Bitcoin Forum

This thread will serve as reference of user who spread false, fake or unhelpful information on technical board. Here are list of board i count as technical board.

• "Development & Technical Discussion" with it's child boards.
• "Mining" with it's child boards, excluding "Mining speculation".
• "Bitcoin Technical Support".

If you decide to create a report, you're expected to explain why the post is technically wrong. Vague explanation such as "technical nonsense" or "it's impossible" isn't accepted. It's also acceptable to also include post which is technically wrong outside board i mentioned. Here is recommend report format,


In case reported post edit or no longer exist, you can use https://ninjastic.space/ (https://ninjastic.space/) and http://loyce.club/archive/posts/ (http://loyce.club/archive/posts/) to verify a user actually create post quoted in this thread. But take note any post/thread could be edited after those website perform archival.

---

Below text is reference for trust feedback to user snuffman8 when initially creating this thread.

Disclaimer: I create this thread primarily as reference for reporting his post and neutral feedback.

Profile link: snuffman8 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3603536)

Update: Moderator delete those post i mentioned below. You can use https://ninjastic.space/search?author=snuffman8 (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=snuffman8) to verify my thread.

List post with false/fake information:


This is wrong since Electrum doesn't create wallet file with .dat extension.


WIF isn't part of Bitcoin protocol. It doesn't matter whether you store private key in binary, hex or other format.


The topic ask about invalid script, which isn't related at all. Suggesting using different sequence is also irresponsible where someone could accidentally lock their coin for really long time.

It's also worth to mention this user is suspected of using AI on this post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63518321#msg63518321 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63518321#msg63518321).

Here's the first post in question put through our standard detection process:


Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hivemoderation: 92.9% AI-generated
Sapling.ai: 32.6% Fake

Based on Sapling's analysis, I probably wouldn't report that post in particular... It probably got a lower score because the last sentence starts with "I" (not typical of AI-generated posts -- he probably altered it a bit). But most of this account's posts are completely AI-generated. Let's take a look at the most obvious ones:


Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hivemoderation: 100% AI-generated
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake



Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hivemoderation: 100% AI-generated
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake



Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hivemoderation: 100% AI-generated
Sapling.ai: 99.8% Fake



Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hivemoderation: 81.5% AI-generated
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake


IMO this type of user should be banned on the spot.

Wow, I would have ignored it as AI generated as I've forgotten you can ask it to look impressed or use any kind of emotion when writing a reply, and yeah , that text is basically what chatGPT gives you when copy pasting the OP story:


Chatgpt:


Is it able to actually write good responses if you copy paste the first post and ask it to give a reply that looks human generated?
I'm going to have some fun later on asking it to write stuff that should not be detected as AI generated text!

But this case is still weird because AI usually give better advice than the ones posted in the technical support section.

I was confused when I read his post about wallet.dat and its relationship to the Electrum wallet posted under NotATether's post. Yes, I don't want to comment on anything because I don't really understand the technical details of wallets.

He wants to appear to have mastered the technical part, most likely, but if what he says can mislead other people who read it, of course people who don't really understand the wallet field will think what he says is true.

ABCbits. Thank you for the explanation.
I think it's better to ask to know something than to make a wrong post.

It definitely looks like he's just running his posts through ChatGPT. Although on an unrelated note, all my transactions have 00000000 locktime which disables it. If you have the time, do stop by in the thread to leave your advice about this as it would be appreciated.

He wants to appear to have mastered but the problem is that he wasn't able because he didn't have an any amount of knowledge to at the very least check what the hell is the AI generated text talking about, if he knows something, then there wouldn't a be a thread like this that will talk about his issues. I guess this is also a call out to those people that want to talk about things, make sure that you know what you're talking about or you risk getting laughed at.

ChatGPT usually create more formal text though, although i know user can ask it to be less formal.


Yeah. I mentioned risk of accidentally locked coin for long time since i recall it happened to someone on technical board.


I already stopped by before creating this thread. But i couldn't think any suggestion that might be helpful, so i just left merit to post which is likely to be helpful.


AI usually give bad/wrong advice when when the topic is really specific (like sequence number on Bitcoin transaction).

That guys post proves that AI doesn't really understand much about Electrum and Bitcoin and the ones who rely on it often get caught due to such misinformation. Although in some tasks AI text generators like ChatGpt can help the ones but in most cases the information they produce is totally useless and unreliable.

Those people really don't know that the text they are generating with those AI generators is mostly wrong and they're sharing that wrong information with others. The user who made those posts is a newbie and he/she might not be aware that the information which AI generates is wrong and not useful at all.

Even AI does not technically have complete control over Electrum if it chooses to use AI technology assistance in creating the post.
It's better to be honest about things that are beyond our abilities.

If we don't understand it, the smart choice is to frequently visit discussion topics about wallets and read one by one the posts of those who are discussing it.
I'm embarrassed and not confident to say that I can pass by making a post about it.

Whether you have above average knowledge about Electrum and other Bitcoin wallets, let you judge for yourself. If I have said that I still haven't mastered it.


Something that's not bad. Call out to ourselves before calling out to others.

Regarding this case - I remember one thread about; Newbie, stop teaching.
Newbie and other users don't need to talk about something if they are not experts. Of course they can learn first - but if they start without knowledge then this is not responsible behavior even if they want to appear knowledgeable about the topic. IMO - this will only make things worse and make harm other users. Now he is only harming himself because he posted that content and many other posts with AI.

Im really happy that you made this post.
By the days, ive just realized that this forum is much more than just a talk about bitcoin.

As you can see, all my post over the days after that are pretty regular and do not have anything to do with AI. What i did not know, i asked and people here were friendly and helpful.

If it does counts, im truly sorry about using AI to help me interact in some kind of posts, that definitely i do not know a sh*t about. But yes, i thank you for making me see that this is not the way, and this community has a lot to make grow up not only about crypto, but as a human.

I’m surprised to see this user visits the technical discussion section, just two days ago, he created a topic in beginners & help asking about wallets.  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482830.msg63552096#msg63552096)From his posts on that thread, you could tell that he is a new to crypto and doesn’t have any real knowledge about crypto. So what’s he doing giving advice to people in regards to the technical aspects of bitcoin.

Did you read the whole thread? The main problem is false/fake/unhelpful information. Whether it's written by human or AI matters little to me.

Man, you didn't understand the essence of where you went wrong. You can use AI or any tool which can help you understand something better, but how the hell did you imagine that you need to give advice and information about something that you say "do not know a sh*t about"?
Would you agree to the treatment of the disease through ChatGPT suggestions?
If it's part of a fight to earn merit it's completely wrong.

I think that's not the only board that users spread false/fake/unhelpful information. I have seen it on other boards to.
But good that it comes up to the table. Good OP that you created this, it can lead to something good in time.

It's great that you acknowledged your mistake instead of denying it. I don't like to discourage newbies, but I understand why ABCbits or anyone else might be annoyed by this. Bad advice is worse than no advice, especially when it could potentially lead someone to lose money.

If you want to help others, it's important to first acquire knowledge and once you have mastered a particular topic -- feel free to offer help. Additionally, I personally don't think using AI is inherently a terrible thing to do. It's how people use it that determines the outcome. If your English isn't the best or you struggle with constructing proper sentences and simply want AI to assist you in that regard, I believe it's entirely normal. Tools like Grammarly serve the exact purpose, however, what is not acceptable is copying someone's question into an AI website and then blindly copying and pasting the answer.

Edit: there's possibility this user also use AI to create posts, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63583674#msg63583674 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63583674#msg63583674).

User: Life_Saving (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3603181)


Non-sense post,
1. Reindex doesn't reduce chainstate folder. Based on https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/117435 (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/117435), --reindex does reduce chainstate size if you already run node for long time. But since the goal only about reducing chainstate folder, using --reindex-chainstate is far better option.
2. Running --reindex or --reindex-chainstate on pruned node means Bitcoin Core redownload whole blockchain.
3. The command itself is wrong. bitcoin-cli only used to interact with Bitcoin Core JSON-RPC.

If he posted correct command and someone who run pruned node copy-pasted it without understand what it does, he/she forced to redownload 500GB+ blockchain which took few days (which depends on internet and computer hardware).


Looking at official guideline for Moonlander 2 at https://www.futurebit.io/moonlander-2-support (https://www.futurebit.io/moonlander-2-support), there are few inaccurate things.
1. You must to download required driver for Moonlander 2.
2. You don't need to specify the device ID. Mining software usually automatically detect your USB miners.
3. This reply isn't relevant with OP's question. OP only ask about possibility of solo mining with Moonlander 2.

to worsen the whole thing, it was discovered that not really do these people make mistakes to receive being corrected, but they deliberately make post that they know nothing about and still argue blantly just to proof themselves right, the truth about life is that when we know something then it becomes so easy and simple for us to use it and make a rightful application of it unlike when we have no idea and refused to learn from the mistakes we made.

I do come across wrong information too on other board of this forum and I wish a thread can also be specifically created where user can report  members who are steadily passing wrong and misleading information to readers.

@OP, I like the idea of this your topic. I don't contribute yet on the technical board because I don't know much about Bitcoin technical and I am still learning from the technical boardboard,  until I have a good knowledge about technical related issues, that is when I can comfortably make comment there.

It is better to keep mute or ask questions when someone don't have any knowledge about what is being discussed else they will just give wrong information.

Yeah, wrong information happens on all boards. But on technical board it's especially worse since there's expectation people know what they're talking about.


This user continue to spread false/fake information.


1. Electrum only support Bitcoin.
2. While there are Electrum fork which support altcoin, usually it have different name. For example, Electrum-LTC or Electron Cash (for BCH coin).
3. Import private key doesn't create new Bitcoin transaction, so there's no point mentioning TX fees. It's only relevant if he's talking about sweep private key.
4. It doesn't really answer OP's question.


This reply created for thread about Electrum, where Electrum doesn't create BIP39 words but rather Electrum Seed Version System (https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html (https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html)). In addition, this reply doesn't answer OP question at all.

I think in order to be mad at someone for spreading misinformation you have to determine if it’s being done because the person is an idiot and doesn’t understand something that they think they do, or if they are genuinely trying to spread FUD. Both are possible, but one is evil. This is why we should be very thankful for the knowledgeable people who sit in that section all day and help people with difficult solutions for no pay.

In this case they are just pasting stuff from ChatGPT, which is often wrong when it comes down to the technical details of how bitcoin works. I remember seeing one such poster post about how the internet isn't required to make cryptocurrency transactions. But they posted it in Altcoin Discussion so it didn't matter as much, because nobody really reads what's in there.

It's hard to measure such thing. So it's more practical to use different measurement such as whether the information could less to financial loss or how frequent someone spread misinformation. Although IMO most of them simply copy-paste whatever generated by AI they use.

User: Prince_vlad (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3600489)


1. Off-topic response since the thread asking about generating Taproot address with Python.
2. Taproot address (P2TR) is NOT P2PKH address.
3. Taproot actually improve privacy by only revealing used/necessary portion of the script.
4. Not all script/smart contract can be represented as a single public key.


1. Off-topic response since the thread asking about verifying Bitcoin Core file.
2. "Choose the appropriate version"? When newer version of Bitcoin Core released, usually it's available for all supported OS. People should choose latest version, unless they have very specific need.
3. Computer hardware also play big factor on duration of initial sync.

It's also suspected this user use AI to create his post, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63524512#msg63524512 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63524512#msg63524512).

Already nuked. That was fast.

Looks like they were reported as early as Jan 20.

User: OGsmall (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3540267)

Note: I edit suspicious link and reduce image size on his post to prevent someone got scammed/hacked and to make quoted post below easier to read.

---

1. electrum.co.za isn't official Electrum's website.
2. When i visit electrum.co.za, actually it's website about payment service. It's not related with Electrum at all.
3. Medium article mentioned contain download link to known fake Electrum website. See [WARNING] electrumupdatefiles.com - Fake site hosting malicious electrum apps (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5282873.0).


Here's archive link to the medium article, https://web.archive.org/web/20240218092926/https://medium.com/@doyosuge8473/how-to-restore-your-electrum-wallet-if-you-lose-2fa-178b09330f7f (https://web.archive.org/web/20240218092926/https://medium.com/@doyosuge8473/how-to-restore-your-electrum-wallet-if-you-lose-2fa-178b09330f7f).

---

1. Those screenshot actually taken from question shown on https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/118135/get-the-scriptpubkey-from-a-taproot-address (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/118135/get-the-scriptpubkey-from-a-taproot-address).
2. I don't know what exactly he mean by version 0. But if he refer to witness version, it should be version 1 since version 0 refer to SegWit.

---

It's also worth to mention that this user claiming image found internet as his own, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485523.msg63680247#msg63680247 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485523.msg63680247#msg63680247).

I was surprised by the amount of BS in SamReomo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=885934)'s post on the tech board. Context: a Newbie asked for help with long-term Bitcoin storage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5486435.msg63714512#msg63714512). I've included my comments in this quote:

Ironically, about a month ago, he posted this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg63534363#msg63534363) in this very thread  ;D

Electrum also can be used as cold wallet, the developer even wrote a guide about it on https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/coldstorage.html (https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/coldstorage.html), but otherwise you're right. Suggesting to store recovery words on device without mention encryption is really bad suggestion, especially due to risk the device might be stolen. And it reminds me of his past nonsense,

The worst part was this:
So many people still think they're "air-gapped" if they temporarily disconnect their internet.

Good to know that someone can really share your posts that way even if you give accurate information. LoyceV, I suggested him to go for an air-gapped system after setting the wallet. I guess ABCbits has shared something valuable about cold wallet which I'll note from now on.

Most newbies aren't aware of Linux operating system. Installing and using Electrum on Linux for such people may be out of question, I know that it's safe to go with Electrum on Linux but most users aren't Linux users so it won't be easy for them to move from Windows to Linux and install Electrum on that new operating system.

Why are you sure that using Electrum on Linux is safe? Do you know the meaning of the expression monkey with a grenade?
You can just as easily expose yourself to a virus by copying the wrong command into the terminal and being exposed to a virus.
On the other side, I am a Linux lover and very careful when handling it, but even as an amateur, not a professional, installing an electrum wallet from Appimage seems to me to be one of the simplest things.

Linux is safe as an operating system as compared to Windows OS, and that's why it's recommend by tech experts and is used in most datacenters. I won't go deep but open-source software or operating systems are more safe as compared to closed-source ones.

I believe what you have said is true, but most Linux users are technically good and they avoid copying and pasting of wrong commands in terminal.

It's good to know that you're a Linux lover, but I don't agree that installing electrum wallet on Linux is that simple. I know if someone has technical expertise then for that person it isn't a hard task but for an armature with no technical knowledge won't be able to do that easily. On the other hand installing or running portable version of Electrum on Windows OS can be done easily by someone with no technical skills.

But why would you even suggest something like that if you don't know what you're talking about? That's just plain wrong.

The whole point of an air-gapped system is to physically isolate your data, preventing its leakage online. There is no point "to go for an air-gapped system" after setting up the wallet, since this is the most critical part of the whole process.

But it also contain has inaccurate information. And while we're it, could you edit your post to remove or cross-out the inaccurate information?


If you ever tried using Electrum Appimage, you wouldn't say that. Download and run Appimage (Linux) is nearly as easy as download and run portable version (Windows). Here's a very simple GUI guide, https://itsfoss.com/use-appimage-linux/ (https://itsfoss.com/use-appimage-linux/).

It's as if you don't want to understand what it's about. That's okay, but stop telling others it's safe. Incorrect advice on the tech board can make people lose their money.

Although, the information I gave isn't very inaccurate and I'm sure it won't cause problems for anyone but I respect you guys opinion and that's why I removed that post of mine. I'm also going to stop posting on that board from now own because I guess there are already enough tech experts on that board who share very valuable information.

Yes, I have personally tried to run the Appimage of Electrum on Lubuntu Linux and I faced issues during launching of that Appimage, I sorted the issue because I have been using Linux for many years but those who just transition to Linux may not be able to fix such issues easily.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have removed that post.

Having problem putting a checkmark in the right place?

Conversation between a deaf and a blind man. ::) ::)

I wouldn't go that far, in very rare instance AppImage might fail to run on certain linux distro. Here's an example, https://docs.appimage.org/user-guide/troubleshooting/fuse.html (https://docs.appimage.org/user-guide/troubleshooting/fuse.html).

This user already have 4 neutral feedback and now he decide to spam technical board.

User: Silver005 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3530138)


Another reply on same thread already explain why it's impossible. In addition,
1. Metamask doesn't support Bitcoin.
2. Bitcoin have no smart contract, but only non-turing complete scripting.
3. Few other mistake i don't bother to point out.

Why wasn't he banned months ago? If Mods let chatbot plagiarism go unpunished, Bitcointalk will be completely overrun in a few years.

It looks like my, @nutildah's[1] and other's report finally got this user banned. Although IMO nuke would be better option in this case. Hard to believe it took about a month and lots of reports to make it happen. This wouldn't be enough to discourage spammer who use AI or copy-paste bot (with spinner feature).


[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63730993#msg63730993 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63730993#msg63730993)

I'm trying to find this guy as surely someone posted about him here already but no dice yet, will keep looking but..Anyone remember that one user who had that bald headed weird looking guy as his forum avatar who used to be the king of doing this, maybe 5-6 years back..I mean it was all day, every day..I can't remember his name but he was maybe up there with "The one above all" (which I'm also forgetting his orig forum name, as I think TOAA was his 3rd-5th alt or so..hard to keep up).  Those two were so deranged I almost miss them, and miss Tman going at them, who was equally loony just in a diff way, though a former friend (when he was thought to be trustworthily ..smh).  

What's especially dumb is he was fighting for his right to AI spam all the way to the last minute:


This is what his posts look like w/o ChatGPT... Ay yayay. Sad to say it but a decent % of users shouldn't be posting on this forum at all. I just can't believe how incredibly low the bar is for getting accepted into a sig campaign here (granted the aforementioned offender was not yet in a campaign). Campaign managers should really set higher standards so we don't have to read the barrage of nonsense that comes from their campaigners, and so those that aren't interested in writing anything remotely interesting don't even bother trying.

I think you refer to https://ninjastic.space/user/The-One-Above-All (https://ninjastic.space/user/The-One-Above-All), although it doesn't seem he used to post on technical board. Anyway, if you need to look for certain user, you might want to use https://bpip.org/ (https://bpip.org/) search feature or list of banned username on http://loyce.club/ (http://loyce.club/).


Or enforce this again with higher standard.


Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.msg16904309#msg16904309 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.msg16904309#msg16904309)

AI fighting to survive. Now wait until it becomes self-aware and goes full Skynet.

User: BTTUSERNAME (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3621497)


1. Long and generic reply.
2. Zero knowledge proof basically a method to verify the data without knowing the data itself. I don't know why it's mentioned as method to secure wallet.
3. Encryption is part of cryptography.
4. Bitcoin wallet usually already use strong encryption cryptography (usually AES-256), assuming the user doesn't use weak password.


1. Fake block doesn't make sense here. If it's fake, it would be rejected by node and thus won't be propagated across Bitcoin network.
2. Performing 51% attack on Bitcoin is very expensive and generally seen as not probable attack. So average people don't have to consider this attack vector seriously.
3. If 51% attack actuall happen, which Bitcoin wallet someone use doesn't matter here.
4. 51% attack still require the attacker to create valid transaction and block, so term "false history of transaction" doesn't make sense here.
5. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".


1. Saying Bitcoin Core works under assumption blockchain is secure is wrong. Bitcoin Core verify all block/TX while also can detect block reorganization.
2. Unless user send Bitcoin or expect to receive Bitcoin when 51% attack happen, there's no need to check balance or newly created transaction.
3. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".


1. The only somewhat helpful information is waiting for blockchain.com's reply.
2. I did quick search for term "BTC balance flash", but didn't find any relevant result. Although based on his explanation, it's probably his friend got fooled by watch only wallet.

His remaining 4 posts are mostly AI generated as well, but the 1st two have enough hand-written gibberish in them to make them fail the AI test.

Post #1:


Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 99.5% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake


Post #2


Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 100% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% fake

It's not surprising. Anyway, his post on this thread was deleted by moderator. You and other reader can check it on https://ninjastic.space/post/63930017 (https://ninjastic.space/post/63930017).

I think he's big mad because his accounts keep getting banned... He should learn instead its better to just not break the rules.

It is easy to connect the accounts between a trail of merits; here's how I found a new one:

https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?from=Youngkhngdiddy&to=Gormicsta
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/04/11/jHjvj.png
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/04/11/jHVnq.png

Manlikefrank1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3602066)


 ::)


 ::) ::)

Also his very first post was plagiarized:


Original:

https://www.investopedia.com/spot-bitcoin-etfs-8358373
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/04/11/jHcNf.png

Although it took a while the mods finally got annoyed enough to ban someone years ago from the technical board https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0
And they still let him spread his troll crap in other sections. I un-ignored him the other day for some reason and after actually engaging with him I added him back to my ignore list.

If they won't actually kick someone like that off the forum these other users are sadly going to be here a while until they cross some other line.

-Dave

User: SickDayIn (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=546567)


1. This is partially off-topic response since it's 1st reply on a thread with title "Comparing Inheritance Services".
2. His suggestion to create 3 multi-signature wallet with 3-of-3 spend condition (since he said "all require 3 keys") is dangerous since you'll lose access to the Bitcoin even if one of the key is lost.


1. You don't need 51% hashrate to perform a fork. In addition, you don't need any hashrate if the fork also replace PoW with something else.
2. BCH perform fork even though it has far smaller hashrate than BTC. It's also true for BSV when it forked itself from BCH.
3. AntPool is mining pool, not miner. Besides, AntPool and few other mining pool already offer accelerator service. That means they'll harm their own service by letting someone else use their miner's hashrate.

---

Below reply wasn't created on technical board, but still give inaccurate technical information.


1. Tails offer persistent storage feature, https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html (https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html). So it's okay to store data on USB which contain Tails.
2. Tails provide upgrade feature without overwrite, https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/ (https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/).

This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave

I also notice difference between registration date and first post. But i doubt anyone would bother hack old account without any activity.


Thanks.

I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

---

I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.

First of all, i appreciate you provide detailed response in this thread.

Now i understand better what you're trying to say regarding multi-sig wallet. While it's true there are few assumption on my behalf, i doubt other reader would know you're actually talking about 2-of-3 spend condition when you didn't even mention number 2 (two).


I see. I usually term "block organization", but term "fork" is also valid term to describe 51% attack which create new chain (with most accumulated hashrate/work). And FYI, while such attack require 51% hashrate to ensure success, someone might try it with less hashrate on transaction with only few confirmation. You can use this calculator https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/ (https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/) to estimate the success rate.


I didn't use Tails back on 2016 or 2017, so i'll take your words. Anyway, it'd be great if you edit your posts to state that your previous statement is outdated.


I don't think you're using hacked account either, so IMO there's no need to provide any proof.


Thanks for the explanation. And FYI having multiple account actually is allowed by this forum. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0), point number 18.

Thanks, appreciate your response, I will make sure later on to go back and edit those posts I made with more detailed and correct information, and will keep your feedback in mind for future posts as well. Overall I think what you are doing here is positive, ensuring that high quality posts are maintained on the forum. Particular your previous comments on this thread calling out users who are using AI generated comments, there is no place for that and probably being done by people with the intention of trying to get a high ranked account so they can later scam on it. My intention is purely to contribute to the forum and reconnect here from when I lurked so many years ago, but I'll make sure I am more specific in more comments (e.g. actually mention 2 of 3 spend condition lol).

That's a great and helpful topic, definitely undervalued in my opinion.
When asking technical questions, I really expect to get answers backd by knowledge, not backed by assumptions or AI.

To make it easier, maybe you can add some code to your OP, where it's easier for everyone to report, similar like:


And add below the form that it would ne nice to correct all false/fake informations.

It just gave the appearance of it.

An account was registered and made no posts for 8+ years and then 50 posts in 2 weeks.

That usually screams an account was compromised or changed hands.

-Dave

Thanks @ABCbits, just to summarise I have done the following:

(1) I deleted my post in the thread in relation to tails, as it was incorrect.
(2) My post in the bitcoin inheritance thread was already deleted by a moderator.
(3) I have updated my post in relation to the attack scenarios to include the new insights you shared:

That's great idea. I'll think about the format and edit this thread later.


That was quick, i appreciate your action.

User: Kamasylvia (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3577733)

Additional information (optional):
* This user also suspected using AI, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63976679#msg63976679 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63976679#msg63976679).

List of post:


Concept of perishable UTXO actually let miner take UTXO (above certain age) for themselves. So saying "their UTXOs could become unspendable" is simply wrong.


For reference, this post written using Indonesian language.
1. Usually there's almost no correlation between mempool activity on mainnet and testnet. See https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#1y (https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#1y) and https://mempool.space/testnet/graphs/mempool#1y (https://mempool.space/testnet/graphs/mempool#1y).
2. Both mainnet and testnet have same 10 minutes block time. So saying testnet might be faster to confirm a transaction is wrong.
3. There's no need to pay attention to mainnet for determining fee for creating TX fee.


1. AntMiner is name of a company. They create all kinds of ASIC, not only SHA-256 ASIC.
2. WhatsMiners is brand name from company MicroBT. They also  create all kinds of ASIC, not only SHA-256 ASIC.
2. Looking at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155468.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155468.0) and https://www.asicminervalue.com/miners/microbt/whatsminer-m20s (https://www.asicminervalue.com/miners/microbt/whatsminer-m20s), there's no mention that WhatsMiner M20S support either X11 or scrypt.


1. Opcodes on Bitcoin does more than allowing different data sizes or verification. Other reader may check https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script) to verify my statement.
2. Actually only node with outdated software or using software which intentionally doesn't implement certain stuff unable to properly validate unsupported/unknown opcodes.

https://i.ibb.co/TwgJpS2/c.png (https://ibb.co/rQwqTS0)

1. TX fee on sidechain usually is extremely low, so using LN bring little benefit in terms of TX fee.
2. Whether you open LN channel from Bitcoin mainnet or sidechain, you get same benefit (microtransaction and fast confirmation).

---

User: marcosadelacruz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3520567)

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:


For reference, this reply was created under BRC-20 thread.
1. BRC-20 isn't smart contract.
2. BRC-20 doesn't offer feature to add turing-complete script either.
3. BRC-20 (which rely on Ordinal) isn't part of Bitcoin protocol. So it can't be exploited to cause Bitcoin network failure or add vulnerability to Bitcoin network.

User: cherryJOH (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3624530)

Additional information (optional):
* This user perform SEO and advertising spam for a website called "coincarp dot com".
* Link on post i mentioned has been edited in order to avoid giving the spammer free backlink.

List of post:


1. Link he mentioned have no correlation with what he said.
2. It's not revoluionary. If you bother check OmniLayer documentation (https://github.com/OmniLayer/spec/blob/master/OmniSpecification-v0.6.adoc) which created in last decade, it already utilize UTXO and OP_RETURN to create token on Bitcoin network.
3. Runes isn't part of Bitcoin network or protocol, so saying "or simply ‘Runes’, is a protocol that has emerged within the Bitcoin blockchain" and "the Bitcoin Runes project is a fascinating development that showcases the adaptability and innovation within the Bitcoin ecosystem" is very misleading.
4. Saying Runes could maintain Bitcoin network's efficiency is ridiculous, when other Bitcoiner forced to pay higher TX fee rate and contribute to mempool/network congestion.

User: MicroScript (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3623278)

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:


1. Bitcoin is decentralized, so there's no thing such as "central server".
2. Tor Bridge is designed to avoid censorship, see https://support.torproject.org/censorship/censorship-7/ (https://support.torproject.org/censorship/censorship-7/). In addition, there's no thing such as complete, absolute or 100% anonymity.


1. Statement "Your Bitcoins in Lobster Wallet are actually real." and "Lobster is a wallet for Stellar Network, not Bitcoin." are conflicted.
2. Bitcoin Core and hardware wallet aren't the only Bitcoin wallet out there.


1. The thread talks about modifying Bitcoin-Qt 0.6.2 client. So statement "The blockchain client must be configured to mine the Genesis block" is wrong since genesis block is hardcoded on Bitcoin. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block).
2. If you create your own altcoin, that means you also need to run your own block explorer for your altcoin.

Thank you for your opinion and clarification of my point. Your statement that Bitcoin uses a decentralized network is fully correct, and I was mistaken here. Also, I realize that TOR provides a high level of anonymity but isn’t always secure. My goal was to show the advantages of TOR against other DNS in terms of privacy and network access, but I see my misunderstanding of professional terms as troubling. Once again, thank you for the comment!


I want to clarify. Although other Bitcoin wallets exist, including Bitcoin Core and hardware wallets, my goal was to mention additional alternatives just for Bitcoin since that was a proper answer to the question context. Concerning this, I should’ve explicitly stated that different wallets could be used, and I am sorry if I sounded unclear. Thank you for your comment.



I appreciate your clarification. According to my very best knowledge, the Genesis block for this particular fork of Bitcoin (Bitcoin-Qt 0.6.2) is hard coded in and therefore can never be mined. I'm grateful for your pointing that out. Also, you're right an altcoin would involve running your very own block explorer which can monitor transactions and blocks. I apologize if my earlier remarks left any ambiguity, and am grateful for the chance to make myself clearer.

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/05/02/rIkhz.png

Wow, you used ChatGPT to counter the failures of using ChatGPT that were just pointed out to you. Simply stunning!

You really shouldn't be here at all -- its obvious you're trying to rank up an account for the purpose of getting in some kind of sig campaign, but you'll never get there if you lack the ability to generate any kind of original thought.

You misunderstood. You're relying on an AI to say my explanation is written with chatgpt. It is not fair to blame anyone depending on AI because AI may not be 100% accurate.
Proof From Copyleaks: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s3v3iuSePnsDktnc-eJL_ZhpFGSwCI0R/view?usp=drive_link

Edited:


See here your post says 47% generated by AI but that doesn't mean you wrote it with AI. I mean these detectors don't always give 100% accurate results.
QuillBot Proof: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GKC3GP11NzBWPbfd_zEsX9YhwrUpUstb/view

I looked through some of your other posts and it appears you are using some kind of text spinner or other program to write your posts for you, and then manually tweaking them slightly so as to avoid being detected. Furthermore, I strongly believe you created this account for the purpose of cheating contests (as well as getting into some kind of shitty sig or review campaign). Hard to say who your main account is but I'm sure you have more than one and am in the process of narrowing them down.

You cannot accuse me without sufficient proof. I did not use any text spinner or any other tool. I also checked some of your posts and also got 47%, 13%, 24% ai generated. Now what if i say that you also use text spinner to write your post.

Edited:
You are blaming me depending on ai. If you have to blame, check with your own brain and then blame. Your statements are fully dependent of an ai detector.

So that means there's less than a 50% chance that any of those posts used AI, which means they most likely weren't created using AI. Whereas the excerpt from your post I highlighted came back with a 94% chance... Admittedly yes, I don't have enough evidence to report your posts as being AI-generated (using my own standards), so I'm not gonna do that.

The main difference between you and me is your posts suck. They contain illogical blather of no substance, yet are of better-than-average grammatical construction. This suggests you are at the very least using some kind of editing tool. Still, you put zero thought or effort into what you do here and are just churning out nonsense in hopes it will magically lead to a payday. Not to mention the other half your posts are guesses for contests.

I'd say there's zero chance you aren't currently running multiple accounts on this forum, but this one will not get as far as you had hoped.

In any case, I hope you've at least learned to stay away from posting in the technical boards as you clearly know nothing when it comes to the technical details of bitcoin, and your idiocy could actually end up costing money for anyone who somehow took you seriously.

You said my posts suck. You show me which of my posts seemed to suck to you. If it really happens, I will fix it. But don't make any comments without any proof. You said my post is illogical. Point out that which is illogical. I am using only one account on this forum.

1. Your original post didn't mention DNS.
2. I don't understand why you compare Tor with DNS.


And how about the conflicting statement i pointed out?


If you already know genesis block on Bitcoin is hard coded, i don't understand why you write statement "The blockchain client must be configured to mine the Genesis block." ?

---

And while we're at it, there are other questionable reply made by you.


This is very vague answer. Bitcoin Core has tons of code and most people don't know where to start inspecting the code. In addition, there are 163 BIP out there.


FAQ on Wasabi Wallet website says different thing.


From those quoted FAQ, we can see chosen CoinJoin strategy is major factor on how Wasabi Wallet calculate percentage of privacy progress.

This guy should stay away from the tech boards. I regret Meriting him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5492807.msg63944535#msg63944535), he's now on my ignore list.

@MicroScript: The tech boards aren't meant to post BS, they're meant to help people with useful information. If you can't provide that, go to Beginners or Off-topic or something. Or just don't post. Maybe you got the wrong idea from my Merit on your first post, and you think you can repeat that. By now, 54 posts later, you should realize it doesn't work that way.

Ok, but what should I do now? Do I have to delete all my posts from the Development & Technical Discussion board and the Bitcoin Technical Support board?

Stop posting about things you don't understand.

That would be a good start. It's not helpful, and can give people the wrong idea. Comparing Tor to DNS is like comparing your car engine to a street sign.

I have deleted all my posts from the technical board. I apologize to all forum members for sharing wrong and confusing data on technical boards. I will not share any wrong data again in future.

I agree with @LoyceV. But i'd like to emphasize that it's okay to ask question on those board.

If it's real questions: of course :) But we don't need people asking questions trying to earn Merit, or just to increase their post count. Luckily, the fake ones usually don't receive Merit.

I would be grateful if you reconsider your trust feedback on my profile.

The neutral feedback is spot-on.

I see many member only reconsider such things after some time, so ask me again in a year or more.

User: Kalam001 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3461224)

Additional information (optional):
* This user suspected using chatbot, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg64042639#msg64042639 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg64042639#msg64042639).

List of post:


1. blk*.dat files and Bitcoin blockchain are 2 different thing. blk*.dat files refer to how Bitcoin Core software store Bitcoin blockchain data, where each full node software could store Bitcoin blockchain data differently.
2. It doesn't answer why each blk*.dat files have size with average size between 128 to 134MB.
3. While it's possible to store arbitrary data on Bitcoin, it's not designed as data storage.
4. There's no strong correlation between database size and transaction processing/verification.


1. Cloud storage usually doesn't lock your file immediately if you stop paying them. Here are some relevant webpage i found,

• https://koofr.eu/help/upgrade-koofr-account/what-happens-if-i-dont-extend-my-paid-account/
• https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Plans-and-Subscriptions/Limitations-and-consequences-due-to-non-payment/td-p/693750
• https://support.google.com/drive/thread/11358864/what-happens-to-my-items-on-google-drive-if-i-cancel-my-subscription-to-paid-storage?hl=en

2. User shinosuke ask question in example scenario, but it was responded as if user shinosuke actually forget to pay.