Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Some one must keep forum clean >_>

 

 

yes man but you can't handle all forum.that's why we have other mods too.;D

Posted

Ok, tell me what I said.

 

According to the translations fakoykas & coyote made to me (when you and the other one were making those "fake translations")

 

1 of you wrote something about sex with a youngster and the other one wrote a flame like in the gr thread.

 

there it was 2 more flames i cant remember them now, but i asked fakoykas to translate them to me too.

 

(i also got 3 pms regarding the flames you and the other guy were making in greek after making a fake translation)

Posted

According to the translations fakoykas & coyote made to me (when you and the other one were making those "fake translations")

 

1 of you wrote something about sex with a youngster and the other one wrote a flame like in the gr thread.

 

there it was 2 more flames i cant remember them now, but i asked fakoykas to translate them to me too.

 

(i also got 3 pms regarding the flames you and the other guy were making in greek after making a fake translation)

 

Yes I said, something like I have sex with 18-. Is it a flame? It did not address to anyone :O

Posted

You Say That You Make Sex With Litle Kids And That You Will -beep- Reapers Mother >.<

 

 

What? First of all, I never said that in this forum. I challenge to quote that. And even if I did, Reaper is a good friend of mine...

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..