Generally, they have to be abusing alts in some way, such as by having their alts trust them so that they get onto DT1.


What you describe is not an appropriate use of the trust system. But it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be because you're advocating for political positions which both I and the average forum member consider to be very unethical, and it can be argued that this translates into you being an unethical person in general who would therefore be risky to trade with.

Now, I tend to disagree with icopress's rating here because I don't think that unethical political positions necessarily translate into unethical behavior elsewhere, and I'd also like to avoid the slippery slope of giving negative trust over things that are as far-removed from forum trading as this is. But I wouldn't say that the rating is definitely inappropriate. And on Trust, the community polices itself.

I don't make manual edits to DT1 unless someone is clearly abusing the DT1 selection process itself.

If you have a problem with a trust rating:
 - Complain to the person who made the rating.
 - Complain to the people who trust the person who made the rating.
 - Try to convince people to ~distrust the person who made the rating.
 - You can affect how DT1 is constructed by adding names to your trust list. Your trust list is empty, so you are failing to vote here at all.

There are 94 DT1-candidates who trust icopress, and only 2 DT1-candidates who distrust him. So on the matter of of whether icopress should be in DT1, you are in the vast minority, and you'd have to do a lot of convincing.

This month 103 users were eligible.

Old:
New:

Done, though there will be some weird edge cases which I'm probably not going to fix, such as:
 - Edits within the 10-minute grace period will not count, since those are not logged.
 - If a moderator merges the last two posts in a topic by deleting one and editing the other, then this will count as a "new" post, even though you will have seen both posts.

I don't think that it makes sense for OP edits to show up in the watchlist. They're too common to be something that people watching a topic will usually care about, I think.

No, it should be directly in the post, and not formatted to be unreadable.


I'd be strongly inclined to take some sort of action in all cases of undeclared AI usage, though in some cases the action might just be a warning, if the post is otherwise very constructive.


Not many people have been banned for excessive declared AI yet, so I don't have enough experience to formulate more specific, reliable guidelines yet. It's at the moderator's discretion.

What I'd tend to ask is: if you were not using AI, how much less text would you be posting? If it'd be a reduction of more than 5-10% overall, then you're using AI excessively. For example, posting an AI's response to your 1-sentence prompt magnifies the amount of text you post by a lot, so you should do this only very rarely. But if you write a unique and on-topic 500-word post, give it to AI to clean up, and it produces ~500 words, then that counts against you a lot less, in my mind. (Though I wouldn't encourage doing that.)

Thanks julerz12 and ibminer for looking into the tumblr date thing. I thought that it might be something like that, but it looked plausible enough that we couldn't just ignore the takedown. With this new information, it's clearly a fraudulent takedown, so the post has been restored.

The takedown was signed by:
However, note that this could easily be a fake name or stolen identity.

Did you actually try it? I rewrote this code a few months ago, and I can load your ignore page just fine.

PowerGlove sent me a different way of doing this, which is live now, but it's sort of hidden: if you click the blue "Code:" text immediately before the actual code block, then it'll select the whole code block.

Thanks to PowerGlove for the patch!

This month 105 users were eligible.

Old:
New:

I'm not entirely convinced by the AI detectors in this case. His posts seem too substantive, when I skimmed them.

Kraken is apparently having a lot of trouble following the new 1099-DA reporting requirements in the US... First, they were extraordinarily late, only providing their initial forms months after the legal deadline. And then today, after the tax deadline, they issued amended 1099-DAs which often have completely incorrect numbers.

To get the correct proceeds number for a Kraken crypto→USD sale:
 - Export your ledger (not your trades) to a CSV file.
 - For each trade, there will be two lines at the same time with the same refid. For the line where amount is negative, amount (as a positive number) plus the fee listed on that line is the amount of crypto that was disposed of.
 - On the other line for the same refid, where the amount is positive, the amount minus the fee listed on that line is the proceeds. This is the proceeds number which should be reported on 1099-DA.

(Note that partway through 2025, Kraken changed how they collected fees: they used to collect it on the output side, but they changed it to instead take it on the input side. So you have to know how to handle it both ways.)

With today's amended 1099-DA, Kraken actually used the "amountusd" column of the ledger. This column is an approximate valuation of the asset being sold, not the actual proceeds of the transaction. It should only be used for e.g. crypto→crypto trades, where there is no canonical USD amount available. Using the amountusd column for a crypto→USD transaction is completely incorrect, and is an utterly embarrassing case where the team who coded up their 1099 processing didn't actually understand how their internal accounting works.

It's possible that for some people, the amended 1099-DA actually fixed something that was incorrect on the previous 1099-DA, so you shouldn't just ignore it, but I definitely wouldn't actually rely on today's amended 1099-DA, since I'd guess that it's off by at least a few percent for most people. And after this show of complete incompetence, I wouldn't particularly recommend Kraken in general...

This month 103 users were eligible.

Old:
New:

He asked for a one-time exemption from the "no begging" rule, and since he's a Legendary member who's been actively posting for 10+ years, I decided to allow it. But I don't know DrBeer personally, I don't know anything about this specific case, and I don't vouch for him.

I inserted a post under the OP clarifying this.

And Google actually did deindex the links for which they received DMCA takedowns, until we disputed them and had the links reinstated.

A group of highly-suspect companies is apparently attempting to silence anyone critical of them by sending false DMCA takedowns:




That latter reported post says that NeoSter Global, Stovex Global, HJC Exchange, and Casder Institute of Wealth may all be the same thing.

The DMCA takedowns have zero legal basis; the URLs obviously contain no copyrighted content. (And under section 230, bitcointalk.org can't be held liable for defamation by users.) Needless to say, this behavior makes all of these companies extremely suspect.

This month 111 users were eligible.

Old:
New:

A lot of people are reporting stuff here just because something has virustotal detections, but almost every new piece of software will have virustotal detections. The legit Bitcoin Core or Monero software will have 10-20 detections on the day that it's released, though the anti-malware vendors will over time manually remove detections for popular pieces of software. In that one for example, 2 of the detections are for "containing a crypto miner", which is obviously normal and expected in this case.

That certainly doesn't mean that it is safe. I wouldn't trust software from some random person on the Internet even if Virustotal didn't detect anything. Virustotal just doesn't give much information in either direction.

While browsing through the code, I found a hidden feature. If you visit a link like this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=login2;sa=salt;sesc=insertYourSessionCodeHere

Then all other active sessions will be logged out, but not the current one. So it's like clicking "logout" and then logging back in.

(Your session code is the thing after sesc= on many links, such as when you click "quote".)

That rule is mainly to prevent annoyingly-bad translations. Posting a good AI translation (that's also a direct translation, without any "AI-isms") is fine, in my view. Though if specific local-board moderators want to ban it or limit it, they can. Also, if you or your post have nothing to do with a local board, then your post may be off-topic even if translated.


Not specifically, but it'll be a factor in deciding whether a user is a habitual low-quality poster.


I don't think that AI would be able to do that specific task reliably, at present.

I did sketch out a design for having AI essentially be able to subtract merit from users who looked like garbage-posters, and I was excited about the idea for a while, but in the end I decided that:
 1. The tech is currently too unreliable. Rating the quality of posts is something that it's fairly bad at, I found. It also opens up security/reliability issues such as prompt injections.
 2. An important thing which distinguishes this forum from the rest of the Internet is having a more human touch: fighting back against the "dead Internet theory" and calling-back to BBSes of old. Too much usage of AI in forum operation might dilute that.