos operating under them.

Yes, it made it quite easy to be forged. I guess if you want to verify their authenticity, you're free to contact CIL and ask whether they have BC [BlockDance B.V.] under them.

Quote from: ghostingura2 on Today at 11:43:32 AM

I updated the 1st post with resumed information so it will be easier to understand:

[...]

It has some news, regarding to $500 that BC.Game offered to help on claim#2, but to get it I should be muted here, and I wasn't.

Regarding this, I tried to see it from as neutral position as I can, and I think it's a situation of poorly worded proposal. I know for a fact that the staff currently handling BC.Game Support account is a new staff, a different staff from the one that managed to clear a pile of cases against them in matter of days, so he probably couldn't convey the message from the marketing team nicely yet.

I can't see it as a bribe attempt, or the likes, given they actually doesn't have to buy your silence, the delay in the bet's settlement was coming from the provider, not them. I think it is more of a good gesture, which later become voided as they think you refuses and kept on provoking them [I believe a miscommunication plays a big role on this].

While for edit #3, voiding all of your bets from the date of you made it clear about your situation... that's the exact same ground you use with the case of Rollbit, is it not?