Bitdreams vs BC.Game
Bitdreams names Antillephone N.V. and 8048/JAZ2019-015, but no register result. BC.Game's number resolves on one. A due-diligence look at two licence lines.
Checked 2026-08-27 · compared on documents both operators publish
- Bitdreams licence:
- 8048/JAZ2019-015
- BC.Game licence:
- ALSI-202410011-FI1 · VALID
- Bitdreams studios:
- not published
- Bitdreams coins:
- 5
- Evidence score:
- 6.0 / 10
- Outside BC.Game's licence:
- Australia, France, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, USA
Every brand on this site displays a licence line somewhere in its footer. The line is the easy part. What separates one record from another is whether the number in it can be taken to a register that answers, and this comparison is about exactly that difference, because it is where these two records diverge most sharply.
BC.Game's number resolves. Put ALSI-202410011-FI1 into the Anjouan Gaming Board's validation endpoint and the authority returns a result. Bitdreams names Antillephone N.V. and the number 8048/JAZ2019-015, and the only URL our library holds against that licence is Bitdreams' own terms page. No register result has been read, so the status field stays empty. Status fields for all forty are on the ranked alternatives to BC Game.
The shape of the number matters
8048/JAZ is a number our library sees more than once. LTC Casino and Primedice, both in the ranked forty, each carry the bare 8048/JAZ with no suffix, and Bitdreams carries 8048/JAZ2019-015. Three brands in one set of forty sharing a stem is a fact about how that generation of Curacao paperwork was issued, and a reason to treat the footer line as a starting point for a check rather than the end of one.
It is worth being precise about what this does and does not establish. It does not say Bitdreams is unlicensed, because we have read no document saying so. It says that a reader who wants to verify the permission a brand operates under can do so on one side of this comparison and, on the evidence we hold, cannot on the other. Unverified and unlicensed are different findings, and only the first is ours to report.
| Question | BC.Game | Bitdreams |
|---|---|---|
| Authority named | Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros | Antillephone N.V. |
| Number published | ALSI-202410011-FI1 | 8048/JAZ2019-015 |
| URL held against the licence | The authority's own validation endpoint | The operator's own terms page |
| Register status recorded | Valid, checked 27 August 2026 | Not read |
| Number carried by other brands in the set | None | Two others carry the same stem |
| Earlier licence in the record | Curacao OGL/2023/118/0060, returned as revoked | None recorded |
Read 26 to 27 August 2026. An empty status means no register result has been read, not that a register returned nothing.
How many of the forty can be checked at all
Thirty-eight of the forty ranked BC.Game alternatives publish a licence authority and a number, and for the same thirty-eight we hold a URL of some kind against that licence. But a URL is not a register. On thirty-two of the forty a status has actually been read back, and on the remaining six, Bitdreams among them, the licence field stops at what the operator itself says.
That distinction is the whole of this page. The check our score weights most heavily, at 1.5 points, is not whether a brand claims a licence but whether the claim has been confirmed as live. It is the one field on a comparison table that a reader can verify without an account, without a deposit and without trusting us.
What Bitdreams does publish
It would be unfair to leave the impression that Bitdreams publishes nothing, because on two fields it publishes more than BC.Game does.
It names five accepted coins: BTC, ETH, LTC, DOGE and XRP. That is short next to the longest list in the set, but it is a read list, and its shape is unusual in a way a depositor would notice. Of the twenty-two coin lists we have read, only three carry no stablecoin at all, and Bitdreams is one of them. A reader holding USDT or USDC, which nineteen and eleven of those lists respectively accept, would be converting before depositing here.
Section 11 of its terms also sets a payout ceiling of EUR 20,000 per month, one of eight caps we have read across the forty. Its supplier list, by contrast, is a document we have not read, so nothing on this page compares lobbies.
Verification, described twice in different places
Bitdreams' terms say the casino may ask for identity documents at its own discretion, and that withdrawals may be withheld or terminated until an account is fully verified. Its Australian guide page adds a practical detail the terms do not: that checks are carried out and players are asked to upload a passport copy after registration.
The two together are more informative than either alone, because one describes a right and the other describes a routine, and unlike some records in this library they do not contradict each other. Neither attaches a figure, so Bitdreams is not among the five brands in the forty that publish a numeric threshold. BC.Game's section 6 is headed for verification and its text is not in our record, so there is nothing to set against this.
The revoked entry sits on BC.Game's side
The point of this page is not that Bitdreams' paperwork is worse than BC.Game's in every direction, because it is not. BC.Game's record carries the only revoked licence in our library: the Curacao Gaming Authority returns its earlier number, OGL/2023/118/0060, as revoked. None of the forty ranked alternatives carries a revoked entry, Bitdreams included. BC.Game's current Anjouan licence does not extend to every territory, and our BC.Game licence page sets out what the authority states about that.
So the honest reading is two different problems rather than one brand's failing. On BC.Game a register answered, and part of what it returned was a withdrawn permission. On Bitdreams no register has answered at all. A reader who values a checkable answer prefers the first; a reader who treats a revoked line as disqualifying prefers the second. Both are defensible, and they are not the same question.
Who each one suits
The rows below are drawn only from fields both records actually hold.
| If this is what you want to check | The record that answers it | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the licence number resolves on a register | BC.Game | Its Anjouan number returns a result; no register result is recorded for Bitdreams |
| A licence number tied to one brand only | BC.Game | Two other brands in the set carry the 8048/JAZ stem |
| Which coins are accepted | Bitdreams | Five named; BC.Game's coin field is unread |
| A stablecoin deposit | Neither | Bitdreams is one of three read lists carrying none; BC.Game's list is unread |
| A monthly ceiling on payouts | Bitdreams | EUR 20,000 in Section 11; BC.Game's cap fields are empty |
| A record with no revoked licence anywhere in it | Bitdreams | BC.Game's earlier Curacao number returns as revoked |
Where the evidence favours each
For
- Five accepted coins named, where BC.Game's coin field is unread
- A monthly payout ceiling stated by section number
- Two separate pages describe verification, and they agree with each other
- No revoked licence anywhere in its record
Against
- The only URL we hold against its licence is its own terms page, not a register
- No register status has been read, so the licence line cannot be confirmed from here
- Its licence number shares a stem with two other brands in the same ranked set
- One of only three read coin lists that carries no stablecoin at all
Questions people ask
- Is Bitdreams unlicensed?
That is not what this page says and we have no basis for saying it. Bitdreams publishes an authority and a number. What our record lacks is a register result for that number, because the only URL we hold against it is the operator's own terms page. Unverified and unlicensed are different findings.
- Why does a shared licence stem matter?
Because the number alone does not identify one operator. Three brands in the ranked forty carry a number beginning 8048/JAZ. That is a fact about a generation of Curacao paperwork, and a reason to treat a footer line as the start of a check.
- How many of the forty have a licence you could actually verify?
Thirty-eight publish an authority and a number, and on thirty-two a status has been read back from a register. On the other six, including Bitdreams, the licence field stops at what the operator itself says.
- Can I deposit stablecoins at Bitdreams?
Its published list names BTC, ETH, LTC, DOGE and XRP, and no stablecoin. Of the twenty-two coin lists we have read, only three carry none, and this is one of them.
- Does BC.Game hold a revoked licence?
Its current Anjouan licence returned as valid on 27 August 2026. Its earlier Curacao licence, OGL/2023/118/0060, returns as revoked on the Curacao Gaming Authority register. Both are true, and pages that still describe BC.Game as Curacao-licensed are out of date.
BC Game alternatives ranks Bitdreams against thirty-nine others on the same evidence.