AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[HustleZ]

~snip~

I'm sorry man but it hurts to see how dumb you are 

[Lucius]

User : DonaldCryptoTalk1

Bitcoin adoption continues to grow globally. More people now own Bitcoin through exchanges, ETFs, mobile wallets, and payment apps than ever before. From an adoption perspective, this looks like success. Bitcoin is no longer a niche idea, and its presence in mainstream finance keeps expanding.

At the same time, self-custody appears to be declining. A large portion of users prefer custodial platforms because they are simple, familiar, and require little technical knowledge. Private keys, backups, and personal responsibility are often seen as obstacles rather than essential features. For many users, convenience now outweighs sovereignty.

This shift raises an important concern. Bitcoin was designed to remove the need for trusted intermediaries, yet most users still rely on third parties to hold their funds. Custodial services reintroduce risks such as censorship, account freezes, data leaks, and single points of failure. While these services improve accessibility, they also move Bitcoin closer to the traditional financial model it was meant to challenge.

On the other hand, full self-custody is not easy for everyone. Mistakes can be costly, and many people lack the time or confidence to manage their own keys securely. For some, custodial solutions act as a gateway into Bitcoin, lowering the barrier to entry. The question is whether users eventually move toward self-custody or remain permanently dependent on intermediaries.

This situation presents a trade-off between growth and principles. Wider adoption increases Bitcoin’s reach and legitimacy, but declining self-custody may weaken its core values over time. Should the priority be making Bitcoin easier to use, even if that means sacrificing some sovereignty? Or should more effort be placed on education and tools that empower users to control their own funds?

Is the current trend a temporary phase in adoption, or a long-term shift away from Bitcoin’s original purpose?

Copyleaks -> AI Content Found 100 - AI Phrases Detected 23
Stealthwriter -> The vast majority of content is likely AI-generated (81%), with only a small portion (19%) human-written.
GPTZero  -> We are highly confident this text was AI generated 100%

I think a lot of people here will quietly recognize themselves in your post. Most of us didn’t start with big money, perfect timing, or perfect decisions. A lot of long-time users began exactly like you: small savings, some early mistakes, and the hope that slow progress would eventually matter.

What you’re doing now, saving a steady amount, avoiding hype, and thinking long-term  is actually the part that most newcomers never manage to do. They chase shortcuts, get burned, get bitter, and leave. You didn’t. That already puts you ahead.

$100 a month might look insignificant today, but Bitcoin has this strange way of making small, boring decisions look smart in hindsight. The people who stuck with modest DCA for years usually ended up in far better shape than the ones who tried to “get rich fast”.

You’re asking an honest question:
“Will Bitcoin change my life, or will it mostly help me much later?”

The honest answer is: it can do both, depending mostly on your patience and consistency. Maybe it becomes a meaningful cushion in your 40s or 50s. Maybe the next cycle ends up giving you a boost earlier. Nobody can time that. But if you stop now because it feels too small, then you guarantee that nothing will change.

One thing I can say from experience: being in your early 30s is not “late”. It’s actually a perfect position for building something meaningful over the next couple decades. And if you ever have kids, having a savings base in an asset that can’t be printed into dust is a bigger gift than you probably realize right now.

Bitcoin won’t replace working, but it can reward discipline. And discipline is exactly what you’re already practicing. Keep stacking what you can, keep improving yourself outside Bitcoin, and don’t discount the future you’re building just because the amounts feel small today.

Small steps only look small in the moment. Years later, they’re the part you’re grateful you didn’t skip.

Copyleaks -> AI Content Found 100 - AI Phrases Detected 3
Stealthwriter -> The vast majority of content is likely AI-generated (90%), with only a small portion (10%) human-written.
GPTZero  -> We are highly confident this text was AI generated 100%


This is already a well-known AI spammer, but as we can see, it still doesn't give up. Let's hope that some of the mods will release the water and flush the garbage from the forum permanently.

[xmrhopium]

Is being a Legendary user now just only a rank on the forum?

new year, new trick, mucho laziness this "Legendary" rank user Ayers spamming the forum with AI contents.

also tagging @Little Mouse here as a side note to take a look.

I agree with the view that we need to treat them with respect, and should not insult or use harsh language towards them. But I don't think it's necessary to pay them high salaries or become too close to them. We need to maintain a certain distance, because being too lenient or too friendly can easily lead to being looked down on instead. In the workplace, establishing clear boundaries between superiors and subordinates, as well as between employers and employees, to avoid unnecessary troubles.

We don't need to pay them high salaries, we just need to pay them a salary that is commensurate with their dedication and effort. There is no guarantee that paying high salaries will secure their loyalty. Sometimes, this can even lead to them becoming complacent or having an inflated sense of their own abilities.

copyleaks:100% AI detected
Sapling AI:100% AI
zerogpt:97% AI

I don't want to disappoint you, but here's another fact, Bitcoin reached $69k in 2021, and compared to the 2025 ATH of $126k. Bitcoin has only increased by about 82% over the past four years, and this is not an attractive return for a risky asset. This shows that Bitcoin is very volatile and our profits will depend on the entry price. Additionally, don't forget the four-year cycle of the market, and if history repeats itself, next year will be a bear market.

Therefore, we shouldn't be overconfident and assume that simply buying Bitcoin at the beginning of the year will double our profits by year’s end. Bitcoin tends to appreciate in the long term, but its short and medium term movements are unpredictable.

copyleaks:100% AI detected
Sapling AI:100% AI
zerogpt:78% AI

More specifically, Bitcoin only increased by about 82% during this cycle, and compared to previous cycles, this is one of the worst growth cycles. Similarly, historically, 2025 was projected to be a year of strong growth, similar to 2017 and 2021. However, ironically, it ended with a negative growth rate of 6.33%.
I also find it confusing that many people say 2025 will be a great year.

organility ai: 98% Ai replaced copyleaks with organilityai
sapling Ai: 92% Ai
zerogpt: 69%

(add: some more posts of their seems written with the help of ai and text spinner has been used mostly!)

[HustleZ]

I have Spotted 2 users using Ai and they are probably alts of eachother As the 1 sMerit hbqchjy had he sent it to bits86 on an Ai Generated Post.

User 1:  hbqchjy
User 2: bits86

For the Ref.

User 1:

Post 1:

Thanks @Don Pedro Dinero for the merit and the reply!
You're right—this topic has been discussed many times before. I'm just trying to bring it up again to catch the attention of more newcomers.
I totally agree that media loves big numbers. "Bitcoin hits $89,000!" grabs way more headlines than "1 sat = $0.00089". That's why sats won't become mainstream anytime soon.
Still, I'm optimistic: Bitcoin reaching $1 million per coin won't take as long as people think. Ten years ago, almost no one imagined it going from a few hundred dollars to $10k—yet it smashed through $60k, $70k, $80k... Things often move much faster than we expect. When 1 BTC is truly worth millions, pricing daily items with tons of decimals will feel ridiculous, and the shift to sats will happen naturally.
Hope we all live to see that day!

Originality Ai: 100% Confident
Sapling Ai: 99.99% Ai Generated
GPTZero: 100% Mixed

Post 2:

Many people look at the price of 1 BTC and think, "I can't afford that." This is a classic Unit Bias illusion.

Imagine if Gold could only be traded by the "Ton." Most people would think Gold is unattainable. But because we trade Gold in ounces and grams, everyone knows they can own a piece of it.

Bitcoin needs this same shift. We need to normalize pricing in "Bits" or "Sats" instead of full coins.

1 BTC = 100,000,000 Bits (Sats)

Here is why this shift is crucial for Gen Z and mass adoption:

1. Psychological Wealth Owning 0.001 BTC feels insignificant and scarce. Owning 100,000 Bits feels substantial and achievable. It’s not just math; it’s psychology. People want to own whole numbers, not decimals.

2. Usability for Payments Pricing a coffee at 0.00015 BTC is confusing and anti-human. Pricing it at 15,000 Bits makes sense. It brings Bitcoin back to being a currency, not just a museum exhibit.

3. The "Too Expensive" Myth Smaller units destroy the myth that you have to be rich to enter. You don't need to buy the whole bar; you just need to start stacking your first gram.

It’s time to change the denomination.

#Bitcoin #Sats #UnitBias #MassAdoption

Sapling Ai: 99.9% Ai Generated
GPTZero: 100% Ai Generated
Originality Ai: 100% Confident

Post 3:

I've heard these arguments for 10 years. Here is why you are missing the bigger picture:

1. Volatility is the Price of Performance You are confusing "volatility" with "risk." Volatility is simply price discovery in action as Bitcoin monetizes from zero to trillions. Stability is for fiat currencies that slowly lose purchasing power. Volatility is the admission fee you pay for the best-performing asset of the decade. If you can't handle the heat, you don't deserve the kitchen.


2. Scarcity IS the Utility Comparing Bitcoin to Apple is a category error. You are applying industrial logic to monetary assets. Gold isn't valuable because of jewelry; it's valuable because of its monetary premium. Bitcoin’s "demand" comes from people who want an asset that cannot be diluted, seized, or censored. In a world of infinite money printing, absolute scarcity is the ultimate utility.


3. Early HODLing Was Not "Easy" This is a massive misconception. Early adopters faced Existential Risk—the risk that Bitcoin would actually go to zero, get banned, or the code would fail. We held through Mt. Gox and total market collapses. Today, you only face price volatility. It is infinitely easier to HODL now with BlackRock involved than it was when it was just "magic internet money."


4. Zoom Out on Correlation In a liquidity crisis (when the economy tanks), correlations go to 1 because people sell everything to get cash. That doesn't mean Bitcoin failed. Look at the 4-year timeframe. Bitcoin is the only lifeboat that consistently outperforms the sinking ship of the fiat economy.

Bitcoin doesn't need you to believe in it. It will just continue to verify blocks.

Zoom out.

Sapling Ai: 88.6% Ai generated
Originality Ai: 98% confident
GPTZero: 100% Ai Generated

User: 2

Post 1:

Today marks 17 years since Bitcoin officially began operating.

No CEO. No employees. Permissionless. Censorship-resistant. Unforgeable. Zero security breaches. 100% Open Source. Your keys, your coins. 24/7 Uptime.

People say Bitcoin is being "tamed" by governments and institutions. They are wrong.

Bitcoin hasn't changed. The supply is still fixed. The consensus is still math. The halving is still code.

Instead, the world had to change to fit Bitcoin:

FASB changed accounting rules.

Nations changed legal frameworks.

Wall Street changed ETF approval paths.

They realized they cannot change Bitcoin. They can only change themselves to become part of it.

The asset that could not be changed is now changing the world.

Originality Ai: 100% Confident
Sapling Ai: 99.9% Ai Generated
GPTZero: 100% Ai Generated

Post 2:

"You make a valid point—people often find excuses regardless of the price.

However, I respectfully disagree when it comes to newcomers. We can't ignore simple human psychology. There's a reason companies do stock splits: people prefer owning whole numbers over decimals.

For a beginner, buying '0.001 BTC' feels insignificant (like 'crumbs'), whereas stacking '100,000 Sats' feels like real progress. Smaller units remove that mental barrier and are essential for mass adoption."

Originality Ai: 100% Confident
Sapling Ai: 99.9% Ai Generated
GPTZero: 100% Ai Generated

[AuchanX]

This person is spreading fake information generated by AI on the technical board.

User: jwlcore

This is an experimental effort based on a Bitcoin-derived codebase.

The goal is not to replace Bitcoin or alter its existing cryptographic rules,
but to introduce an additional post-quantum signature verification path at the
consensus level.

The approach is modular:

- Legacy ECDSA/secp256k1 remains untouched and continues to validate historical
  data and legacy outputs.
- A new script opcode introduces post-quantum signature verification (currently
  Dilithium-based) as a separate consensus path.
- The scriptPubKey explicitly determines which verification path is used, so
  there is no ambiguity for nodes.

Post-quantum signatures are intended to become the default for newly created
outputs over time, while legacy cryptography remains only for compatibility.
No hard cutoff, no forced migration.

At the current stage:
- The post-quantum opcode is integrated into the script engine.
- Deterministic consensus tests are passing.
- There is no mining, no release, and no economic activity yet.

This post is not an announcement and not a proposal for deployment.
It is shared to explain the design and to invite technical discussion
around consensus safety, script semantics, and long-term maintainability.

Copyleaks: 100% AI detected
Sapling: 15% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI
Originality: 100% AI

Interesting experiment, but it’s important to separate script-level constructions from actual post-quantum authorization.

The approach described here still relies on ECDSA as the authorizing primitive. The hash preimage only adds an extra condition, but does not remove ECDSA as a single point of failure. Once a valid signature is visible in the mempool, a quantum adversary can extract the private key and attempt a higher-fee double spend.

This is why such constructions don’t meaningfully change the threat model they wrap ECDSA instead of replacing it.

A real post-quantum design requires:
   removing ECDSA from the authorization path
   introducing a new signature primitive verified by all nodes
   enforcing it at the consensus level, not as a P2SH policy trick

In our work we’re addressing exactly these issues by adding a native post-quantum signature opcode and a separate consensus validation path, with full negative testing (invalid sigs, invalid sighash, size limits, script errors). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5569815.0

This avoids mempool race attacks, fee-bumping games, and “quantum double-spend auctions”, because authorization no longer depends on ECDSA at all.

Script-level experiments are useful for exploration, but post-quantum security ultimately requires protocol-level changes.

copyleaks:100% AI detected
Sapling: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI
Originality: 98% AI

Thanks that’s exactly the class of issues I’m focusing on next.

The current goal was to make the verification path explicit and deterministic first, without touching legacy secp256k1, precisely to avoid cross-path confusion.

DoS surface from large PQ objects is well understood. The plan is to enforce strict size and format validation before PQ_Verify is ever reached, so malformed or borderline inputs are rejected in constant time.

In addition, explicit limits are being introduced at both consensus and policy level (max sig size, max pubkey size, script element limits), so verification cost is bounded and predictable.

Optimizing representation and moving heavy data out of the base path is intentionally deferred to a dedicated witness-style upgrade, once the base PQ consensus rules are fully hardened.

Appreciate the insight this is exactly the direction the design is heading.

copyleaks:100% AI detected
Sapling: 100% AI
Originality: 99% AI
Stealthwriter: 71% AI

[Ayers]

Is being a Legendary user now just only a rank on the forum?

new year, new trick, mucho laziness this "Legendary" rank user Ayers spamming the forum with AI contents.

also tagging @Little Mouse here as a side note to take a look.

Mate, you will find most accurate result in
Gptzero and stealthwriter

I have some auto correction tools installed in my browser, like Grammarly and a few other extension. That could be why the tools you used are flagging some of my posts as AI generated

You selected a few specific posts and relied on particular tools to support your claim. If you check my other posts or analyze everything using the core GPTZero tool, you will see that my posts are Not AI.

Post1-

Post2-

Post3-

[lovesmayfamilis]

Is being a Legendary user now just only a rank on the forum?

new year, new trick, mucho laziness this "Legendary" rank user Ayers spamming the forum with AI contents.

also tagging @Little Mouse here as a side note to take a look.

Mate, you will find most accurate result in
Gptzero and stealthwriter

I have some auto correction tools installed in my browser, like Grammarly and a few other extension. That could be why the tools you used are flagging some of my posts as AI generated

You selected a few specific posts and relied on particular tools to support your claim. If you check my other posts or analyze everything using the core GPTZero tool, you will see that my posts are Not AI.

Lately, there have been a lot of new detectives in this section, but their testimony sometimes doesn't correspond to reality. Testimonies from sites like https://sapling.ai/ have long been discussed in this thread as evidence that shouldn't be relied upon. Likewise, one should not always judge those who claim and believe Copyleaks evidence, as online translators have indeed started using AI to correct spelling errors. However, for some reason, today's new detectives don't provide evidence from sites like QuillBot and, in some cases, GPTZero, carefully excluding them, as they likely understand that they are deliberately accusing people for merit or other personal gain.

I would try to review the text itself from the start to understand whether the person is capable of responding that way, whether his speech is alive, or, on the contrary, whether it sounds mechanical, like the answers of a robot. Moderators most often delete posts after a full accusation confirmed by QuillBot, but I checked several previously posted accusations, and their assessment is far from accusing people of using AI. Moreover, the probability must be higher than 70 percent, which is not the case in the posts of today's new detectives.

[Ayers]

However, for some reason, today's new detectives don't provide evidence from sites like QuillBot and, in some cases, GPTZero, carefully excluding them, as they likely understand that they are deliberately accusing people for merit or other personal gain.

One of the possible reasons is that doing things this way can earn good merit. For these reasons, new merit hunters tend to avoid tools like GPTZero, StealthWriter, or QuillBot.

Anyway, when you read an AI written post, you can easily tell right away that it was written by AI, because the text feels very mechanical and lacks human warmth. So instead of relying solely on tools, you can also use your own judgment to understand if the content is written by a machine or not.


You don't have to look very far, just take a look at your own post. Sapling is sayin it's 100% AI, lol 

[jokers10]

You don't have to look very far, just take a look at your own post. Sapling is sayin it's 100% AI, lol 

It is a known fact, Sapling is reacting on the automated translation as if it was written by AI, and it's not the only one detector which works that way. So Sapling is never used as one and only detector to prove that anyone uses AI in their posts. When you work on detecting different texts long enough, you know many of those things.

[lovesmayfamilis]

However, for some reason, today's new detectives don't provide evidence from sites like QuillBot and, in some cases, GPTZero, carefully excluding them, as they likely understand that they are deliberately accusing people for merit or other personal gain.

One of the possible reasons is that doing things this way can earn good merit. For these reasons, new merit hunters tend to avoid tools like GPTZero, StealthWriter, or QuillBot.

Anyway, when you read an AI written post, you can easily tell right away that it was written by AI, because the text feels very mechanical and lacks human warmth. So instead of relying solely on tools, you can also use your own judgment to understand if the content is written by a machine or not.


You don't have to look very far, just take a look at your own post. Sapling is sayin it's 100% AI, lol  

This has been discussed millions of times.

However, today's detectives stubbornly refuse to use tools that don't work to their advantage. As soon as JayJuanGee, a swarm of detectives descended upon the topic, ready to sift through every post on their preferred sites day and night.

Not to mention that most of their "suspected" posts are simply not removed by moderators, and JayJuanGee himself, when awarding merit, doesn't verify their authenticity.

I'd argue that it's quite easy to highlight any post with a quote and then write your own conclusion for it to earn merit.

It's necessary to clarify the tools used to indict people, as abuses have emerged in this topic as well.

[Ultegra134]

I don't want to take sides here, but if I'm honest, I've also noticed a pattern of members we haven't seen before, start posting in the AI Report thread, which is both intriguing and frustrating. This topic does receive quite a bit of merit for those who dedicate their time to catch cheaters and spammers, but I'm afraid that some newer members are purely doing it to receive some extra merit in order to rank-up to ranks that are going to start...paying.

I'm not saying that this is the case here, but something that I've simply noticed. Experienced "reporters" know that sapling.ai alone isn't enough for any accusation, I'm indifferent about zerogpt, not a huge fan of it, Copyleaks is so and so. GPTZero and Stealthwriter seem to be the most advanced ones, others have been left behind, and as for @Ayers, I don't see anything too suspicious based on a quick look I did on their posts.

[xmrhopium]

ot

just only legend by rank..

it's funny--the irony is, he has been here since 2014 and made more than 7000 posts, in overall airdropped 1000 merits and barely earned 30 26 merits from the past 7-8 years which makes him super spammers.. just shit posting mucho.

anyway.. what I have to say.

as they likely understand that they are deliberately accusing people for merit or other personal gain.

i found myself guilty of wrongly reporting or making false accusations against so called "Legends" and neither here just only for merit nor to such personal gain(S)... or whatever you/they say-- for the punishment i'm leaving the forum immediately for the lifetime, and thanks for the first merit on my profile, which you gave me 11 months ago.

goodbye

[Dr.Lender3]

goodbye

@xmrhopium, there is nothing to be sad about, you are new and you still have a lot to learn. The accusations you have made against someone are not true. That is what everyone wants you to understand. If you accept it, you will learn and if you leave in anger, it will reveal your stubborn nature.

I hope you will not attack anyone personally, show your generosity and accept everyone's suggestions.

[RedFlix]

Hey guys, are there free versions from all the detection apps? Or you all are using paid versions?
I refer to the list of apps in the opening post:
GPTZero
Copyleaks AI Content Detector
Sapling AI Detector
Quillbot
Zerogpt
StealthWriter
Originality.ai

In some cases, two apps show different results. How to get a reliable result then?

[nutildah]

Hey guys, are there free versions from all the detection apps? Or you all are using paid versions?
...
In some cases, two apps show different results. How to get a reliable result then?

These are fair questions.

1) They are all free to use, or offer a few free uses each day. Results posted on the forum should be able to be verified by anybody.

2) At least 3 of the detectors mentioned above should produce results that say a post is 70% AI-generated or more (or has a 70%+ chance of being AI-generated). This reduces the risk of acting based on false positives.

The only confusing thing about the process is what to do with users who are legitimately using Google Translate (which uses AI) to translate their own thoughts. Personally I'm a fan of the pre-post disclaimer, "This post was translated using Google Translate." Its just not a well-established practice yet.

[JayJuanGee]

However, today's detectives stubbornly refuse to use tools that don't work to their advantage. As soon as JayJuanGee, a swarm of detectives descended upon the topic, ready to sift through every post on their preferred sites day and night.

Not to mention that most of their "suspected" posts are simply not removed by moderators, and JayJuanGee himself, when awarding merit, doesn't verify their authenticity.

You have concluded that JayJuanGee is part of the problem, and he  (of course referring to myself) is not doing some things that he has obligations to do?  

Get real.

That is a bit of a stretch in your own logic on this topic and in terms of what obligations you believe exist for merit source members in the forum as it currently exists.  
Would you like to create a checklist for the obligations of merit sources to follow and comply with your subjective and wishful preferences?

The last I checked there are no obligations for merit sources except to not be engaging in quid pro quo or perhaps some other unwritten rules regarding potential bad and/or abusive conduct, so you would have a bit of a burden to show some kind of bad conduct if you believe that merit sources have additional duties that potentially comply with your own subjective expectations or that failure/refusal to adequately screen members (prior to sending merit) rises to the level of some kind of abusive behavior coming from merit source members (whether me or any other merit source member).

By the way we could also consider some obligations in terms of positive standards, such as considering whether the merit source had been negligent or grossly negligent or reckless in carrying out their merit sending.

None of those obligations (positive standards) apply to merit source members as you would like to imagine them existing in your seemingly fantasy view of the forum, yet I suppose if any member were to put together a case (supported by evidence and logic) that some merit source members need to be removed from their source status or reduced or in some other way admonishment based on their merit sending behaviors, theymos would probably at least browse over your evidence (and arguments) before filing it away...or maybe a moderator would look at such evidence (and arguments) first before presenting such matter to theymos before the matter ends up getting filed away... It is likely that theymos has seen many of the threads on the topic, and he has likely also been presented with evidence and arguments in the past regarding concerns of forum members on the merit sending topic.

I would imagine that the standards for merit sources is a wee bit different (likely quite a bit higher to find a violation) than what you are imagining in your lil fantasy world for it to be...and surely there are a few members who are receptive (and/or desiring) to change the merit source standards (creating positive obligations that currently do not exist) and/or changing the merit source members (which it seems to me that a few months ago (less than 6 months ago) theymos had reduced the number of merit sources from 109 to 88 (recently there was a thread talking about such reduction in the merit source members, too), and even I would personally prefer that there would be more merit source members rather than fewer).

It seems to me that some members are not able to whine their way into creating more positive obligations for merit source members, so I suppose in that sense some members resort to trying to shame merit source members in the direction of following some imaginary positive standards that do not in fact exist under the forum's current merit system.  

Your choice to mention my name seems to suggest that you would like to persuade me (and perhaps other members) through some kind of a shaming effort.

as they likely understand that they are deliberately accusing people for merit or other personal gain.

i found myself guilty of wrongly reporting or making false accusations against so called "Legends" and neither here just only for merit nor to such personal gain(S)... or whatever you/they say-- for the punishment i'm leaving the forum immediately for the lifetime, and thanks for the first merit on my profile, which you gave me 11 months ago.
goodbye

Holy shit xmrhopium.  Guys have differing opinions about matters here, so there is no reason to take differences of opinion personally.

On a personal basis, I usually try to limit my participation in Meta threads, even though surely it cannot be completely avoided when we might be on the forum for a long time, and also sometimes the various meta-matters end up crossing over into questions of substantive discussions, such as talking about bitcoin-related matters..., yet sure, various questions about how to deal with bots and/or how to deal with low quality posters are going to overlap and not be clearly delineated regarding if posts are mostly coming from the members or from some AI program.

Actually also some members will put a lot of effort into their various forum activities, and they might be punished for their good faith efforts, which might be in line with the expression that "no good deed goes unpunished."   For sure, there are also guys who might try to limit their forum time and/or they might come to the forum because they are trying to get away from some of the stresses of real world interactions and obligations, yet then they end up getting sucked into various kinds stressful interactions.  

Frequently there is value to not getting emotional in regards to forum interactions, yet still there can be difficulties, from time to time.   By the way, you could still choose to red tag or neutral tag another member, yet if you exercise your judgement in a way that other members do not  like, you may end up getting red tagged for your attempts to address matters you believe to be important... So, again, we have differing ways of seeing matters, and sometimes we might come to modify our views, and other times, we may come to a conclusion that we have provided enough (or seen enough) evidence in order to at least neutral tag the member.. but yeah, it runs the risk of our getting tagged for the judgement that we had chosen to exercise.

[Vompola]

A full member who posts using AI.
BattleDog

Shamir backup is basically splitting your seed into pieces, then require a minimum number of pieces to rebuild it. So if you pick 5 shares with a threshold of 3, you can lose up to 2 shares and still recover, but a thief would need to steal 3 of them before they can do anything. It's not multisig and it doesn't change your wallet on-chain, it's just a fancier way of storing the same secret.

People use it when they want redundancy across locations or some light "steal one paper and you get nothing" protection.

The tradeoff is complexity: most losses I've seen over the years came from people getting cute with backups and then not being able to reconstruct them under stress. If you do try it, do a full recovery test once (on a fresh device, with no cameras around) and consider something boring like 2-of-3 with each share stored separately...... otherwise a well-protected standard seed (and maybe a passphrase if you understand it) is honestly fine for most folks.

Cheers

StealthWriter: 100% AI detected
undetectable: 60% AI detected
GPTZero AI: 100% AI detected

Shamir backup is basically splitting your seed into pieces, then require a minimum number of pieces to rebuild it. So if you pick 5 shares with a threshold of 3, you can lose up to 2 shares and still recover, but a thief would need to steal 3 of them before they can do anything. It's not multisig and it doesn't change your wallet on-chain, it's just a fancier way of storing the same secret.

People use it when they want redundancy across locations or some light "steal one paper and you get nothing" protection.

The tradeoff is complexity: most losses I've seen over the years came from people getting cute with backups and then not being able to reconstruct them under stress. If you do try it, do a full recovery test once (on a fresh device, with no cameras around) and consider something boring like 2-of-3 with each share stored separately...... otherwise a well-protected standard seed (and maybe a passphrase if you understand it) is honestly fine for most folks.

Cheers

First time hearing of this shamir backup but it seems like others have discussed about this before. Here are some threads about shamir backups.

Shamir backup sounds dumb to me
Single vs Shamir vs Multisig, which is easiest to hack statistically?

I have lost myself reading these threads and basically what I have concluded is that multisig is still the best method for security. Some even say they see no point in using shamir backups if you’re keeping it yourself. I have seen others say that with shamir backups they distribute the shares to trusted people. Most I’ve seen discourage the use of this though. Here’s an article about its shortcomings

Yeah I think the wires got crossed a bit here: Shamir isn't "security" in the same category as multisig, it's "backup hygiene." Multisig changes who can spend on-chain, Shamir doesn't. Shamir just changes how you store the one secret that already controls spending.

The "sounds dumb" takes come from watching folks overcomplicate it and then fail their own recovery. That's real. Shamir adds moving parts, and the failure mode is brutal: you think you're protected, then five years later you realize one share is missing and the threshold you chose was too aggressive, or you wrote one word wrong. That's why I always push the boring version: small share count, conservative threshold, and do an actual recovery drill on a fresh device when nobody's watching. If you can't recover calmly in a normal afternoon, you definitely won't recover during a house move, a breakup, or a "my laptop died and I'm sweating" moment.

Also, "distribute shares to trusted people" isn't the default, it's one option. A lot of people just distribute geographically to themselves: home safe, bank box, trusted relative's safe, etc. The point is that stealing one share should be useless, and losing one share shouldn't kill you.

StealthWriter: 90% AI detected

undetectable: 72% AI detected

GPTZero AI: 82% AI detected

Doing nothing is absolutely a position, and honestly it's one of the hardest ones to hold because it pays you in boredom while Twitter pays people in adrenaline. I've watched a bunch of folks survive 2018 and 2022 just fine, then blow themselves up the moment the chart went sideways because they couldn't stand the quiet. So I get the instinct. The only thing I'd poke at is the "park it all in stablecoins and wait" part: stables are still someone else's liability, and the risk isn't volatility, it's custody/issuer/exchange nonsense showing up on a random Tuesday. If you're going to sit out, at least make sure your "doing nothing" isn't secretly "taking counterparty risk and calling it cash."

Also, the four-year cycle is more like a four-year vibe than a law of physics. Sometimes it rhymes, sometimes it just coughs and changes the subject. If your DCA-RDCA run worked and you actually banked the gains instead of round-tripping them back into the market, that already puts you ahead of most people here, so respect. Just don't overfit your whole 2026 plan to the last season's pattern, because the market loves punishing the exact strategy that "worked perfectly" last time.

As for your questions, 2025 was fine for me mainly because I didn't try to be a hero. Core stack stays put, I'll nibble when things get sleepy, and I keep dry powder for the kind of dumb flush that always shows up when everyone's convinced "nothing happens anymore."

Am I patient enough to do nothing all year? Yeah. But I'm also stubborn enough to keep a tiny, boring routine in place, because the one time you swear you'll sit out is the exact week the market decides to sprint.

StealthWriter: 90% AI detected

undetectable: 72% AI detected

GPTZero AI: 82% AI detected

Yeah, that's basically the annoying truth of Lightning routing, nobody deduces the real directional liquidity in any clean, deterministic way, because the balances aren't gossiped. What you get from gossip is the channel's total capacity and the policy bits (fees, CLTV delta, HTLC limits, disabled flags, etc.). So Core Lightning (and the others) start with a map where every channel's capacity is only an upper bound, then they do pathfinding with heuristics.

The real learning happens the brutal way, like when you try a route, and when it fails you get a failure back that lets the sender update its view. A failure on a given hop at amount X effectively tells you "that edge probably can't push X right now", so the node will penalize it and retry with a different path (or a smaller split if you're using MPP). After enough attempts, you end up with a probabilistic "this edge tends to work up to about here" mental model inside the payer, but it's still frail because liquidity moves constantly and some failures are ambiguous by design.

StealthWriter: 100% AI detected

undetectable: 72% AI detected

GPTZero AI: 82% AI detected
All posts by this user were made using AI tools. I have only reported the first few posts here. If someone were to win a Nobel Prize for posting using AI tools, this brother's name would be the first to come up.

[lovesmayfamilis]

My God, that's a lot of words again. Dear JayJuanGee, I wasn't even thinking of accusing you, quite the opposite. As one of the kindest sources of merit, you're popular with newbies, and they've followed your threads where you appear and bestow merits upon their like thread to needle. I didn't think it would affect you, and I didn't intend to blame you.  It's not relevant who the source is or how many, and I didn't mean to judge you personally as a good or bad source. I didn't even read that part. Who am I to judge? But forgive me if I hurt your feelings .

However, I'd like to clarify that many posts that were recently accused of being written by AI haven't been removed by moderators. Why? Because those who delete posts apparently rely on other metrics and don't always agree. I've come to the conclusion, while submitting reports myself, without mentioning this topic, that after QuillBot shows results above 70 percent, posts are deleted. But lately, I haven't seen any deleted posts or ratings from QuillBot, which could clearly indicate that the accusation isn't always true.


https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector

Regarding "snowflake," xmrhopium, who is saying goodbye, I won't try to persuade him or apologize. This is the internet, and it's been said a thousand times on the forum that if you can't handle criticism, that's your problem. But I'd also like to point out that xmrhopium, as a champion of forum purity, has changed most of his posts and, noticeably, not deleted them but modified them, leaving the word included in Rule 1 as a zero value for the forum. Why and for what reason?? He could have simply deleted the posts, but he kept his activity. Everyone has their skeletons in the closet, right, xmrhopium?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3674660;sa=showPosts;start=140
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3674660;sa=showPosts;start=120

[JayJuanGee]

My God, that's a lot of words again. Dear JayJuanGee, I wasn't even thinking of accusing you, quite the opposite. As one of the kindest sources of merit, you're popular with newbies, and they've followed your threads where you appear and bestow merits upon their like thread to needle. I didn't think it would affect you, and I didn't intend to blame you.  It's not relevant who the source is or how many, and I didn't mean to judge you personally as a good or bad source. I didn't even read that part. Who am I to judge? But forgive me if I hurt your feelings .

It is not about my feelings.  I already expressed that I wrote in response to my impression that you were implying that there was a positive forum standard for sending smerits for source members, beyond quid pro quo and/or some other form of abuse.  So, even if my name was used, I had also considered smerit sending in relation to other source members.. not just about me.  So, I already responded to that, even if I might have had been a wee bit wordy.. what else is new?

Of course, if we are in a public thread, there could be a need to respond to the substantive ideas that had been presented and/or even if there might be some misinterpretation of what had been posted or the intentions of the earlier posts. If my name had not been mentioned I might have had not even noticed the contents of the post.  Also I recall responding to some posts previously (and my name was not even mentioned) and then another forum member chided me for my own attempt to connect the substance of the earlier post to me.. which sure, if my user name is not mentioned, then I might not notice either way.

By the way, I won't apologize for my number of words either.  Historically, I have been lectured on the topic of my number of words, too, and one of my stock responses has been that in whatever post that I choose to make or not make, I had exercised my discretion in terms of how many words to use, or not.  So I won't agree in regards to whether if I used too many words to say what I had determined to be necessary to say.

However, I'd like to clarify that many posts that were recently accused of being written by AI haven't been removed by moderators. Why? Because those who delete posts apparently rely on other metrics and don't always agree. I've come to the conclusion, while submitting reports myself, without mentioning this topic, that after QuillBot shows results above 70 percent, posts are deleted. But lately, I haven't seen any deleted posts or ratings from QuillBot, which could clearly indicate that the accusation isn't always true.

I agree that moderators have difficult job when they are trying  to figure out whether to delete seemingly bot-written posts, since such bot-written posts are becoming more and more difficult to detect.

https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector
Regarding "snowflake," xmrhopium, who is saying goodbye, I won't try to persuade him or apologize.

I do sometimes wonder why newer accounts want to get caught up in flagging the accounts of other members, yet I suppose that some members are interested in those kinds of topics.. but yeah, patrolling and flagging accounts could be a stressful way of interacting with other forum members and getting caught up in disagreements.

This is the internet, and it's been said a thousand times on the forum that if you can't handle criticism, that's your problem. But I'd also like to point out that xmrhopium, as a champion of forum purity, has changed most of his posts and, noticeably, not deleted them but modified them, leaving the word included in Rule 1 as a zero value for the forum. Why and for what reason?? He could have simply deleted the posts, but he kept his activity. Everyone has their skeletons in the closet, right, xmrhopium?

For sure there are members without thick enough skin, and surely if we spend a lot of time interacting with other forum members, we will be challenged from time to time.. I agree that there could well be some members who have questionable motives and/or allegiances, so for sure we know that there are likely disingenuine folks (perhaps best case) and also PsyOps (worser case) which surely some of the more mal-intended members would fit in the PsyOp category (agents of the government, agents of financial institution or agents of some other anti-bitcoin group)..   We might not always know for sure if some members are merely disingenuine, a psyops, a bot or if something else might be going on.  I am not going to claim to know, even though surely sometimes it is valuable to look further into the post history (or even the deletion history) of some forum members to identify suspicious behaviors.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3674660;sa=showPosts;start=140
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3674660;sa=showPosts;start=120

Whoaza!!!!  I will admit.  That those posts are pretty weird, and yeah, it could well show that he is far from being a person who is even trying to be honest.

By the way, I do recognize and understand that some members will go through the motions of throwing a temper tantrum or otherwise fake some kind of a way to "gracefully" exit when they realize that they had gotten in too deep.  

Edit: Went through post to clarify/elaborate in a few spots.

[Witch hunting]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3674660;sa=showPosts;start=140
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3674660;sa=showPosts;start=120

Whoaza!!!!  I will admit.  That those posts are pretty weird, and yeah, it could well show that he is far from being a person who is even trying to be honest.

Maybe he was a little bored of hunting, that's why he wrote all the ok and ok things on several pages.