NEED HELP WITH BETCOIN.AG: industry feedback appreciated!

[DontTailMe]

I am pleased to see they came through for you. It was the right thing to do. Maybe giving them a little action after would have been nice though


The rule itself is not the real problem. When they have a large database of easy to create anonymous accounts it is important to purge them as bloated databases suck server resources badly, and I think this rule was created for that reason.

Fair industry practice is to allow people to claim back their account if they return though. It's normal to charge a reasonable monthly dormant account fee in these situations as well.

As someone who has worked extensively with large scale customer databases for Fortune 500 companies, anyone who tells you this either doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying their butt off and has an ulterior motive behind their actions.

Archiving data (not purging, per se) is definitely a thing, but you wouldn't need to do that to user tables, since that type of volume is absolutely dwarfed by transactional tables, such as wager history. An inactive customer is not consuming any CPU or memory resources, so it comes down to storage. Storage is dirt cheap, and user tables aren't consuming much anyways.

[cornmeal]

Great news!
Amazing job SBR- glad betcoin did what was right.

[Optional]

As someone who has worked extensively with large scale customer databases for Fortune 500 companies, anyone who tells you this either doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying their butt off and has an ulterior motive behind their actions.

Archiving data (not purging, per se) is definitely a thing, but you wouldn't need to do that to user tables, since that type of volume is absolutely dwarfed by transactional tables, such as wager history. An inactive customer is not consuming any CPU or memory resources, so it comes down to storage. Storage is dirt cheap, and user tables aren't consuming much anyways.

Why delete instead of archive is a good question. But don't think trying to argue about their systems would have been much use with people who thought it was fine to run it this way to start with. Just pleased they handled this fairly in the end and hope they continue to do the same if it comes up again in future.

[DontTailMe]

Why delete instead of archive is a good question. But don't think trying to argue about their systems would have been much use with people who thought it was fine to run it this way to start with. Just pleased they handled this fairly in the end and hope they continue to do the same if it comes up again in future.

No, I'm not saying that would have been a winning argument. But as a player advocacy group, we have to be able to recognize BS.

(And I think you misunderstood my post - they shouldn't even need to "archive" old users as they wouldn't be posing any resource constraints as is)

[cerolo89]

Congrats. That rule is a complet nonsense.

[Optional]

No, I'm not saying that would have been a winning argument. But as a player advocacy group, we have to be able to recognize BS.

(And I think you misunderstood my post - they shouldn't even need to "archive" old users as they wouldn't be posing any resource constraints as is)

Did not misunderstand. Just did not want to argue a point that I think neither of us can know for sure.

I tend to believe Betcoin when they say running reports on a database with 200,000 redundant user entries takes more time than without that ever bloating number of entries in there. But respect that you probably think you know better too. It's just not useful speculation anyway.

They did the right thing and hopefully will continue to do so.

[vampire assassin]

They did the same thing to me several years ago... It was maybe 15k. We ultimately settled on something around 11k, which was me eating the fluctuations in BTC (they converted to BTC when seized, and BTC dropped in that period).

Their confiscation time was much shorter back then. 3 or 6 months, I don't recall. what it was. But it was resolved.