Duelbits vs BC.Game

BC.Game's current licence details come from the Anjouan Gaming Board's validation page for bc.game, the same page BC.Game links to from its own footer seal, checked on 27 August 2026. Its company details come from BC.Game's own AML and compliance page: Twocent Technology Limited, a company registered in Belize under number 000041939 at Sea Urchin Street, San Pedro, Ambergris Caye.

Duelbits' licence details come from the Curaçao Gaming Authority certificate register, where its entry was checked on 26 August 2026. That is the whole of the primary-source record we hold for Duelbits. Its coin list, its studio list and its verification clauses have not been read into our library, and every row below that would need one of those documents is marked accordingly.

That asymmetry is worth stating rather than hiding behind a full-looking table. A row that reads not verified is a note about our reading on a date, not a finding about the brand.

The licence rows are the reason this page exists. Both brands can be looked up, and the two lookups return different things in a way that matters if you have been reading older listings.

BC.Game holds an Anjouan licence, number ALSI-202410011-FI1, issued under the Computer Gaming Licensing Act 007 of 2005 and administered by Anjouan Licensing Services Inc. The authority's validation endpoint returned VALID for bc.game when we checked it. Separately, the Curaçao Gaming Authority register carries an older BC.Game entry, OGL/2023/118/0060, and that entry's status is Revoked. Both facts are true at once, and a listing that still describes BC.Game as a Curaçao brand is repeating a licence number that the register no longer stands behind.

Duelbits' entry in that same Curaçao register, number OGL/2024/1507/0838, returned Active. So the single register that shows BC.Game's former licence as revoked shows Duelbits' current licence as live. That is the clearest documented difference between the two brands we can put on this page.

It is easy to read a page of blank cells as an accident of our reading and stop there. It is more useful to ask how unusual the blanks are, because the answer changes what the licence rows are worth. Across the 40 alternatives in our library, 22 publish the coins they take, 22 publish the studios they carry, 36 have an identity-checks clause we could read and eight publish a withdrawal cap with an amount, a currency and a period attached. Neither BC.Game nor Duelbits appears in any of those four counts.

That places both brands in the thinner half of a market that is not especially forthcoming to begin with. The comparison brands that fill those columns do it convincingly: Cloudbet publishes 40 coins, Bitcasino.io 120 studios, Rocketpot the most explicit money clause in the library. Set against that, a licence entry and a set of feature tags is a narrow basis for choosing, and this page would rather say so than pad the table.

Where the two brands do separate is the register, and it separates them cleanly because both numbers resolve. One further condition is worth knowing before either lookup means much: the Anjouan record for BC.Game carries territorial limits as well as a status, and our licence check page sets out that part of the record in full.

Neither brand has a game providers list in our library, and neither has a coin list. On most comparison sites these are the fullest columns on the page, which is worth pausing on: a provider grid is easy to copy from a lobby screenshot and almost never dated. We would rather leave the column empty than fill it from a source we have not read.

What we can say about BC.Game is the tag set recorded against it, which comes from its own site: crypto-only, sportsbook, original games, live dealer and provably fair. Those five tags are the feature-level record we hold, and they are the only feature claims this page makes about BC.Game.

Duelbits carries no tags in our library at all. Again, that is a gap in our reading rather than a finding. If the presence of a sportsbook or of in-house original games is what decides your comparison, the BC.Game side of that decision is documented here and the Duelbits side is not, so the comparison has to be finished on Duelbits' own site.

• BC.Game tags on record: crypto-only, sportsbook, original games, live dealer, provably fair
• Duelbits tags on record: none read
• Coin lists on record: neither brand
• Studio lists on record: neither brand

BC.Game's user agreement is structured in numbered sections, and we have recorded the headings of the six that matter most to a comparison of this kind: section 6 on Know Your Customer and identity verification, section 9 on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing, section 10 on deposits, section 11 on withdrawals, section 12 on bonuses and promotions, and section 15 on account restriction, suspension and termination.

Recording a heading is not the same as recording a rule. We hold no verification threshold figure for BC.Game and no withdrawal cap figure, so this page publishes neither. If you see a specific dollar figure attached to BC.Game's identity checks elsewhere, it did not come from the clause numbering we have read, and the operator's own terms are the only place to settle it.

For Duelbits we hold no verification summary, no threshold, no clause text and no withdrawal cap, so there is nothing to compare here. Readers whose decision turns on identity checks will find our KYC comparison a better starting point than this page.

BC.Game publishes a provably fair design that is unusual enough to be a genuine comparison point rather than a badge. Rather than a seed pair agreed per round, it uses a pre-generated hash chain: ten million hashes generated in advance and released in reverse order, one per round, so a round's result exists before the round begins. The verification material is published on GitHub.

The practical difference is in what you check and when. A seed-pair scheme is verified after the fact by revealing a server seed and re-running the hash. A chain is verified by confirming that each released hash hashes to the previous one, so the chain as a whole can be audited rather than one round at a time.

We hold no provably fair record for Duelbits, so this section has one side. It is included because the BC.Game half is documented and specific.

The table below is built only from rows above that are filled in. Where both sides are blank, the honest answer is that this page cannot decide it for you, and the table says that too.

On the evidence we hold, Duelbits is the better documented licence and BC.Game is the better documented product. Both entries resolve cleanly today, and Duelbits does so without a revoked predecessor sitting behind it, because the only thing the Curaçao register says about BC.Game is that an older number was revoked.

If your first question is what you get once you are inside, the balance flips. BC.Game has a documented sportsbook, documented original games, a documented live-dealer offering and a published fairness scheme with a specific mechanism behind it. For Duelbits we hold none of that, which is not a criticism of Duelbits and is a real limit on what this page can recommend.

The recommendation we will not make is one built on a column neither brand fills. If your decision turns on which coins you can deposit, which studios you will find inside, or when documents become likely, this page settles none of it, and no honest reading of it could. The useful next step is our list of BC.Game alternatives, where ten brands publish both a coin list and a studio catalogue and five publish a verification figure - a far better place to finish a comparison than a page with two thin records on it.