Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

http://maxcheaters.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=75989 This guy is member on Maxcheaters and on the same time,member at GoldGamers too.Exactly,he is a Game Moderator over there. Forum site : http://www.goldgamers.net

Feel free to discuss about him..i just wanted to report what i saw..anything else!

Posted

Another failed forum, so there is no need to worry.

 

About ban or not, g.mod will decide.

Posted

The half+ of them are members here. Anyway it is so stupid banning members coz are (staff)members in other sites.

It's not going like that

 

Atleast for sites like this

Posted

It's not going like that

 

Atleast for sites like this

IF someone leech something then he must be ban. BUT only the leecher and the admin who didn't removed it.

Posted

IF someone leech something then he must be ban. BUT only the leecher and the admin who didn't removed it.

by that way it is supposed to re-ban ventic ;)

Posted

why lol..

he/we/me make no any advertise or w/e

 

no any reason to ban lol ..

lol you're kidding me??

 

You forgot what signature ppl were using here?

You forgot the signature of Ventic?

 

Anyway Vazelos was talking about leeching and admin not removing it.

Posted

by that way it is supposed to re-ban ventic ;)

too bad you cant  cause of your stupid actions

Good move! Go on.

QQ Man
Posted

lol you're kidding me??

 

You forgot what signature ppl were using here?

You forgot the signature of Ventic?

 

Anyway Vazelos was talking about leeching and admin not removing it.

since i am clean now you can QQ alone
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • LIVE VERIFICATION? SUMSUB? “IMPOSSIBLE”? ▪ Spoiler: it is possible — if you know who to work with. A client came in with a task to pass **live verification** on **WantToPay**, a Telegram virtual card service. On the platform side — **Sumsub**: liveness check, SMS, manual review. “Fast” and “by eye” simply don’t work here. › What was done: → analyzed the verification scenario and Sumsub requirements → built the correct flow: phone number, email, timing → **completed live verification remotely, without account handover** → handled SMS and confirmation codes → brought the process to final approval ▪ Result: → verification passed → access granted → no flags or repeat requests ▪ Live verification is not luck. It’s scenario-based preparation — not hope. › TG: @mustang_service ( https:// t.me/ mustang_service ) › Channel: Mustang Service ( https:// t.me/ +6RAKokIn5ItmYjEx ) *All data is published with the client’s consent.* #verification #sumsub #livecheck #kyc #case
    • IMPORTANT INFO: In a few days, I will switch to completely new code, written from scratch with a new download system, patch building and management system. The Updater will become true 2026 code with "foolproof systems". I'm going to create a Discord server for customers to request new ideas and features. FIRST CUSTOMERS ARE ALREADY USING THE NEW UPDATER ON LIVE SERVERS! Watch this topic for upcoming info because the new updater is around the corner! Yes, you can still use self-update on the previous updater! No, the new updater won't be compatible with the old patch system! A new build is required, but players who already have game files won't have to download the entire patch again! New templates and updates to existing templates are coming soon! Sneak peek:  
    • i used guytis IL project and source. i found in his project there are 3 Client version source... 1,CliExt_H5   --->this one cant be compiled in VS2005,i did know why..is it for H5 client? 2,CliExtNew  --->this one is IL version ,but when i compiled it and use it.player cant login game,MD5Checksum wrong.i check the source code,but not found any hints. 3,L2Server    --->this one for HB client?im not sure...   so my question is what are the differences between these three versions of cliext.dll?how can i fix the issue of the MD5Checksum not matching problem?   01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [CCliExt::HandleCheckSum] Invalid Checksum[1130415144] vs [-721420287] packet[dd] len[29] sum[2698] key[30] HWID[] Account[]! 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, SocketLimiter::UserSocketBadunknownprotocol 11111111111 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [usersocket]unknown protocol from ip[113.137.149.115]!      
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This community uses essential cookies to function properly. Non-essential cookies and third-party services are used only with your consent. Read our Privacy Policy and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..