AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[AuchanX]

I found two more AI posters who are creating posts using AI. I am submitting all the details here.

User:01 burungmalam

For years, Bitcoin halving has been widely perceived as a bullish event because it reduces the issuance of new supply. However, there is one side effect that I think is not discussed deeply enough: the potential increase in mining centralization after each halving.

After the most recent halving, block rewards were cut by 50% while miners’ operational costs—especially electricity and hardware—remained the same. This situation creates several consequences:

⸻

1. Small miners struggle to survive

Small-scale miners often use older equipment, face higher electricity costs, and lack economies of scale. With the reduced block reward, their profit margins become extremely thin or even negative.

As a result, small miners tend to:
   •   Shut down their operations,
   •   Sell their rigs at low prices,
   •   Or join larger mining pools for more stable income.

This reduces the diversity of independent miners across the network.

⸻

2. Large mining pools gain increasing dominance

Big mining pools have clear advantages:
   •   Access to cheaper electricity (renewable sources, industrial contracts),
   •   Data center infrastructure,
   •   The ability to upgrade ASIC hardware much faster.

Because of this, a large portion of the network’s hashrate gradually shifts to these big players.
The fewer entities controlling significant hashrate, the higher the risk of centralization.

⸻

3. Coordination risks and attacks become more realistic

Mining centralization does not mean Bitcoin becomes insecure overnight, but it introduces several theoretical risks:
   •   A 51% attack becomes easier in principle,
   •   Consensus rules could potentially be influenced by a powerful minority,
   •   Users become increasingly dependent on a handful of entities to secure the network.

This goes against Bitcoin’s original vision as a decentralized and permissionless system.

⸻

4. Are there any solutions?

In my opinion, several approaches might help mitigate this issue:
   •   Cheaper energy innovations (flare gas mining, hydro mining) to support small miners
   •   More energy-efficient ASICs that lower cost per hash
   •   Non-custodial mining pools and Stratum v2 adoption
   •   Diversification of energy sources in developing countries to create fairer competition

But not all of these solutions are easy to implement in the short term.

⸻

Conclusion

Halving is essential for controlling Bitcoin’s inflation, but its impact on the mining ecosystem deserves continuous discussion. I believe mining centralization is a long-term risk that is often underestimated.

What do you think? Will Bitcoin remain secure even as mining becomes more centralized, or is this a serious threat to its long-term integrity?

I would really like to hear perspectives from miners, developers, and other users in this forum.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 100% AI
Quillbot: 78% AI
Stealthwriter: 80% AI
Originality: 100% AI

I think the discussion around what makes someone a “Bitcoiner” often gets stuck between two extremes: those who think merely holding is enough, and those who insist that you must constantly transact or contribute to the ecosystem. Personally, I see it a bit differently.

Holding Bitcoin is a starting point, not an endpoint.
Owning some sats means you’ve taken the first step — but it doesn’t automatically mean you understand the principles that make Bitcoin valuable in the first place. A lot of people hold Bitcoin without adopting any of the mindset or practices that keep the network strong: self-custody, avoiding custodial risk, learning how the protocol works, or even understanding why Bitcoin was created.

On the other hand, I don’t think being a Bitcoiner requires you to be a developer, run a node, or make transactions every day. Not everyone has the same technical background or the same use cases.

For me, a Bitcoiner is someone who actively embraces the philosophy behind Bitcoin:
– taking responsibility for their own keys
– understanding the importance of decentralization
– rejecting unnecessary trust in third parties
– and recognizing Bitcoin as more than just a speculative asset.

If someone holds Bitcoin but keeps everything on custodial platforms, never thinks about the underlying principles, and treats it only like a lottery ticket, then yes — they’re just a user, not necessarily a Bitcoiner.

So I’d say: holding may make you a participant, but mindset and practice are what make you a Bitcoiner.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 98% AI
Quillbot: 59% AI
Stealthwriter: 86% AI
Originality: 100% AI

Many people enter Bitcoin with good intentions, but end up losing funds
not because of scams alone, but due to basic mistakes.

From what I’ve observed, some common mistakes new users make are:
- Keeping all funds on exchanges for long periods
- Not backing up seed phrases properly
- Downloading fake wallets or clicking phishing links
- Sending transactions without understanding fees or confirmations

Bitcoin gives full financial control, but that also means full responsibility.

In your experience:
- Which mistake causes the most losses for beginners?
- What is the first security habit every new Bitcoin user should learn?

Hopefully this discussion can help newcomers avoid costly errors.

Copyleaks: No AI Detected
Sapling: 100% AI
Quillbot: 92% AI
Stealthwriter: 91% AI
Originality: 100% AI


In this user's case, it was observed that the Quillbot website, used as an AI Detector tool, was unable to identify the text as a fully AI Generated post.

User:02 xbetz.io

I think both sides are partly right here.

Crypto gambling isn’t automatically a scam but it does amplify risks because speed, anonymity and weak regulation remove safety nets that traditional systems rely on.

The real problem isn’t “crypto” itself but lack of transparency: unclear withdrawal rules, inconsistent support, and platforms that only work smoothly until something goes wrong.

Well-established platforms with clear terms, predictable withdrawals and active dispute handling are very different from fly-by-night sites that disappear after deposits.
Users should focus less on bonuses or speed claims and more on long-term consistency and how issues are handled under pressure.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 100% AI
Quillbot: 34% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI
Originality: 100% AI

I don’t think TOS are a “hidden house edge” in the mathematical sense but they do create an information asymmetry. Most players don’t read or fully understand clauses around limits, bonus eligibility or internal reviews until after something goes wrong. At that point, the casino has all the leverage.

In many disputes, the issue isn’t that the rules were broken intentionally but that they’re written broadly enough to be enforced selectively, often only once volume or winnings increase. So it’s less about gamblers ignoring rules and more about transparency and predictability. Clear limits upfront reduce friction. Vague clauses create it.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 98% AI
Quillbot: No AI Detected
Stealthwriter: 83% AI
Originality: 100% AI

Delays aren’t always intentional in the sense of “we want the player to lose again” but they’re rarely accidental either.

What usually happens is that payouts are smooth at low volumes, then friction appears once amounts cross internal thresholds. That’s when manual reviews, source-of-funds checks or retroactive KYC get triggered.

The issue for players isn’t the existence of checks, it’s when they’re introduced. Doing it only after a big win makes it feel punitive, even if it’s technically allowed.

Predictable limits and upfront transparency would prevent most of these disputes. Delays themselves aren’t the problem. Surprises are.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 100% AI
Quillbot: No AI Detected
Stealthwriter: 100% AI
Originality: 100% AI

[AuchanX]

A junior member is spamming the technical board with AI generated posts. I am submitting all the details here. He has already been tagged by @LoyceV and @ABCbits. But now I feel his false fake posts need to be deleted.

User: Assiduous

From what you describe, the wallet isn’t actually asking for “more security data”, it’s telling you that the recovery method you selected doesn’t match your seed.
In most cases, a 12-word seed is enough on its own. If the “Next” button stays disabled, it usually means:
the wallet type or seed format is wrong, or
it expects a specific derivation path and you haven’t selected it.
Requests for things like a master key, address list, or private keys only appear in manual/advanced restore modes, not in normal seed recovery. That’s a big hint that something doesn’t line up with how the wallet was originally created.
If you’ve already recovered the original password, that’s the safest option — open the existing wallet file instead of trying to rebuild it from scratch.
Also, double-check that you’re using the same wallet software that generated the seed. Mixing wallet types is one of the most common reasons recovery fails.
Take it slow and don’t enter your seed anywhere you don’t fully trust. One wrong step can’t be undone.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 99% AI
Quillbot: 38% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI
Originality: 100% AI

Running a node on older hardware is definitely possible, but it’s good that you’re asking these questions first.
Hardware:
2GB RAM and an HDD will work, but don’t expect smooth performance. Initial sync will be slow and the system may feel sluggish. If upgrading RAM to 4GB or using an SSD (even externally) is an option, it will improve things a lot. Still, for learning purposes, your current setup is usable.
Full vs pruned node:
A pruned node still fully validates the blockchain, it just doesn’t keep all old blocks. On limited hardware, pruning makes much more sense. You get the security and learning benefits without stressing your disk and system. A full node is nice, but not essential in your case.
Linux choice:
If you’ve never used Linux before, stick to something simple and stable. Ubuntu LTS or Linux Mint are both good options. They have strong community support and plenty of guides specific to Bitcoin Core.
Tor:
Tor isn’t required, but it’s a plus for privacy and censorship resistance. I’d suggest running the node normally first, then enabling Tor later once everything is working and you’re more comfortable.
Overall, the most important thing is reliability, not raw power. A modest node that stays online and verifies its own transactions is already a meaningful contribution to the network.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 99% AI
Quillbot: 89% AI
Stealthwriter: 94% AI
Originality: 100% AI

This is a very solid write-up, especially the part where you separate technical impact from market-driven behavior. That distinction is usually missing from OP_RETURN discussions.
One thing I’d add is that people often underestimate how much standardness rules are social conventions rather than hard limits. As you explained, OP_RETURN was never a real gatekeeper for data; it was more of a “please do it this way if you must” signal. In that sense, removing the default limit doesn’t really open new capabilities, it just stops pretending that the limit was effective in the first place.
I also like the three-doors analogy because it highlights an uncomfortable truth: Bitcoin cannot selectively forbid “bad” uses without collateral damage. Any filter strong enough to stop arbitrary data would also break legitimate usage or push activity into even more harmful encodings. That trade-off is often ignored by people calling for simple bans.
On the economic side, I agree that fees are the real limiter. As long as blockspace is scarce and priced, mass spam is self-limiting. Short hype-driven waves are possible (as we saw with Ordinals), but they don’t change long-term incentives unless something fundamentally alters fee dynamics.
Overall, I don’t see OP_RETURN changes as encouraging spam, but rather as an attempt to steer inevitable behavior toward the least damaging path, which is a very “Bitcoin” kind of compromise.
Thanks for keeping this accessible without dumbing it down.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 99% AI
Quillbot: No AI Detected
Stealthwriter: 100% AI
Originality: 100% AI

[Karl_3000]

Plagiarized topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5571207.msg66281765#msg66281765

100% AI according to GPTZero
65% AI according to Quillbot
68.94% AI according to Zerogpt
94% AI according to StealthWriter