User btc-room101 cannot be trusted

[ABCbits]

User btc-room101[1] recently woke up and and made lots of posts/threads. Aside from violating forum rules (mainly spam, off-topic or multiple posts in a row), he also made these ridiculous/non-sense claim without proof.

• Advertising his tool with intention to hack Bitcoin[1].
• Claiming his tool has ability to map public key to private key[1].
• Saying Bitcoin is created by NSA where it's white paper was released on 1999[2].
• And other claim about certain government or government agency.

His history isn't better either.

• He created brute-force tool with bombastic claim, where Bitcoin Core contributor share warning about possible malware[3].
• Very poor suggestion to check Bitcoin security[4].
• He also own a website[5] which contain various technobabble (nonsense which contain technical jargon). For example, he claim Machine Learning to find pattern between private and public key where expert say it's wrong approach to break cryptography[6-7].
• On his website, he also assume SHA-256 will be broken by 2020[8]. Those with very basic cryptography knowledge would doubt his claim since he don't cite peer reviewed review or even mention what kind of attack will be used to broke SHA-256 (such as preimage, second preimage or collision attack).

For these reasons, i believe user btc-room101 cannot be trusted. I'll leave feedback to this user and recommend all reader to do same thing.


[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2038954
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5420649.msg61280427#msg61280427
[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076779.msg48283107#msg48283107
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5077421.msg48315568#msg48315568
[5] https://web.archive.org/web/20200501221519/http://www.inflection.top/, scroll down to the bottom of page.
[6] https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/9754
[7] https://datascience.stackexchange.com/a/16641
[8] https://web.archive.org/web/20181206214734/http://www.inflection.top/faq.html, under answer of question "What is the safest ...".

[DaveF]

What I don't get is 4 years ago @gmaxwell more or less pointed out that he was distributing malware and yet the account was not banned.
Spamming junk and posting things that are basically spam or wrong is one thing, but once he crossed the line into malware / virus linking I don't get the lack of banning.

I guess if enough people tag him with negative feedback (and those that left neutral change to negative) sooner or later he will leave and not come back.

-Dave

[1miau]

I've tagged this Account as well and reported him in Lafu's topic against malware in addition: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182222.msg61288733#msg61288733

Even if the Account isn't hacked (which doesn't seem to be the case here, same writing style and topics like previously), I wouldn't trust him and his "BTC hacking tools"...

Been running rng on my bitcoin hacking racks for +2 years now, works great

Increased my find of lost bitcoins 2x by using real random numbers and random seeds

https://github.com/room101-dev/Grand-Ultimate-BTC-Hacker

Not suspicious at all... 

[TheBeardedBaby]

As I understand the account was only accused of possible distribution of infected files, but there was not a proof posted.
I think this is why the account is still around.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

@gmaxwell actually only mention possibility that he's distributing malware, hence why he's not banned.

Based on the possibility we can not send negative feedback too, that's my opinion however I see there are many negative feedback already left. I am not defending the user but I am trying to figure out the best course of action. When I am in doubt, I believe in leaving a neutral feedback but sometimes it becomes negative inspired though.

[DaveF]

@gmaxwell actually only mention possibility that he's distributing malware, hence why he's not banned.

Based on the possibility we can not send negative feedback too, that's my opinion however I see there are many negative feedback already left. I am not defending the user but I am trying to figure out the best course of action. When I am in doubt, I believe in leaving a neutral feedback but sometimes it becomes negative inspired though.

It's not just the fact that he may be spreading malware. It's the fact that he is also deliberately spreading wrong / false information.

I don't mind the FUD by itself, but combined with telling people the wrong things does leave open the possibility that people who don't understand may be harmed by his statements.

Sooner or later letting people like him stay around is going to cost someone their BTC.

-Dave

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

@gmaxwell actually only mention possibility that he's distributing malware, hence why he's not banned.

Based on the possibility we can not send negative feedback too, that's my opinion however I see there are many negative feedback already left. I am not defending the user but I am trying to figure out the best course of action. When I am in doubt, I believe in leaving a neutral feedback but sometimes it becomes negative inspired though.

It's not just the fact that he may be spreading malware. It's the fact that he is also deliberately spreading wrong / false information.

I don't mind the FUD by itself, but combined with telling people the wrong things does leave open the possibility that people who don't understand may be harmed by his statements.

Sooner or later letting people like him stay around is going to cost someone their BTC.

-Dave

I don't disagree with you and ETFbitcoin. On the other hand I am not much comfortable to leave a negative for it too. Since there are enough feedback already left, I don't think more one or two will really make any difference. I removed the neutral feedback that I left for the account so that I do not need to hesitate for leaving either type of the feedback.