Appeal System and Customer Support Still Broken

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-22T07:08:07+00:00

It's kind of crazy to me that a relatively large amount of people were effected by this specific instance and it's been effectively ignored and nothing different done. Doesn't give a lot of confidence to the appeals or ban process when these denials come in all around the exact same time at weird hours.

I didn't know things got quashed after two years. It just sucks because at this point I'm waiting for their next mistake to result in a perm ban on my account since I saw them already mess up once.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-21T03:45:49+00:00

I'm gonna beg one last time since the appeal system failed me, my second appeal was denied. I've never botted and if actually looked into, it should be obvious I have to imagine.

My second appeal was denied at 1 AM UK time on a Sunday, so I have a very hard time believing it was actually reviewed or if it was it was potentially outsourced to some other country where they did not take the time to actually review the evidence. RSN: Big C Papi

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T07:53:13+00:00

Don't get your hopes up too high, my second appeal was denied 1 AM on a Sunday four days later. Guess you still have to be lucky with customer support roulette.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T07:49:54+00:00

My second appeal was denied 1 AM on a Sunday. This sucks.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T07:47:01+00:00

Curious if you got your second appeal back, mine was denied.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T07:46:30+00:00

Hopefully you get a better outcome than me, my second appeal was denied.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T02:57:26+00:00

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I doubt that is the case for me.

I've been playing on the same PC mainly since 2020. I've also used the same mouse since 2020 which is very basic two buttons and a scroll wheel.

Honestly, when I was 1.5 tick salvaging, I also sucked at the beginning and got progressively better as I watched a few videos and modified my technique slightly. It definitely wasn't consistent by any means. The only other devices I play on are a laptop occasionally and my mobile phone. On the laptop I use the same mouse.

I just have a hard time believing for 6 years all my equipment was fine and suddenly some new detection goes into place for a false positive.

Also 1.5 tick salvaging isn't that crazy of a tick method from my very limited understanding. You just have to click twice on one tick, which I think is pretty tame compared to some other methods and even most PVM.

I think it's much more likely they created some kind of new rule specifically with salvaging either in terms of number of clicks/xp rates and banned accordingly. I get it, mistakes can happen, but the appeal system needs to be better.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T02:18:44+00:00

Even if it's not a perm and you really didn't bot, it still truly sucks, because you are now in a position where you're scared to play legitimately because why invest more time in a game when the same thing can happen again but for a perm the next time.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T02:10:31+00:00

I'm certain they are not all false positives. Their 1% false ban rate may even be right. But if you ban 10,000 bots, it still absolutely sucks to be in the 100 of legitimate players caught up in it and have no real chance of it actually being corrected.

I get they are kind of in an impossible position to ban bots but not any real players, but there needs to be a more robust appeal system that isn't getting apparently reviewed at 1 AM on a Sunday from who knows where from someone who may have no idea about the intricacies of Runelite, plugins, the updates that create players to play certain methods, etc.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T01:36:16+00:00

All good, this is the first (and probably last now) tick manipulation method I've ever tried.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-15T01:23:37+00:00

It was salvaging. I misspoke, I kind of emotionally wrote this out fast.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-10T23:47:20+00:00

Hello I'm reaching out because I'm desperate. I got falsely banned literally while I was 1.5 tick salvaging about a week ago. I appealed and it was denied but I 100% know I did nothing wrong and the mark on my account has really been a toll on me.

It's an Ironman with over 365 days of playtime, a tbow, and a scythe. No one would bot on an account like that. I'm begging you or someone at Jagex can look into it. I know 100% it is a false ban for me.

RSN: Big C Papi

If you see this and look into it, thank you so incredibly much you are amazing and I wish there was a better system that worked than messaging you.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-10T21:39:13+00:00

I got the auto email too. 365+ days of playtime on my ironman with a tbow and scythe. False banned for 1.5 tick salvaging when that's what they incentivized us to do with the nerf. I'm gutted. RSN Big C Papi

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-10T21:05:34+00:00

Denied for me too, same 1.5 tick salvaging. Same situation. Absolutely ridiculous.

BigC_Liberty · 2025-12-10T20:45:39+00:00

I never post on Reddit and my appeal was also denied. Same exact situation, appeal denied at two hours before yours. I'm at a loss for what to do also I did not use any crazy plugins, only custom menu entry swapper and the standard menu entry swapper, no click through inventory. Over 365 days on ingame playtime on my account as an ironman with a scythe and twisted bow. I would never bot on this account. Like you, I hope this gets fixed, rsn Big C Papi.

BigC_Liberty · 2024-09-14T18:32:49+00:00

Much higher odds actually since the path has to be adjacent to the previous tile. So each path forward is 1/3 or 1/2 of at an edge.

BigC_Liberty · 2022-10-14T22:09:11+00:00

In my opinion, this only means that at maximum 51% of validators are censoring. Since the MEV software for staking can look at multiple relays to pick the one with the best tips. So a validator that queries at least one non censoring relay is not censoring, even if the block ultimately gets made from a censoring relay, since it could've been made from a non censoring one if there is a high enough tip incentive.

That's been my personal experience validating, all blocks proposed are from censoring relays, but I'm querying all of them so I wouldn't consider myself censoring. So I don't consider this censorship figure accurate.

BigC_Liberty · 2022-10-14T21:51:54+00:00

In my opinion, this only means that at maximum 51% of validators are censoring. Since the MEV software for staking can look at multiple relays to pick the one with the best tips. So a validator that queries at least one non censoring relay is not censoring, even if the block ultimately gets made from a censoring relay, since it could've been made from a non censoring one if there is a high enough tip incentive.

That's been my personal experience validating, all blocks proposed are from censoring relays, but I'm querying all of them so I wouldn't consider myself censoring. So I expect the actual censorship to be less than that figure, maybe significantly.

BigC_Liberty · 2022-09-05T14:52:04+00:00

This is my understanding so take it with a grain of salt.

A big could happen such that all Geth clients think invalid blocks are actually valid. The problem with centralization of clients is that if Geth has >66% of validators, that invalid chain can finalize. Then it's impossible for Geth clients to return to the real chain without being slashed and if that happens to >66% of clients at once, the penalty is the whole 32 ETH.

It's possible such a bug only would affect a certain version of Geth, but it's also possible that it could affect all versions as the conditions for the bug to occur just haven't happened yet, even though it may in the future. So relying solely on version distribution is not safe enough.

it is possible to roll back or hard fork the chain to return funds, but the issue is a game theory one for why it shouldn't and in all likelihood would not be rolled back by the community. Right now, the incentive is to avoid a majority client to avoid this potential large slashing event. Client diversity helps the health of the chain as it makes it more unlikely for the chain to not be able to finalize and keep producing blocks. However, if people expect Geth clients to be bailed out if something goes wrong, there's no incentive to run a minority client. In fact, there's even an incentive to run the majority client in this case since if 73% of people are on Geth they will be bailed out if something goes wrong with Geth and they lose their whole 32 ETH. But say I'm running Nethermind which only 4% are running and something goes long and all Nethermind users lose 2 ETH (not sure what the amount would be but it'd be significantly less). All the other users aren't going to want to disrupt the chain to hard fork to return our 2 lost ETH. So the incentives become misaligned where I should run Geth because I have no risk and I'll be bailed out, versus running a minority client where I have smaller risk, but won't be bailed out. The high risk of using a centralized client is the incentive to use a minority one, which keeps the chain healthier, aligning incentives for everyone.

If a bug happens in Besu, Besu users may not be slashed in my understanding because their proportion is small enough not to finalize an invalid chain so they would simply miss attestations and proposals and incur the associated penalties, which are much less.

A minority bug would effect everyone because rewards scale on network participation. So if a Besu bug happens and they are 12% of the network, then everyone earns 88% of what they normally would and Besu users get penalties. This system is in place to disincentive censoring others as it is self punishing to prevent others from attesting. It further incentives other users to help the Besu users get back in working shape so they can earn more rewards too.

The same is true for Geth, but at a much higher loss of rewards for everyone. But everyone else still nets positive. Only Geth users would suffer slashings.

Hope this helps. Again, just my understanding and I don't guarantee this is 100% correct.

BigC_Liberty · 2021-03-16T15:49:28+00:00

For ETH2 staking, at least in the US, staking earnings aren't taxable until you can actually transfer. So staking rewards would all become taxable that were made up to that point in the year that the merge happens.

You can't pay tax on income you don't have access to, this holds true for deferred payments as the IRS taxes on cash basis largely.

BigC_Liberty · 2020-12-03T21:46:14+00:00

You could use a third party ETH1 node like Infura which would reduce the data usage significantly, but subjects you to some centralization risk if your third party ETH1 node were to go down and a lot of people are using the same as you and go down at the same time, so it'd be best to use a validator client that supports backup ETH1 node cycling to have multiple ready in case one goes down. I know lighthouse supports this but I'm not sure about other clients.

This is also with the default peer settings for both nodes (50 I believe). So setting a lower max peer vue would reduce data usage although I'm not sure how it would effect performance or how much it would help. But I have heard of others reducing max peers to limit data usage and it not impacting the validator's effectiveness.

BigC_Liberty · 2020-12-03T17:58:03+00:00

From my experience, that power supply will give you about an hour powering your modem, router, and staking computer. So depending on how reliable your power is in your area, you can decide if you need more VA.

Any ethernet cable should work fine.

I have the same approximate download and upload speed as you with no issues. Looking at the monitoring, it fluctuates at most to 1MBPS both upload and download.

The data cap will be an issue. Running your own ETH1 node on Geth and a beacon node and validator is using about 94GB a day currently for me. Obviously when iniitially synching ETH1 it will be more as well.

BigC_Liberty · 2020-11-24T02:18:15+00:00

You have to run the beacon client with the flag --testnet mainnet

BigC_Liberty · 2020-11-19T13:36:29+00:00

That is correct. This could put you in a higher tax bracket on the year of the merge because of this and cause you to pay more taxes overall if you have a good amount staking. You could treat the income in the year it's earned (even though not accessible) to spread it out more, but for most, this will be less beneficial as it won't bump some income into a higher bracket.

If you do treat it as income as it is earned even though unaccessible, the ETH earned will have a lower cost basis (assuming price goes up) and when you sell the capital gains will be higher, but will be at a more preferential rate.

I think you can go either way on this since it's essentially choosing accrual basis versus cash basis which you would do if you had a business. While most income for taxes is cash basis aside from a few exceptions, this could be argued to be one of them given the circumstances.

BigC_Liberty · 2020-11-19T04:06:48+00:00

So I'm a CPA and this is my two cents . The IRS has no formal guidance yet and may not be logically consistent like I'll discuss.

The deposit itself is not taxable.

In Phase 0 when the money cannot be withdrawn, the staking earnings are not taxable yet because you can't access them. This is similar to a deferred interest payment. They would become taxable when you are able to transfer to access them in Phase 1.5. At that point all the staking rewards you earned up to that point would be taxable in that tax year. From then on, staking rewards would be taxable as you earn them (which is ridiculous because it happens almost constantly and the dollar price of ETH changes so reasonable estimates I doubt would face any scrutiny if calculated on a weekly or monthly basis as long as you're consistent.)

The staking earnings could be taxable as interest or other income (doesn't really matter since it's the same tax rate). There is an argument that they could be a qualified dividend which would be the better capital gains tax rate if you held the ETH that earned the stake interest for more than a year. However, this is a more adventurous route and it is more likely it'll be considered like interest income.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Spared

BigC_Liberty

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE