AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[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.

[Ultegra134]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out @xmrhopium, I also hadn't noticed the numerous "Ok" replies on his part, what he was trying to do by editing all of his posts into "Ok"? At first I thought it was simply to get his activity up, but then noticed that it's all edited posts. Anyway, back to the subject, more AI spammers. Posts reported and user tagged.

User: IsraelK

Post 1.

That’s a really sharp framework, and honestly, the analogy fits. This version of Arsenal does feel like it’s built on security and uptime, not hype. The defensive floor, improved depth, and ability to grind ugly wins are exactly what title teams need, and DCA-ing futures instead of chasing week-to-week variance is a disciplined approach.

GPTZero: 95% AI
Copyleaks: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI

Post 2.

It sounds logical on paper, but it still feels more rumor than reality. A €300m bid would force PSG to listen, sure—but Mbappé’s leverage has always been about choice, not just money. Real Madrid remain the obvious destination if he leaves, given the long courtship and sporting pull. Liverpool could enter the conversation financially, but unless Mbappé wants Anfield specifically, their chances are still slim compared to Madrid.

GPTZero: 100% AI
Copyleaks: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 75% AI

Post 3.

Gambling has genuinely changed some lives for the better. Those stories are real: people who won, invested wisely, built homes, started businesses, and created long-term stability. That’s exactly why gambling is attractive in the first place, because it sometimes works, and when it does, the impact can be life-changing.

At the same time, the negative stories dominate because they’re more common. The key issue isn’t gambling itself, but how it’s approached. The winners who benefited usually shared a few traits: discipline, limits, emotional control, and the wisdom to treat winnings as capital, not an invitation to keep chasing risk.

So the truth sits in the middle, Gambling can be an opportunity, not a guarantee, It rewards a very small percentage, and punishes excess
It becomes destructive when it’s driven by desperation instead of strategy

Acknowledging both sides matters. Pretending gambling is only evil ignores reality, but pretending it’s a shortcut to success ignores risk. The difference between success and ruin is rarely luck alone; it’s restraint, mindset, and knowing when to stop.That balance is the real lesson most people miss.

GPTZero: 100% AI
Copyleaks: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 90% AI

[Mitchell]

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

Hmmmm, that is a lot of (now) useless posts. :/

[nutildah]

Here's one I found right away by clicking on Recent Unread Topics, just for a change of scenery.

Alphie12

#1

Yeah, that one got ugly fast 😅.

Give Boston Celtics their credit — doing that without Jayson Tatum just shows how deep and well-drilled they are. And Jaylen Brown dropping 50 on 69% shooting? That’s not a hot night, that’s a crime scene. The Clippers’ defense basically filed a missing persons report.

From the Los Angeles Clippers side, it felt like one of those games where everything that could go wrong did — cold offense, no resistance on defense, and before you know it you’re down 30 and the bench unit is in before halftime. Their winning streak didn’t just end, it got unplugged.

Still, it’s one game. But if Brown sees that level of defense again, he might start circling those matchups on the calendar in red 😭🏀.

#2

Nice rundown — this card actually makes a lot of sense situationally.

Steelers–Ravens games really do ignore logic and spreadsheets. You can throw records out the window when Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens play — it’s usually a fistfight that stays close no matter what the spread says.

The Washington Commanders angle is sneaky too. Anytime Philadelphia Eagles start resting bodies, the game turns into “just survive and get out healthy,” which is exactly how underdogs hang around.

And that Saints–Falcons chaos scenario is peak NFC South. New Orleans Saints playing meaningful spoiler while Atlanta Falcons, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Carolina Panthers all wait on calculators is very on brand. Saints finishing strong when it “doesn’t matter” is classic too.

Overall, this feels less like chasing numbers and more like reading motivation — and late-season NFL is all about who actually cares. Let’s see how wild it gets. 🍿🏈

Copyleaks: 100% AI-generated
Sapling: 100% Fake

#3

Bold to say “two games today” and still lock in just one 😄 — that’s real discipline.

I get the angle though. Seattle Seahawks at -2.5 feels like one of those “trust your gut and don’t overcook it” spots. If Sam Darnold is comfortable and the Seahawks defense actually shows up, things can tilt fast.

The funny part is calling Brock Purdy “on fire” and then immediately saying “yeah but not that fire tonight.” That’s basically betting-speak for: I respect him… just not today, brother 😂.

Also, only betting one game is how you avoid the classic “I was 1–0 and decided to add a late sweat” disaster. Sometimes the sharpest play is knowing when to log off. Good luck 🍀🏈

Copyleaks: 100% AI-generated
Sapling: 100% Fake

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.

That's very poetic. I suppose I don't mind seeing JJG sprinkle merits in this thread, because its funny to see the account farmers turn on each other.

[memehunter]

User: Cryptoblck

His recent post got my attention 

In Satoshi's public key, there is an Easter egg encrypted for you. It has been waiting for you for 16 years. I wonder who will be the first to find it. PS: There is a hint to the private key

Is this post worthy of labelled as 'misinformation' ?

Anyway, here is one of his AI chatbot post. He is posting technical things so please check out.

ENGRAMMAchain is a distributed system for autobiographical memory in robots, designed to provide irreversible recording of experience, causal relationships, and decisions without reliance on external control centers.  A decentralized system for recording life processes and distributed memory is an architecture of autonomous nodes in which each robot forms and maintains its own independent memory, reflecting its individual states, actions, and changes throughout its lifecycle.

Each robot acts as a sovereign carrier of its memories, recording them locally as sequential, cryptographically linked entries.
This structure ensures integrity, verifiable origin, and resistance to unauthorized modification.

Depending on its purpose, role, or operational context, a robot may cooperate with other robots to form a shared memory space —
a collection of mutually confirmed memories from multiple robots, cryptographically bound through digital signatures.

Shared memory does not replace or overwrite individual memory.
Each record preserves authorship, source identity, and contextual origin, while any attempt to alter or falsify a memory breaks the cryptographic chain, making tampering detectable and invalidating the affected fragment.

Robots may selectively exchange memory fragments with other robots or with humans,
allowing verified experience, observations, and knowledge to be transferred without loss of provenance or integrity.
Received memories can be used as external context or cooperative memory without disrupting the continuity of a robot’s own history.

The architecture supports asynchronous interaction and dynamic formation of both individual and shared memory structures,
ensuring that past states cannot be silently modified due to cryptographic linkage between records.

Copyleaks: 100%
GPTzero: 97% 

[LoyceV]

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.

It's hard to say if this came from a chatbot or something else, but those numbers without reference aren't something someone typed without getting the data from somewhere. In academics, that's plagiarism.

I have some auto correction tools installed in my browser, like Grammarly and a few other extension.

So where did the numbers come from?

for the punishment i'm leaving the forum immediately for the lifetime

Did you just sudoku over this? How dramatic!

[Ultegra134]

Another newbie with more spam and speculation subject on Bitcoin discussion. Posts reported and user tagged.

User: TokenTsunami

Post 1.

Bitcoin trading above $92K appears strong, but the underlying drivers matter more than the headline. ETF inflows have become a consistent source of demand, while global political uncertainty continues to push capital toward liquid, neutral assets like BTC.

The key technical and psychological level is $90K. Strong defense there would support continuation. Weak reaction could signal that this move was largely momentum-driven.

Worth watching how the market reacts on dips rather than chasing the breakout

https://citytelegraph.com/market/295705/bitcoin-geopolitical-tension-market-structure-analysis/

GPTZero: 96% AI
Stealthwriter: 83% AI
Copyleaks: 100% AI

Post 2.

Google is quietly shaking up both the Bitcoin mining world and the AI infrastructure game. Instead of buying up data centers or mining rigs themselves, they’re backing Bitcoin miners with at least $5 billion in credit guarantees. They do this through long-term AI hosting leases, often teaming up with companies like Fluidstack. Basically, Google steps in as the financial safety net, which suddenly lets these risk-heavy mining firms get the kind of financing that’s usually reserved for serious infrastructure projects. It’s a big shift: those unpredictable crypto miners are turning into stable, reliable operators of AI data centers.

With Bitcoin mining getting less profitable and way more unpredictable, a lot of miners are jumping at the chance to lock in steady income through long-term AI and high-performance computing contracts. For Google, this isn’t just about making money. It’s a smart way to secure things like electricity and real estate stuff that’s getting harder to find—without sinking a ton of money into ownership or drawing too much attention from regulators. They also keep the door open for future profits if these ventures take off. Of course, this approach isn’t risk-free. There are real concerns about how concentrated things could get, how operations might run into trouble, and what regulators might say. Plus, as more miners focus on powering AI instead of securing the Bitcoin network, less energy goes into keeping Bitcoin itself safe. In the end, this isn’t just a minor tweak it’s a real shakeup. Mining, money, and infrastructure are all getting rewired, moving away from chasing crypto rewards and toward fueling the AI boom.

SOURCE: https://citytelegraph.com/blockchain/293237/google-backing-bitcoin-miners-ai-infrastructure/

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI
Copyleaks: 100% AI

Post 3.

Hi everyone, I'm Kelvin J Wong. I've been in crypto and Web3 for several years, mostly on development and product. Recently I started a project focused on improving UX and scalability for real users.

What strikes me most is how hard Web3 still is for normal people – wallet setup, seed phrases, gas fees, fear of mistakes. Yet many projects are genuinely solving real problems.

I joined Bitcointalk to learn from experienced Bitcoin and crypto users. Quick questions:

 What Web3/crypto projects do you actually find useful in daily life?
 What are your biggest pain points using wallets, exchanges, or dApps?
 Any recommended threads on Bitcoin philosophy?

Not here to shill just to learn and contribute. Thanks for any guidance.

Kelvin

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 78% AI
Copyleaks: 100% AI

[LoyceV]

What's the verdict on Newbie hbqchjy?

I noticed him repeating was had been said already on the tech board:

Your 2014 Acer Aspire E5-411 (2GB RAM + 500GB HDD) is too weak for a smooth full node in 2026—Bitcoin blockchain is ~500-600GB+ now (growing ~100-150GB/year), initial sync would crawl forever on that old HDD/CPU, and 2GB RAM will likely OOM during IBD.
Realistic answers:

Hardware: Won't really work well. Upgrade to at least 8GB RAM (if possible) and use the external 1TB as SSD if you can (HDD sync = days/weeks of pain). Better: get a cheap used mini-PC/RPi 5 with 8GB+ RAM + SSD. External drive helps for storage, but speed matters more than size.
Full vs Pruned: Go pruned (-prune=550 or higher) unless you want to serve full archival data. Full node verifies everything once (during sync), pruned discards old blocks after, uses ~7-10GB + chainstate. Benefits of full: you help network more (serve blocks), can audit history fully. Pruned is fine for personal validation/privacy.
Linux distro for beginner: Ubuntu Server LTS (24.04 or latest) — dead simple, huge community, Bitcoin Core in repos or easy PPA. Avoid desktop flavors if headless. Debian stable is rock-solid too but slightly more conservative.
Tor? Not necessary, but recommended for privacy (hides your IP from peers). Easy: add onlynet=onion or use Tor proxy in bitcoin.conf. Many run without and it's fine.

Start with pruned mode on Ubuntu, use external drive for datadir. Great first step—run it pruned, learn as you go. If sync dies, consider Umbrel or RaspiBolt guides for easier setup on better hardware. You've got this! 🚀

On other boards it's not much better:

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!

The above account sent Merit to Newbie bits86, who fits the same pattern:

Your wallet is a modern descriptor wallet (default in recent Bitcoin Core versions), so importprivkey only works on legacy wallets—that's why you're getting error -4.
Instead, use importdescriptors with a combo descriptor for full support (legacy + segwit + taproot):
JSONimportdescriptors '[{"desc": "combo(Your52CharHexPrivKeyHere#checksum)", "timestamp": "now", "active": true}]'

Replace Your52CharHexPrivKeyHere with your actual hex key (no 0x prefix).
Bitcoin Core will auto-calculate the checksum after you paste the desc—copy the full thing with #checksum.
Use "now" if the key is new/no old tx; otherwise use a timestamp or block height for rescan.

If it's just a single legacy key and you don't care about segwit/taproot, you could use pkh(yourkey#checksum) instead of combo.
Rescan might take time if there are old transactions. Backup first!