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

[Zarya Volk]

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.

In my view one matching sentence is not plagiarism. Plagiarism checkers look for matches. Some terms are fixed, such as statutory language, "unlicensed money transmitting business", etc. and other subjects, such as a discussion of the history of e-gold or Liberty Reserve, deal with fixed, immutable facts. Thus, it is inevitable that different people will use similar phrases to discuss the same things. Plagiarism involves lifting large portions of work, such as entire sentences or paragraphs, as well as appropriating the structure of an original work.

[Rikafip]

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

For future reference, it would be good to provide screenshots or copy/paste the from the original source, rather than just sharing the link and making the rest of us go through the whole text to look for proof.

[Zarya Volk]

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

For future reference, it would be good to provide screenshots or copy/paste the from the original source, rather than just sharing the link and making the rest of us go through the whole text to look for proof.

Fair point on sourcing style. For what its worth, actual overlap in question was a single sentence involving shared legal terminology and historical facts (e-gold, Liberty Reserve, §1960), not a substantial verbatim copy. Happy to have anyone check the full post directly.

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594371.0

[hafiztalha]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594371.0

Plagiarism:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140595-direct-democracy-in-switzerland/

[UchihaSarada]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594371.0

app.gptzero.me

AI Polished
We are highly confident this text was human written and polished with AI
Mixed 100%

app.copyleaks.com

Matched text 99.6%
Source https://www.sciforums.com/threads/direct-democracy-in-switzerland.167616/#post-3792808

originality.ai

Likely AI - 83% Confidence

zerogpt.com
46.2% AI GPT

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594371.0

Plagiarism:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140595-direct-democracy-in-switzerland/

Always check the publication dates before declaring plagiarism. The post at the link you provided was posted later than the one here.

app.copyleaks.com

Matched text 99.6%
Source https://www.sciforums.com/threads/direct-democracy-in-switzerland.167616/#post-3792808

Same thing.

[hafiztalha]

Always check the publication dates before declaring plagiarism. The post at the link you provided was posted later than the one here.

You are right my mistake. I did not check publication date before declaring it plagiarism. I'll be more careful and verify date properly next time.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Primark]

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

For future reference, it would be good to provide screenshots or copy/paste the from the original source, rather than just sharing the link and making the rest of us go through the whole text to look for proof.

Thank you, I will definitely mark the report with a screenshot next time so that it is easier for everyone to understand.

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594371.0

Of course, I checked it with smallseotool and quetext tools, but even though these tools detected it as plagiarism, according to the source link, it was shared a long time ago. It is clear from this that the post you provided is not plagiarism, it is probably his own writing.

~~~~~

Please try to understand what Xal0lex actually said before checking. Xal0lex basically said to check if the text is plagiarism or not. He did not want to know if the post was detected by AI. If he suspected it was AI, he would probably have gone to (AI Spam Report Reference Thread) and reported it. Don't waste your valuable time unnecessarily.

[Cricktor]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594371.0

Excuse me if I haven't sifted through 180 pages of this topic. I've a genuine question here.

OP's post uses numbers and statistics that are highly unlikely OP's own creation, they must come from somewhere. And the sources of those numbers are clearly missing. The whole post kind of screams: what are your sources and you provided none!

Is this already to be considered as plagiarism? I assume this because of Xal0lex's response in above topic.


I've the understanding that if I use some statistics or whatever numbers that I didn't produce myself by some research to prove or express some points then I should always cite my sources of those numbers.

[AakZaki]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594371.0

I think he read from several sources, it's just that he doesn't list the source of the news. Then change every word or sentence as if it were the result of his own knowledge. Lol

1) In a "lost wallet" experiment, the Swiss proved to be the most honest people among those studied: they returned the wallet (without the cash, but with the key) in 73 percent of cases. The Chinese were found to be the least honest, returning the wallet only in 7 percent of cases;

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/science_study-if-you-lose-your-wallet-make-sure-it-s-full-of-money/45045456?

2) According to WHO data, Switzerland has a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 people (2019). For comparison, WHO figures show rates of 14.5 for the USA, 21.6 for Russia, and 21.2 for South Korea. It is also worth noting that euthanasia is legal in Switzerland, which implies that suicide is less stigmatized there than in other countries;

https://smw-ch.translate.goog/index.php/smw/article/view/3279/5517?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=id&_x_tr_hl=id&_x_tr_pto=sge

3) According to UN data, the obesity rate in Switzerland is 19.5% (for comparison: 36.2% in the USA, 23.1% in Russia, and 32% in Egypt (2019));

https://geofactbook.com/countries/switzerland/obesity-adult-prevalence-rate
https://geofactbook.com/fact/obesity-adult-prevalence-rate/2025

4) According to 2021y data I found online, Switzerland has the smallest shadow economy among 31 European countries (it stands at 5.8% of GDP, compared to 13% in France, 16% in Belgium, 22% in Poland, and 32% in Turkey).

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/734007/IPOL_STU%282022%29734007_EN.pdf?

5) Switzerland ranks first in the world for life expectancy for men (81 years) and sixth for women (85 years).

https://countryeconomy-com.translate.goog/demography/life-expectancy/switzerland?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=id&_x_tr_hl=id&_x_tr_pto=sge

I've the understanding that if I use some statistics or whatever numbers that I didn't produce myself by some research to prove or express some points then I should always cite my sources of those numbers.

Maybe he thinks there are too many source links if they have to be included or he thinks that it would be cool to be able to present data without sources. Lol

[Whiteronin]

Hello. Can I re-create my thread about direct democracy in Switzerland? I had just started providing the facts indicating that their life is good. Now I can write more facts about this, and I will provide all proofs next time.

[Xal0lex]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5598005

P.S. No need to check for AI.

[Primark]

Please check this post for plagiarism

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5598005

P.S. No need to check for AI.

I tested with Quetext where I got 7% ​​similarity. But when I went to the website provided by Quetext, I found that the topic was only partially similar. I am trying to present it correctly.

Part of the post you mentioned:

The outcome of this election will determine who becomes the next prime minister of the country of Israel.

Part that found similarity with the website:

The outcome of this election will determine who holds the legislative seats that directly impact public education.

Source: https://www.sdea.org/about-sdea/leaders/president/from-our-president/call-action-your-vote-matters-future-public

[davis196]

I checked this forum thread with justdone.com and it shows 99% AI content.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5598131.0

[LoyceV]

99% AI content.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5598131.0

He ended his long post with this:

Sources used for writing this article:
~

(this text is generated based on my personal observations with AI help on writing)

If he doesn't do this often (which I doubt, based on his post history) this could be acceptable based on the AI guidelines:

- If you clearly mention that something you're posting is AI-generated, and you only occasionally and appropriately post such AI-generated text, then that's OK.

[AakZaki]

Plagiarism (copy paste).
User: Aeesha
Post link: Five Bullish Takeaways for Nebius from CoreWeave’s Earnings
[ archive ]

Copy:

CoreWeave just delivered a double beat and raised guidance.  As a pure-play peer in the AI cloud space, the read-through for Nebius is constructive.

1. Demand is 10x available capacity through 2027

CoreWeave: “We have 10 times as much qualified demand as available capacity through the end of 2027, and demand for 2028 is already several times larger… even before we have brought it formally to market.”

This is the entire Ai cloud thesis validated in a sentence.

2. Coreweave Largely sold out through 2027

“We are largely sold out through 2027… any infrastructure that we have placed on the market [for 2028] has been sold.”

Customers are fighting for capacity. The same dynamic applies to Nebius.

3. Pricing power is real and still rising

+25% in July, another +10% later in Q3, and still moving higher in Q4.  Short term contracts >$40M/MW annually, 4-5 year deals $20-25M/MW and older GPUs recontracting +30-50% QoQ.

4. As I’ve said before IF data-center buildouts slow, installed capacity becomes more valuable

“If data center construction across the sector were to slow, installed compute becomes scarcer and GPU pricing may stay higher for longer.”

5. Customer-funded growth model is working

Coreweave with ~$9B in prepayments/deposits in the next 3 months, and majority of CapEx financed against contracts, paid off $4B in debt and sees the path to adjusted profitability in H1 2028. 

Nebius earnings up tomorrow!

Original Post:

Five Bullish Takeaways for Nebius from CoreWeave’s Earnings 🔥

CoreWeave just delivered a double beat and raised guidance.  As a pure-play peer in the AI cloud space, the read-through for Nebius is constructive.

1. Demand is 10x available capacity through 2027

CoreWeave: “We have 10 times as much qualified demand as available capacity through the end of 2027, and demand for 2028 is already several times larger… even before we have brought it formally to market.”

This is the entire Ai cloud thesis validated in a sentence.

2. Coreweave Largely sold out through 2027

“We are largely sold out through 2027… any infrastructure that we have placed on the market [for 2028] has been sold.”

Customers are fighting for capacity. The same dynamic applies to Nebius.

3. Pricing power is real and still rising

+25% in July, another +10% later in Q3, and still moving higher in Q4.  Short term contracts >$40M/MW annually, 4-5 year deals $20-25M/MW and older GPUs recontracting +30-50% QoQ.

4. As I’ve said before IF data-center buildouts slow, installed capacity becomes more valuable

“If data center construction across the sector were to slow, installed compute becomes scarcer and GPU pricing may stay higher for longer.”

5. Customer-funded growth model is working

Coreweave with ~$9B in prepayments/deposits in the next 3 months, and majority of CapEx financed against contracts, paid off $4B in debt and sees the path to adjusted profitability in H1 2028. 

Nebius earnings up tomorrow!

https://x.com/MB_Hogan/status/2120399126827274449

According to my local time, the original post was written at 13.12 WIB which means at 06:12 UTC. Meanwhile, he wrote on this forum at 08:04:38 UTC, which means he copy pasted after 2 hours of the original post.