Here we go again,  focusing on peeps place instead of  sorting things out with hungerstyle.

hybershire

Waylon James

Proof?

hungerstyle - In their thread, Directbet states (I'm numbering the claims, the rest I've copied and pasted):


1) "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."




2) "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."




3) "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."



4) "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."



5) "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". "



I assume Directbet has evidence of all of these claims using emails and pm's in your mutual correspondence.
If so, it seems clear that they have a solid case against you.

Under each numbered quote, can you state what you disagree with if anything, and post any proof of your disagreements if you have any.

You mention two situations where the book has made an error, or in the case of a "bad number" at least claims to have made an error.
In those situations, a player could legitimately not know the start time or not know the market line (many only use 1 book), and so I have pretty much always sided with the player in those circumstances and generally have felt that the bet and deposit should be paid unless a serious attempt was made to notify the player and the book is also going to refund losing bets that were also made after the game started or losing bets on the other side of the "bad" number (and the book can then 86 the player after they pay him if they don't want to deal with him any longer).


As you may recall, when a new book appears, several times I've posted in this thread pointing out language in their T&C which is questionable, such as "We can confiscate funds if a player is part of a betting syndicate" and other such egregious language (which to me is simply scamming/free rolling on the book's part).
In the case of Anonibet, I persisted on trying to get them to clarify a vague statement that if a player deposits and doesn't bet and then withdraws, they can keep 5% if they wish. Etc.

And in a number of cases, books did then modify their T&C to make them more "player friendly".

So I am or have been opposed to anything that can allow a book to take a shot at a player.




Btc books have a circumstance that is new with bitcoins.

Double spend presents a new way to scam, as in the case which Directbet alleges.

If a person tries to commit credit card fraud or bank fraud with checks, etc., this will ultimately result in criminal charges by the bank or the cc company.


But with btc, a player can takes shots at businesses accepting btc all day long.
Perhaps, as you feel, the correct thing is for the business that catches an attempt at a doublespend to simply state "We caught you. Here's your btc back."

But it seems then the scammer has nothing to lose, and for that matter may as well try again.

If the business instead states "We caught you. We're keeping your funds because you tried to cheat us", this would be a strong incentive for scammers not to mess with them.

I've never thought about this until now, and wasn't even aware of doublespend until now, but these are my initial thoughts on this type of situation. So I'm basically stating that I can see the book's point of view on this issue in a case where it is demonstrable that the doublespender was scamming.
Apparently in this case due to all Directbet has stated, this person has a history of this, he didn't deny it at first and agreed not to do it again, the way the doublespend attempt was made seems to be demonstrable, etc.

In this case, Directbet is willing to return the funds, conditionally. So it appears to me they're making a compromise and their primary goal with this incident is not to steal the btc.


I realize that this rule opens the door for books to take shots at players if there is an accidental doublespend. I don't understand how that happens but if it does occur, it could create potential future conflicts.



What would you do if you were a book and someone tried an obvious doublespend?

author=TwitchySeal link=topic=717790.msg15038754#msg15038754 date=1464741285]

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

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.