K?ra 1xBet Casino ,
Jag f?rst?r att din f?rm?ga att ge en helt?ckande f?rklaring som st?ds av v?sentliga bevis ?r begr?nsad p? grund av interna policyer och vissa protokoll. Som n?mnts i v?r korta e-postkorrespondens – och som ?ven bekr?ftats av dig – uppfyller den information som l?mnats inte v?ra kriterier f?r giltiga och tillr?ckliga bevis.
?ven om jag inte ifr?gas?tter legitimiteten i den information som delats, m?ste vi f?lja v?ra etablerade standarder och rutiner. Av denna anledning m?ste jag tyv?rr avsluta detta klagom?l som ol?st . Med det sagt uppskattar jag uppriktigt er villighet att samarbeta trots dessa begr?nsningar och f?r att ni l?mnar d?rren ?ppen f?r en eventuell ompr?vning av ?rendet i framtiden.
K?ra Dub2935,
Som tidigare n?mnts, p? grund av kasinots of?rm?ga att tillhandah?lla tillr?ckliga bevis som st?der sina p?st?enden, m?ste jag avsluta detta ?rende som ol?st .
Jag uppskattar din f?rklaring ang?ende enhets- och l?senordshashning; den verkar dock behandla ett annat koncept ?n det som ?r relevant h?r. Inom onlinekasinobranschen h?nvisar en enhetshash vanligtvis till en unik identifierare som genereras f?r en specifik enhet som anv?nds f?r att komma ?t ett kasino. ?ven om hashkollisioner ?r teoretiskt m?jliga, ?r sannolikheten f?r att tv? olika enheter producerar samma (till exempel SHA-1) hash ungef?r 1 p? 1,46 × 10^48, vilket ?r praktiskt taget om?jligt under normala f?rh?llanden.
Eftersom kasinots anklagelser inte var tillr?ckligt underbyggda har inga definitiva slutsatser dragits. Men f?r er medvetenhet: om flera konton verkligen har ?tkommits fr?n samma enhet, avr?der jag starkt fr?n denna praxis i framtiden, eftersom det v?cker allvarliga farh?gor och direkt st?der misstankar om multikontoanv?ndning.
Ang?ende den fortsatta eskaleringen:
Tyv?rr ?r casinot licensierat av Cura?ao Gaming Control Board (GCB) , som f?r n?rvarande inte erbjuder tvistl?sningstj?nster f?r konflikter mellan spelare och casinon. D?rf?r kanske det inte leder till en l?sning att kontakta dem. Du ?r dock v?lkommen att f?rs?ka, eftersom detta kan bidra till att ?ka medvetenheten om framtida f?rb?ttringar av tillsynen.
Du kan f?rs?ka skicka in ett klagom?l via deras officiella kontaktformul?r p? https://www.gamingcontrolcuracao.org/contact . Se till att du inkluderar namnet p? casinots operat?r i ditt klagom?l, eftersom utel?mnande av denna information kan leda till att klagom?let anses vara ogiltigt.
Du hittar mer information om hur du korrekt skickar in ett klagom?l till tillsynsmyndigheten p? http://www.kpvfaw.com/submitting-complaints-to-regulators .
V?nligen meddela mig om du beh?ver hj?lp med att skicka in klagom?let eller om du f?r svar fr?n tillsynsmyndigheten genom att skicka e-post till mig p? [email protected] .
Jag beklagar att jag inte kunde vara till mer hj?lp vid det h?r tillf?llet.
Med v?nliga h?lsningar,
Kubo
Dear 1xBet Casino,
I understand that due to internal policies and certain protocols, your ability to provide a comprehensive explanation supported by substantial evidence is limited. As mentioned in our brief email correspondence - and acknowledged by you as well - the information provided does not meet our criteria for valid and sufficient evidence.
While I do not question the legitimacy of the information shared, we must adhere to our established standards and procedures. For this reason, I must regretfully close this complaint as unresolved. That said, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to cooperate despite these constraints and for leaving the door open for a potential reassessment of the case in the future.
Dear Dub2935,
As previously stated, due to the casino’s inability to provide sufficient evidence supporting their claims, I must close this case as unresolved.
I appreciate your explanation regarding device and password hashing; however, it seems to address a different concept than the one relevant here. In the online casino industry, a device hash typically refers to a unique identifier generated for a specific device used to access a casino. While hash collisions are theoretically possible, the likelihood of two different devices producing the same (for example SHA-1) hash is approximately 1 in 1.46 × 10^48, which is virtually impossible under normal conditions.
Since the casino's allegations were not adequately substantiated, no definitive conclusions have been drawn. However, for your awareness: if multiple accounts were indeed accessed from the same device, I strongly advise against this practice in the future, as it raises serious concerns and directly supports suspicions of multi-accounting.
Regarding the further escalation:
Unfortunately, the casino is licensed by the Cura?ao Gaming Control Board (GCB), which currently does not offer dispute resolution services for conflicts between players and casinos. As such, contacting them may not lead to a resolution. Nonetheless, you are welcome to try, as this may help raise awareness for future improvements in oversight.
You may try submitting a complaint through their official contact form at https://www.gamingcontrolcuracao.org/contact. Please ensure you include the name of the casino's operator in your complaint, as missing this information may result in the complaint being considered inapplicable.
You can find more information on how to properly submit a complaint to the regulator at http://www.kpvfaw.com/submitting-complaints-to-regulators.
Please let me know if you need help with submitting the complaint or if you receive a response from the regulator by emailing me at [email protected].
I am sorry I could not be of more help on this occasion.
Best regards,
Kubo
Redigerad av en administrat?r p? Casino Guru
Automatiskt ?versatt: