Report plagiarism (copy/paste) here. Mods: please give temp or permban as needed

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586485.0

[juttsab@]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586485.0

I checked it on several tool such as smallseotool, copyleaks, prepostseo and quetext but none of these tools detected any plagiarism.

[tbct_mt2]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586485.0

I checked it on several tool such as smallseotool, copyleaks, prepostseo and quetext but none of these tools detected any plagiarism.

I checked with AI tools and it's not a post created by AI too but looking at the post content, honestly I feel something wrong.

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586574.0

It is also possible to check his other posts for plagiarism, there are not many, just 3 posts 😉

[Audrey Simmons]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586574.0

It is also possible to check his other posts for plagiarism, there are not many, just 3 posts 😉

No plagiarism, but AI Detected.

GPTZero: 100% AI
Sapling.ai: 95% Fake
zerogpt: 45% AI

No need to check for posts moved to offtopic.

[GeorgeJohn]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586485.0

I checked it on several tool such as smallseotool, copyleaks, prepostseo and quetext but none of these tools detected any plagiarism.

You have made it clear..when I checked with copyleaks, it shown that it wasn't plagiarism or neither AI generated, even with quetext...secondly you have made me to know smallseotool, it's  new to me, I think any moments from now i will be using it to cross check some articles both out of the forum text and forum texts...

[Xal0lex]

...but AI Detected.

There's no need to write about AI here, there's a separate topic for that. Especially since I didn't ask for it.

No need to check for posts moved to offtopic.

Since when has rule 33 no longer been in effect in the "Off-Topic" section?

[Mitchell]

There's no need to write about AI here, there's a separate topic for that. Especially since I didn't ask for it.

No need to check for posts moved to offtopic.

Since when has rule 33 no longer been in effect in the "Off-Topic" section?

Agreed, Off-Topic doesn't mean you can just write garbage.

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587227.0

[Leahized]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587227.0

You're correct, that's 100% Plagiarism and also AI detected.

I'm using smallseotools to check the plagiarism.

GPTZero : 100% AI
Copyleaks AI Content Detector : 100% AI


Thanks juttsab@,  I'm forgot to looking at the source url.

[juttsab@]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587227.0

You're correct, that's 100% Plagiarism and also AI detected.

I am using smallseotools to check the plagiarism.

Brother, you are wrong smallseotool is showing 100% plagiarism but if you check source link you can clearly see it is same post. This does not mean it is real plagiarism.

I also checked it with other plagiarism checking tools and none of them detected any plagiarism in this content.

[Repeat06]

Plagiarism: copy paste
User: athanred

Copy:

People will not store their wealth in something that is insecure, centralized, perishable, abundant, indivisible, or non-fungible.

Will people store their wealth in a chain, which cannot produce one block per 10 minutes, but it produces one or two blocks per day?

If the BIP 110 chain performs the functions of money better, more people will choose to hold it and store their wealth in it.

The whole space, which would be gained by rejecting spammy transactions, would be reduced by the speed of the chain. If you would have 100x bigger block size, but 100x bigger delay between blocks, then the average number of confirmed transactions per second can stay the same. Which means, that if 99% transactions are just data pushes, and you reject them, then having payment-only chain will be as fast, as it was, just because of not enough miners supporting it.

Bitcoin is more about economics than technology.

If Proof of Work wouldn't matter at all, then Bitcoin wouldn't exist in its current form. You can always ignore Proof of Work, and switch to a different security model. But then, you can reach for example signet, which is fully centralized, and is currently traded for 22 satoshis per coin.

If BIP-110 is about economics, more than about technology, then why BIP-110 proponents don't want to trade their BIP-110 coins for non-BIP-110 ones? If they are so sure about their victory, they could easily gain a lot of coins from such trades. But for some reason, they don't want to do that. Do you know why?

They call it "gambling", and by not swapping such coins, they are actively preventing people from learning, how much BIP-110 coins are worth, when compared to non-BIP-110 ones, so we simply don't know, and people can only guess, which side will win.

Original Post:

If you have studied the idea of Bitcoin deeply, then it should be clear that users ultimately decide which software they run and, therefore, what Bitcoin is. Miners, developers, exchanges, and other intermediaries are secondary.

If the majority of users choose to run BIP 11 0 and miners refuse to follow them, the network will split and two competing versions of Bitcoin will emerge. This will undoubtedly create an identity crisis, because both sides will claim to be the real Bitcoin. But  that is not the most important question.

The most important question is where will the monetary premium ultimately end up?

In the long run, the monetary premium will flow toward the chain that performs the functions of money more effectivel

The miners’ chain may initially have a much higher hash rate and therefore be more secure, but the user BIP 110 chain may perform the functions of money more effectively.In the long run, I believe the BIP 110 chain could capture the monetary premium. Miners would then eventually be forced to return to that chain because mining follows economic value and profitability.

That is also why I do not think there will actually be hard fork. Miners will probably activate BIP 110 from the beginning because they understand that their competing chain would gradually lose its monetary premium.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/07/13/Ucfzol.png

[acroman08]

-snip

I'm confused by this. I mean, according to the screenshot you shared, the content posted by athanred was 100% plagiarised, but the supposed plagiarised content doesn't look anything like the original content that you showed here. Is it possible that this is just a false positive?

[Primark]

-snip

I'm confused by this. I mean, according to the screenshot you shared, the content posted by athanred was 100% plagiarised, but the supposed plagiarised content doesn't look anything like the original content that you showed here. Is it possible that this is just a false positive?

I'm telling you, @Repeat06 is actually confused himself. According to @Repeat06's scan, it looks 100% plagiarism, but if you look at the source link, you will clearly see that it is the same post. This does not mean that it is real plagiarism. @acroman08 Suppose I go to the (smallseotool) site and scan any of your posts, then my scan will also show your post as 100% fake. This does not mean that you have plagiarized. Therefore, you need to look at the source link to see why it was declared 100% fake.

[acroman08]

I'm telling you, @Repeat06 is actually confused himself. According to @Repeat06's scan, it looks 100% plagiarism, but if you look at the source link, you will clearly see that it is the same post. This does not mean that it is real plagiarism. @acroman08 Suppose I go to the (smallseotool) site and scan any of your posts, then my scan will also show your post as 100% fake. This does not mean that you have plagiarized. Therefore, you need to look at the source link to see why it was declared 100% fake.

Now that you mention this, yeah, I know that. I didn't really pay attention to the source link and just focused on the text he scanned and the "92% match" result on the screenshot and the supposed plagiarised content and the supposed original content he put on his post.

[Cricktor]

Plagiarism: almost verbatim (excluding bold face text) copy/paste from another user
User: jonematt (post edit: banned)

Offending post:

Congratulations again on solving Puzzle #135. It was an impressive technical achievement, and your dedication is undeniable.

That said, I have mixed feelings after reading that it took around **200 GPUs running for 5 months**. For many of us, that's simply impossible. Most enthusiasts have one GPU, maybe two if they're lucky. Competing against hundreds of GPUs makes these puzzles feel less like a test of skill and more like a contest of who has access to the biggest hardware budget.

I know the rules never promised an equal playing field, and you earned your success. But it's hard not to feel discouraged when the resources required are far beyond the reach of the average participant. It makes the challenge seem increasingly inaccessible to anyone without substantial computing power.

I hope future community challenges can find ways to reward creativity, optimization, and efficiency—not just raw hardware scale—so more people have a realistic chance to compete.

Congratulations again, and one small favor if you have a few minutes. I've been building a Bitcoin Puzzle research web app and I'm getting close to publishing it. Since you've spent years optimizing this field, I'd really value your feedback.

If you have time, could you please take a quick look and let me know what you think could be improved before I publish it?

https://btc-puzzle-solver-search-lab.ai.studio/

Any advice or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and congratulations once again on your achievement.

Archive: https://bitlist.co/post/67022168

Original post:

Congratulations again on solving Puzzle #135. It was an impressive technical achievement, and your dedication is undeniable.

That said, I have mixed feelings after reading that it took around **200 GPUs running for 5 months**. For many of us, that's simply impossible. Most enthusiasts have one GPU, maybe two if they're lucky. Competing against hundreds of GPUs makes these puzzles feel less like a test of skill and more like a contest of who has access to the biggest hardware budget.

I know the rules never promised an equal playing field, and you earned your success. But it's hard not to feel discouraged when the resources required are far beyond the reach of the average participant. It makes the challenge seem increasingly inaccessible to anyone without substantial computing power.

I hope future community challenges can find ways to reward creativity, optimization, and efficiency—not just raw hardware scale—so more people have a realistic chance to compete.

Congratulations again, and one small favor if you have a few minutes. I've been building a Bitcoin Puzzle research web app and I'm getting close to publishing it. Since you've spent years optimizing this field, I'd really value your feedback.

If you have time, could you please take a quick look and let me know what you think could be improved before I publish it?

https://btc-puzzle-solver-search-lab.ai.studio/

Any advice or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and congratulations once again on your achievement.

Archive: https://bitlist.co/post/66988530

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594161.msg67152150#msg67152150

P.S. The text does not need to be checked for AI usage.

[Primark]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594161.msg67152150#msg67152150

P.S. The text does not need to be checked for AI usage.

I checked the post with smallseotool and quetext. This is part of plagiarism.

Source:
https://fidjlaw.com/charlie-shrem-and-why-we-need-to-change-our-perspective-of-bitcoin/

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594161.msg67152150#msg67152150

P.S. The text does not need to be checked for AI usage.

I checked the post with smallseotool and quetext. This is part of plagiarism.

Source:
https://fidjlaw.com/charlie-shrem-and-why-we-need-to-change-our-perspective-of-bitcoin/

More specific, please.

[Primark]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594161.msg67152150#msg67152150

P.S. The text does not need to be checked for AI usage.

I checked the post with smallseotool and quetext. This is part of plagiarism.

Source:
https://fidjlaw.com/charlie-shrem-and-why-we-need-to-change-our-perspective-of-bitcoin/

More specific, please.

Of course, I have checked the post you have given me to check here with smallseotool and quetext tools. Although quetext could not match that post with any plagiarism, smallseotool considered a part of the post you provided as plagiarism. I am bolding the plagiarized part of the post you provided below. You can then decide for yourself what you should do.

In the US, Bitcoin's lack of an "operator" has been the distinguishing feature from other currencies which have been subject to prosecution. In 2007-2008, e-gold was prosecuted, which was used as a currency backed by gold. Their problem was that it was not P2P like Bitcoin, it was a company that stored user balances and allowed them to make payments. Because of this, they were supposed to be registered as money transmitter, and also follow AML/KYC laws. So, it's not just a matter of declaring it's just an "experiment."

In 2013, Liberty Reserve was criminally prosecuted. It had a lot of similarities to Bitcoin, but it was not P2P, it's branding was focused on anonymity in a way BTC isn't, and had little-to-no compliance. So, instead of the charges being for a "civil regulatory violation" it was a "criminal money laundering conspiracy."

Bottom line is that Bitcoin's implementation is such that there's no entity that could be prosecuted. You can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1960 for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. This has been interpreted to include companies that take possession of the money at any point, even temporarily, or that control or process the transaction. So, merely "distributing software" is legal, "operating a money service business," is not. Of course, you can't charge a fee or take a cut either. If you do that to facilitate a transaction, pretty much everywhere you're a money transmitter.

If you go to this site, you will see the bolded part.