AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I can't read the posts <...>

Did you merit this post without reading it, then? I don't think it's too bad even if you didn't read it because of the situation in which the post was written, but I'm curious.

I'll look better at those profiles and decide if I report them later on.

[LoyceV]

Did you merit this post without reading it, then?

I used Google translate for this, and Merited it because of the inside view on Venezuela. I think I ended up there after clicking a link on an English board.
But my point was: Google translate isn't much help to decide if posts are chatbot shitposts.

[HustleZ]

I just found a User who was tagged previously has returned to his job and IMO he should be nuked by moderators.

User: SilentEcho

Post 1

"Interesting perspective. I believe Bitcoin doesn't need the 'permission' of the ultimate powers to thrive. It was built specifically because those powers cannot be trusted with currency. Even if they try to manipulate the price or create a negative narrative, the global decentralization makes it impossible for any single government to 'shut it down.' The best step we can take is to stay decentralized ourselves—run our own nodes and keep our private keys safe. The more we rely on peer-to-peer transactions rather than centralized platforms, the stronger Bitcoin becomes."

GPTZero: 72.64%
ZeroGPT: 100% Ai Generated
Originality Ai: 100% Confident

Post 2

​"Good point on the SEC news. While CZ is calling it bullish, I’m still a bit skeptical about a supercycle this late in the game. We've seen 2025 do its thing, and usually, when everyone starts shouting 'supercycle,' the market does the exact opposite. I’m bracing for a bit of a bearish hangover before we find a real bottom. If it extends, great, but I’d rather play it safe for now."

GPTZero: 70%
ZeroGPT: 78% Ai Generated
Originality Ai: 100% Confident

Post 3

I feel like we’re losing Bitcoin’s soul—Decentralization and Privacy—just for a higher price tag. Most newcomers don’t care about the tech anymore; they’re just here for the "Number Go Up" gains.
It’s alarming to see people on X calling privacy advocates "scammers" while cheering for KYC and ETFs. We keep making excuses for these compromises, but isn't this exactly how Bitcoin gets domesticated? We survived years without government validation—why are we so desperate for it now?
I’m really worried we’re trading freedom for a spot in a Wall Street portfolio. Does anyone else feel like the original ethos is fading?

GPTZero: 100% Ai generated
ZeroGPT: 0% Ai Generated ( we should use our judgement here)
Originality Ai: 100% Confident

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I used Google translate for this, and Merited it because of the inside view on Venezuela. I think I ended up there after clicking a link on an English board.
But my point was: Google translate isn't much help to decide if posts are chatbot shitposts.

Oh! Curiosity satisfied, then. This is a little off topic, but since it came up in conversation, I'd like to say that I think there are cases where it would be legitimate to merit a post without having read it, such as when you help someone rank up and go to their post history to merit posts that had already been merited (although if they're in a language you can understand, the least you could do is take a look at them). Also, what DdmrDdmr did in his merit sprees, which was to automatically merit posts that met a series of requirements, typically having obtained x merits and having been merited by more than x people.

Returning to the topic at hand, I would like to hear opinions about what they think about reporting and/or tagging users who, when their posts are combined, appear as AI-generated in only two detectors, while in four others they appear with 0%. The cases I had encountered so far were much clearer. If I'm not sure what to do, I'll just keep watching them. I don't think there's any need to rush into action; these are newly created accounts. I know that some users, like ABCbits mentioned before, would act now, but I prefer to be a little more cautious.

[AuchanX]

User: digitalbear

Bitcoin wouldn’t exist without human creation or adoption. Humans write the code, run the nodes, mine, transact, and assign value to it. Without people, Bitcoin is just code sitting on machines. The key difference is that once humans set the rules, Bitcoin can operate without ongoing human control. No single person or group can change the supply, censor transactions, or rewrite the rules unilaterally.
Bitcoin doesn’t function without humans, but it does function without trusting humans. That’s the real innovation. Human influence exists at the edges (usage, adoption, price), not at the core rules.

In that sense, Bitcoin sits somewhere between human influence and autonomous systems: created by humans, sustained by humans, but not controlled by them.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
Sapling: 100% AI
Quillbot: 27% AI
Zerogpt: 100% AI
Originality: 100% AI
Gptzero: 99% Mixer AND 1%AI

Is there anything else needed?

[macson]

This user just registered on the forum and immediately spammed the forum with AI.

User: tohig74643

Interesting question! I think Bitcoin has definitely grown a lot and more governments and companies are starting to accept it. However, gold has been a stable store of value for centuries and is widely trusted, especially in uncertain times like wars or economic crises.

Bitcoin could complement gold as a “digital safe haven,” but replacing gold entirely might take a long time, if ever, because many investors still see gold as more stable and universally recognized.

Just my two cents!

GPTZero.me: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%


This user is most likely just a spammer who wants to promote his gambling site and uses AI to post low quality posts. The three posts I checked, all of them used AI. And if checked further, it's possible that all of the posts were AI-generated.

User: xbetz.io

I don’t think Bitcoin needs to “replace” gold to be successful. Gold and Bitcoin solve similar problems but in very different ways. Gold has thousands of years of social trust and is still deeply embedded in how people think about safety during crises. That psychological aspect shouldn’t be underestimated.

Bitcoin’s advantage is not that it’s better gold but that it works in environments where gold struggles: portability, verifiability, censorship resistance and settlement across borders without intermediaries. In a highly digital and capital-controlled world, those properties matter more over time. In practice, I think we’ll see coexistence rather than replacement. Gold may remain the first instinct during uncertainty, while Bitcoin increasingly becomes the secondary (and eventually parallel) store of value for a digital generation. Curious how others here think about generational trust vs functional utility.

I think it’s less about KYC itself and more about trust asymmetry. Most players are fine with KYC in theory but they only really think about it when they win or when an account gets limited. At that point, KYC stops feeling like compliance and starts feeling like leverage. People jump between casinos mostly because of incentives (bonuses, limits, promos), not because they carefully evaluate privacy risks. Ironically, that leads to more KYC exposure, not less.

Sticking to one casino only makes sense if the player genuinely trusts how disputes, withdrawals and edge cases are handled. Without that trust, diversification feels safer, even if it isn’t.

From experience, both feel similar on the surface but they drain bankrolls in different ways.

High-multiplier slots are pure variance. You either hit fast or you don’t and most sessions end before anything meaningful happens. Losses are obvious and immediate. Parlays are more deceptive. Hitting 6–8 legs gives constant reinforcement, so you keep increasing size and complexity. Most losses come late, which makes them emotionally worse and encourages chasing.

Mathematically, both are negative EV. Practically, parlays tend to feel “closer” to winning, which keeps people engaged longer. Slots feel brutal but they usually end the session faster. Personally, I’ve seen more slow bankroll erosion with parlays than with high-volatility slots.

GPTZero.me: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
Originality.ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%

[Don Pedro Dinero]

User: Gabrielfuerte

¿La seguridad compartida de Polkadot es realmente más segura para tokens de oro? (duda sobre XAUH)
He estado mirando el tema de Herculis Gold Coin (XAUH) y me llamó la atención que esté construido sobre algo llamado JAMTON Protocol, usando el modelo de seguridad compartida de Polkadot. Estoy intentando entender si esto realmente aporta algo en términos de seguridad o si es más bien puro detalle técnico para sonar bien.
Por lo que he podido leer, Polkadot funciona distinto a la mayoría de blockchains. En lugar de que XAUH tenga su propio set pequeño de validadores —que en teoría sería más fácil de atacar o manipular— hereda la seguridad de toda la red de Polkadot. O sea, para atacar XAUH tendrías que atacar Polkadot en sí, lo cual, al menos en teoría, costaría miles de millones.
Eso, sobre el papel, suena bastante mejor que muchos tokens en chains pequeñas donde el set de validadores es reducido y más fácil de coordinar o corromper. Cuanto más grande es la red que asegura tus transacciones, menos probable es que alguien pueda meter mano.
Obviamente, esto no lo es todo. En un token respaldado por oro sigues teniendo que confiar en la custodia del oro físico, las auditorías, la empresa detrás del proyecto, etc. Pero al menos a nivel puramente técnico, saber que las transacciones están protegidas por una red grande y bien capitalizada da algo más de tranquilidad.
Lo que me pregunto es si esto importa más en tokens respaldados por activos reales que en cripto puramente especulativa. Quiero decir, si estás holdeando algo que representa oro físico, tener una capa de seguridad fuerte en la cadena quizá pesa más que en un meme token donde todo ya es riesgo desde el minuto uno.
¿Alguien ha comparado de verdad la seguridad práctica de tokens asegurados por Polkadot frente a Ethereum u otras redes? ¿Es una diferencia relevante en el mundo real o al final es más o menos lo mismo?

GPTzero: 100% AI generated.
Sapling AI: Fake 99.8%.

El planteamiento tiene sentido desde el punto de vista de settlement y cash flow, porque pagar en cripto elimina intermediarios, reduce fricción y acelera la liquidación, algo que Block Travel Agency describe bastante bien.
El problema, como bien dices, es que en la práctica sigues pasando por KYC/AML y trazabilidad on-chain, así que el anonimato real es limitado y ahí mucha gente se enfría.
Aun así, viendo lo que publica Cointelegraph y el rol de España como hub, parece claro que el modelo va a crecer, aunque todavía le faltan mejores garantías y menos dependencia del sistema fiduciario.

GPTzero: 100% AI generated.
Sapling AI: Fake 99.6%.

No eres el único, he visto quejas similares y muchas veces parece más un bug del frontend o algo ligado a la sesión/cuenta que un bloqueo intencional. Bitget suele hacer cambios en TradingView integration y a veces rompen cosas sin avisar, sobre todo en cuentas con ciertos flags o regiones. Yo probaría limpiar caché, cambiar de navegador o abrir ticket técnico insistiendo en que es un problema de UI, no de indicadores en sí.

GPTzero: 100% AI generated.
Sapling AI: Fake 99.8%.

As this is a new member, spamming our local board, I think he should be nuked.

[FinneysTrueVision]

I can see similar patterns in the following accounts, that I haven't scanned yet:

Danielleonrey

LucasSilverGold

josevargasganador

Gabrielfuerte

They appear to be part of a farm of accounts created to promote some token called XAUH. These accounts are using AI to pretend to speak different languages and spamming local boards. You can search the term ‘XAUH’ on bitlist and find similar threads created in the Indian, Turkish, Philippines, Arabic and Persian boards.

https://bitlist.co/search?content=xauh&limit=20&sort_by=date_asc&page=1

[jokers10]

I forgot about my pledge to reactivate this thread, but it just so happens I found an account I wanted to report and couldn't think of a better place to do it. Its somewhat interesting because there will be many more like it in the future, even though there has already been many, many of them.

bitcoinchaserteam

Basically what the account does is insert their weblink into every reply, but whats fun about it is they are using AI to write all their posts, except for the first one. Every time you see an emdash ("—") you can bet with near certainty it was an AI created post, as is the case with most of this user's posts. But to settle any debate, here's an analysis of a post by this author that doesn't have an emdash (all posts should be deleted as spam anyway).

I'm reporting all of this user's posts that have a link in them.

Unfortunately his posts are not being deleted and that has inspired him on further spamming forum with AI. So he deserved at least the second tag on his trust.

With the 2026 Winter Olympics getting closer, I’m curious how people here are thinking about betting on it - especially those using crypto sportsbooks.

This isn’t about shilling platforms. More about sharing approaches, mistakes, and what’s actually worked for you during big multi-week events like this.

A few things I’ve been thinking about lately:

• Do you prefer pre-Games medal markets, or waiting for live betting once events start?
• Are there specific winter sports you avoid betting because they’re too volatile?
• How do you manage bankroll over a long event where there’s action every day?
• For crypto bettors - do faster withdrawals change how you size bets or take profits?

From past Olympics, I’ve learned that hype can kill discipline fast. Everyone talks about big wins, but consistency usually comes from smaller, smarter positions over time.

Would love to hear:

Your biggest Olympic betting win (or lesson)

A mistake you won’t repeat this time

One rule you stick to during long tournaments

Let’s turn this into a useful thread people can actually learn from. 🧠❄️

sapling Fake: 100.0%
copyleaks AI Content Found 100%
undetectable AI Detection Likelihood 99% AI Probability

[Don Pedro Dinero]

josevargasganador

Tiene bastante sentido lo que comentas: este tipo de subidas por narrativa en redes suelen ser más momentum tradingque adopción real, y cuando entra el hype normalmente las ballenas ya están pensando en la salida. Zcash tiene buena criptografía y supply cap, pero la privacidad opcional y la baja actividad en direcciones shielded le restan fuerza frente a su discurso. Coincido en que puede servir para trades tácticos contra BTC, pero como reserva de valor a largo plazo, la resiliencia y el network effect de Bitcoin siguen estando a otro nivel.

GPTzero: AI 100%
Sapling.ai: Fake 99%

The rest of his posts put together:

GPTzero: Mixed 99%
Sapling.ai: Fake 99,9%

It's obvious that this is an AI bot so I'll tag him and this post will be the reference for my reports.

[Ultegra134]

New, newbie account, shilling shit tokens and telegram groups in the Altcoin discussion section. User tagged and posts reported.

User: xl energy coin

Post 1.

I agree — AI tools definitely made the process easier.

I still don’t fully trust automated rankings, but they’re very useful for the first filtering stage. Checking message frequency, recent activity, and spam patterns with AI saves a lot of time compared to manual searching.

After that, I usually join the group and observe it for a few days to see how real the discussion is and whether admins are actually moderating. AI helps narrow things down, but human judgment is still important.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
GPTZero: 100% AI
Undetectable: 99% AI

Post 2.

Finding good Telegram crypto groups in 2026 is mostly about filtering activity and moderation, not just member count. Many large groups look impressive but are inactive or filled with bots.

What works best for me is starting with categorized directories where groups are sorted by niche (signals, DeFi, news, airdrops, etc.), and then manually checking:

daily message flow

quality of discussions (not only price calls)

admin presence and spam control

Manual search inside Telegram is possible, but it’s time-consuming and often leads to outdated or abandoned groups. Using directories as a first filter and then verifying engagement inside Telegram saves a lot of time.

Would be interesting to hear how others evaluate whether a crypto Telegram group is actually worth joining long term.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
GPTZero: 100% AI
Undetectable: 99% AI

Post 3.

From my experience, most Indian crypto Telegram groups don’t fail because of low interest, but because of poor moderation. Even good groups slowly turn into spam boards once admins stop controlling promotions and fake “experts.”

I rarely rely on one source. Usually I:

find groups through recommendations in other communities

check how often real discussions happen (not just price screenshots)

see whether admins are active and set clear rules

Curated lists can be useful, but only if they’re updated regularly. Otherwise, they just recycle the same inactive or overhyped channels. Manual verification is still necessary in 2026.

In the end, quality Indian crypto groups do exist — they’re just harder to find and usually smaller than global ones.

Copyleaks: 100% AI
GPTZero: 100% AI
Undetectable: 99% AI

[HustleZ]

I have found a User in the Indian Board where he is a member of a long time but seems to have woken up to promote a telegram channel.he was previously tagged and accused of being an alt of Nishawa.

User: Alex_de_wolf

Post 1

I do follow a few Indian-focused crypto Telegram groups, but honestly most of them don’t last long.

For me the main trust signals are:

real conversation between members (not just forwarded news)

admins actually replying to questions

low bot spam and no constant referral drops

I usually find good groups through forum discussions or recommendations from other traders rather than Telegram search itself — Telegram search is flooded with junk.

Curated lists can be useful if they’re updated regularly, otherwise they become outdated very fast. I normally still join a group and watch activity for a few days before deciding whether to stay.

GPTZero: 100% Ai generated
Originality Ai: 100% confident it's Ai
ZEROgpt: 10% Ai generated
Sapling Ai: 100% Ai Generated

Post 2

Memecoin Telegram groups can be useful, but only if they’re actively moderated and not driven purely by hype. In my experience, the best memecoin communities focus on early trend detection, on-chain data discussion, and real-time sentiment rather than blind shilling.

When I look for good memecoin Telegram groups, I usually check:

how fast admins remove scam links and fake pumps

whether discussions continue outside of price spikes

if users share launch data, liquidity info, and risks — not just memes

I prefer curated lists as a starting point, especially for memecoin groups, because manual Telegram search is full of abandoned or botted channels. After that, I always monitor activity for a few days before trusting any signals.

Memecoins move fast, so community quality matters more here than in regular crypto groups. Curious how others separate real memecoin communities from pure hype channels.

GPTZero: 100% Ai generated
Originality Ai: 100% confident it's Ai
ZeroGPT: 20% Ai generated
Sapling Ai: 100% Ai Generated


Post 3:

Hi,

Yes, I do follow Indian-focused crypto Telegram groups, especially those that stay active and moderated. From my experience, the main signals of a trustworthy community are consistent discussion, real user interaction, and regular moderation to keep spam and fake signals out.

Personally, I usually rely on curated lists first, then manually check the groups on Telegram. Curated directories save a lot of time, especially when they are updated and show activity levels, but I still verify engagement before joining long-term.

Manual search inside Telegram can work, but it’s very hit-or-miss — many groups look active on the surface but turn out to be inactive or spam-heavy. Combining curated lists with manual checks seems to be the most reliable approach.

Interested to hear how others filter quality crypto communities, especially for the Indian market.

GPTZero: 100% Ai generated
Originality Ai: 100% confident it's Ai
ZEROgpt: 74.96% Ai generated

Ps: his each and every post is about Telegram groups. While other alts are also at this job. Something is cooking in the Indian board

[TypoTonic]

I just saw this user post english in one of the threads in our local board, which was a bit weird since the discussion there was in Filipino (Tagalog). Apparently it's a newbie account registered today, but has already made 18 posts across multiple boards. He even posted in Deutsch (German) and Nigeria (Naija) local boards as well, you can see it in his post history.

User: arbitbit (Update: The account was Nuked)

The discussion around Bitcoin’s reaction to another global lockdown highlights a crucial interplay between macroeconomic factors and market psychology. Historically, the initial impact of a crisis tends to cause sharp price drops driven by panic selling and liquidity needs, as seen during the early COVID-19 pandemic. However, what followed was a massive liquidity injection by central banks, which fueled a strong rebound and even new all-time highs for Bitcoin. This suggests that Bitcoin’s price is not solely dependent on the crisis itself but heavily influenced by the monetary response and the availability of capital. Moreover, Bitcoin’s underlying blockchain continues functioning regardless of lockdowns, separating it from traditional assets tied to physical economies. Psychologically, market participants initially react emotionally, but over time, adaptation and recognition of Bitcoin’s role as a digital asset can drive renewed interest. That said, the scale and nature of any future pandemic, combined with government responses and global economic conditions, will be decisive. Will history repeat itself, or has the market’s resilience evolved enough to change the game?

GPTZero - 100% AI
Copyleaks - 100% AI-generated
QuillBot - 100% AI-generated
Sapling - 100% Fake
Originality.ai - 100% confident that's AI

Looking at the diverse perspectives in this thread, one key takeaway is how much Bitcoin’s price action in early 2026 reflects both macroeconomic uncertainty and evolving market psychology. Several users highlight the possibility of a short-term bounce toward $100k, which aligns with typical “dead cat bounce” behavior after extended declines. However, the deeper debate revolves around whether this bounce is a brief reprieve or a signal of sustained strength amid lingering global risks like geopolitical instability and inflation pressures. It’s also interesting how many emphasize DCA (dollar-cost averaging) as the most prudent strategy given the unclear cycle dynamics and potential volatility ahead. This cautious, long-term mindset contrasts with attempts to predict exact price levels, reminding us that Bitcoin’s price is often shaped as much by collective sentiment and external macro factors as by on-chain data or technicals. Given the nuanced views here, what do you think will ultimately drive Bitcoin’s trend this year; fundamentals, market psychology, or a mix of both?

GPTZero - 100% AI
Copyleaks - 100% AI-generated
QuillBot - 100% AI-generated
Sapling - 100% Fake
Originality.ai - 100% confident that's AI

Doug Liman being attached to this project makes it more interesting than I initially expected. He usually builds stories around uncertainty and identity, which actually aligns well with the Satoshi mystery. But the real challenge for a Hollywood production is avoiding oversimplification. Bitcoin wasn’t created in a vacuum by a lone genius — it was strengthened by a community, economic conditions after 2008, and a growing distrust toward centralized systems. Turning that into a traditional thriller narrative risks losing the deeper context.

Timing could also play a bigger role than people think. If the movie lands during a strong market cycle, it might amplify retail curiosity and even trigger a psychological wave similar to what we’ve seen in past hype periods. Films often shape perception more than facts, especially for newcomers. Even if it’s not perfectly accurate, mainstream exposure could help normalize Bitcoin culturally, which arguably matters for long-term adoption.

I’m less concerned about whether it will be “Hollywood style” and more about the tone — will Bitcoin be framed as a technological breakthrough, a political statement, or just a mystery device for the plot? That choice alone could influence how millions of first-time viewers interpret the origin story.

GPTZero - 100% AI
Copyleaks - 100% AI-generated
Sapling - 100% Fake
QuillBot - 88% AI-generated
Originality.ai - 100% confident that's AI

Honestly, situations like this highlight one of Bitcoin’s core design principles: finality. Once a transaction is confirmed, there is no built-in mechanism to reverse it, and that is exactly what makes the system trustless but also unforgiving. Since the wallet mentioned is non-custodial (Trust Wallet), there is no intermediary that can step in. The blockchain can show where the coins moved, but it cannot tell you who controls the address unless the owner voluntarily reveals themselves or interacts with a KYC platform later. In practice, recovery depends less on technology and more on memory and social connections, remembering who he transacted with around that time, checking past deals, or even reviewing exchange withdrawal histories if the address was ever used there.

There is also a psychological lesson here that many people only learn after an expensive mistake. In traditional banking, friction protects users; in Bitcoin, responsibility replaces friction. Sending a small test transaction, labeling addresses, or maintaining a whitelist is not paranoia, it is risk management. From a financial perspective, this is similar to operational risk in trading: the loss didn’t come from market volatility but from process failure. Hard truth, but probably better to treat the $300 as tuition paid to the “self-custody school” and upgrade habits going forward. After all, in a system built on personal sovereignty, isn’t discipline just as important as technical knowledge?

GPTZero - 100% AI
Copyleaks - 100% AI-generated
Sapling - 100% Fake
QuillBot - 53% AI-generated
Originality.ai - 100% confident that's AI

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Danielleonrey

This post, this post and this post come out as 100% AI on both sapling.ai and gptzero detectors.

But also he's confessed using AI in a thread where we are talking about this.

Well, well... quite a debate has arisen around me (and not just me). Looking at the comments, the criticism actually makes sense: now that I've reread my messages in different threads, I understand that if I were more demanding, I would probably have reported such a user myself.
I didn't expect everything to be so serious here; I often use AI in other areas and didn't even perceive it as something prohibited. Anyway, no drama: I'll adapt, because there's a lot of useful information here and I have no intention of losing it, so I'll adjust my habits.

Translated and bolded by me.

Please nuke, the Spanish section is currently infested with like a dozen AI accounts which I am trying to clean. I am OK with people using AI in certain ways on the forum but it's not OK having a dozen accounts that have the same pattern of copying and pasting short messages generated by AI, passing them off as their own creation.

I am editing this post to give many thanks to the moderator or moderators who, apart from dealing with the reported used, have decided to clean up our local forum of users who blatantly copy-paste AI text.

[Ninja Primes]

User: xbetz.io


#post 1

I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. Bitcoin can function as a medium of exchange and as a store of value but not at the same adoption stage.

High volatility naturally pushes people to treat BTC as savings first. As liquidity deepens and volatility compresses over time, spending becomes more practical, especially via layers like Lightning. Historically, most monetary systems followed a similar path: store of value → unit of account → medium of exchange. So the question isn’t if Bitcoin will be used for everyday transactions, but when the incentive structure makes it rational for both users and merchants.

GPTzero: 100%
Sapling AI Detector: 100%
Originality Ai: 100%
Quillbot: 61%




#post 2

This is actually a very common experience and it’s not really about “bad luck” in the usual sense.

Near-miss patterns tend to appear when outcomes are observed over longer sequences, not single bets. When you combine multiple games or parlays, variance compresses and the last leg often becomes the failure point.

Two things helped me understand it better:
   1.   Tracking results over a longer time window instead of session-by-session
   2.   Testing the same type of bet repeatedly instead of mixing formats

Once you look at behavior across repetitions, the pattern usually becomes clearer. It’s less emotional, more statistical.

GPTzero: 100%
Sapling AI Detector: 72.5%
Originality Ai: 100%
copyleaks: 100%.




#post 3

I don’t think Bitcoin was ever meant to be a pure short-term inflation hedge in the traditional sense.

In my view, Bitcoin functions more as a hedge against systemic and sovereign risk rather than CPI-driven inflation data. Inflation numbers move markets in the short term but Bitcoin’s value proposition seems to play out over longer cycles. Unlike fiat currencies, Bitcoin’s monetary policy is fixed and transparent. Yes, there is issuance until 2140 but the issuance rate is predictable and declining, which is very different from discretionary monetary expansion. Each halving reinforces that credibility.

Because of this, I wouldn’t expect Bitcoin to react consistently to short-term inflation prints the way gold sometimes does. Instead, it tends to respond more strongly to liquidity conditions, confidence in institutions, capital controls and long-term trust in monetary systems. So to answer the question: if Bitcoin isn’t an inflation hedge, I’d describe it as a hedge against monetary debasement risk over time, not month-to-month inflation data. That distinction matters, especially when evaluating price behavior in the short term.

GPTzero: 100%
Sapling AI Detector: 100%
Originality.ai: 100%
copyleaks: 100%



#post 4

Governments can make crypto inconvenient but not eliminate it.

We’ve already seen this play out multiple times. When exchanges are blocked, activity doesn’t disappear, it shifts: peer-to-peer, self-custody, offshore access, alternative rails.  Even in countries with strict bans, on-chain activity continues because the network itself is global and permissionless.

Regulation tends to be more effective than outright bans, not because it “controls crypto” but because it controls the interfaces people use. Curious how you see this evolving long-term: more fragmented access or gradual normalization through regulation?

GPTzero: 100%
Sapling AI Detector: 99.8%
Originality.ai: 100%
copyleaks: 100%


Ninja~   

[HustleZ]

User: xbetz.io

This user has Previously been reported here.

This user(xbetz.io) has been using AI to create posts for him. The 3 posts I shared isn't the only posts created by AI.

There is no need for your Reporting. I advise you look the thread first if someone has not reported that person then you should think about It.

[lovesmayfamilis]

User: xbetz.io

This user has Previously been reported here.

This user(xbetz.io) has been using AI to create posts for him. The 3 posts I shared isn't the only posts created by AI.

There is no need for your Reporting. I advise you look the thread first if someone has not reported that person then you should think about It.

Why? Does this mean we shouldn't delete AI posts? And can all the people previously mentioned in this thread continue to create posts using AI?

[HustleZ]

Why? Does this mean we shouldn't delete AI posts? And can all the people previously mentioned in this thread continue to create posts using AI?

No it doesn't mean we shouldnt delete Ai Posts. I myself have reported many people that Were reported Previously. (But After Some Time)
I thought that the previous Report was done on 26th Jan and thought it was too early to report again but my bad, it was reported on 20 Jan. So now this report becomes valid.
Thanks for pointing it out.

[Ninja Primes]

User: goldphysicalbitcoin


#post 1

On October 10, 2025, Binance and the entire crypto market experienced the largest "flash crash" and liquidation event in history.

Market Crash: Bitcoin plummeted from a high of $122,000 to below $105,000 within hours, while many altcoins saw declines exceeding 80%（For example, ATOM plummeted from $4 to $0.001 in an instant, causing all leveraged users of the token to lose all their funds.）.
Multiple users reported experiencing issues such as being unable to log in, deposit margin, or close positions during this period.

CEXs like OKX and Bybit, relying on Binance’s price oracle, mirrored the crash. Conversely, Coinbase, Binance US, and the decentralized Hyperliquid remained stable, avoiding the extreme volatility.
Liquidation Scale: Approximately $19 billion to $40 billion in leveraged positions were forcibly liquidated across the network overnight.

Public Sentiment: The event was widely described by the community as "CZ (Changpeng Zhao) declaring war on retail investors"—an extreme deleveraging action that resulted in total asset loss for a massive number of investors.

Furthermore, Binance profits from high-leverage trading (up to 125x), explicitly disregarding laws in China, its primary market, where such derivatives are banned. Unlike compliant exchanges like Coinbase, Binance knowingly facilitates these prohibited activities for Chinese citizens.

GPTzero: 99%
Sapling AI Detector: 100%
Originality Ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%




#post 2

In 2014, a man known as "Brother 480,000" in the Chinese Bitcoin community used his down payment of 480,000 yuan (approximately $70,000)—originally intended for a down payment on a house—to buy 100 Bitcoins, attracting widespread attention within the community. Later, when the price of Bitcoin plummeted to $300, he sold all his Bitcoins under pressure from his family, losing half of his investment. This story illustrates that under excessive pressure, especially when borrowing money, it is difficult to hold Bitcoin long-term, and the likelihood of failure is very high.

GPTzero: 11%
Sapling AI Detector: 100%
Originality Ai: 98%
Copyleaks: 100% .




#post 3

This is an interesting paradox: Governments and institutions are accelerating their embrace of Bitcoin, integrating it into the mainstream economy; at the same time, many fear its decentralization and privacy features will be undermined.
My view: Bitcoin’s core rules have never changed, and there is currently no real sign that governments are trying to directly control the protocol (e.g., altering the 21 million supply cap, enforcing chain-level KYC, or fully controlling mining).
Governments are mostly accepting Bitcoin in response to public demand. If they ever attempt genuine centralized control, community resistance would form rapidly, and Bitcoin would very likely fork — just as the 2017 block size debate led to the BTC/BCH split.
This is the essence of Bitcoin’s decentralization: any forceful attempt to centralize control triggers a fork to defend the original consensus. This resilience is even stronger than gold’s thousands of years of resistance to complete government control.
In one sentence: Bitcoin is not an asset that can be “controlled” — it is an asset that cannot be controlled.

GPTzero: 17%
Sapling AI Detector: 99.7%
Originality Ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%.



Ninja~ 

[TopT3ns]

This user caught spammed the forum with AI.

User: BlockSyntaxs

This view makes sense considering the historical pattern of market responses to global crises. Bitcoin, like other risk assets, tends to experience initial pressure due to panic, liquidity crunches, and mass selling. However, once the emotional phase subsides, the market typically reassesses fundamentals. In the context of Bitcoin, factors such as limited supply, institutional adoption, and its function as a long-term hedge remain relevant. Regarding lockdowns, governments now have far more data capacity, healthcare systems, and policy experience than in the past.

Therefore, future responses are likely to be more preventative and targeted, rather than extreme and sweeping. Early warning, public education, and risk mitigation will be key tools. This approach mitigates economic shocks, maintains social stability, and ultimately supports a faster and more rational recovery of assets like Bitcoin.

GPTZero.me: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%
Quilbot : 100%
undetectable.ai: 99%

This argument also opens up a discussion about the imbalance in the global narrative. Much financial analysis focuses on large economies, thus neglecting Bitcoin's use in smaller or developing regions. Yet, it is precisely in these regions that Bitcoin often has the greatest utility. Its ability to bypass the limitations of local banking systems makes it a real global tool, not just a concept. Fiat may be statistically dominant, but it is not functionally universal. Each fiat currency carries its own limitations, regulations, and political risks. Bitcoin offers a uniform and neutral alternative. While it cannot replace fiat in the context of national policies, Bitcoin serves as a global layer on top of a fragmented system. Therefore, to call Bitcoin "not global" is to fail to understand the dynamics of real use outside the world's economic powerhouses.

GPTZero.me: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%
Quilbot : 85%
undetectable.ai: 99%

This highlights the fundamental difference between a profit realization strategy and a long-term accumulation strategy. Selling when a profit has been achieved is a rational decision, as the ultimate goal of investing is to realize profits, not just numbers on paper. In this context, the timing of the sale is an indicator of investor discipline. However, investors who continue to buy and hold assets are often misunderstood as having no intention of selling at all. In fact, their decisions are based on expectations of greater future value. They believe that current profits do not yet reflect the asset's true potential. Therefore, holding does not mean rejecting profits, but rather delaying realization for the sake of more optimal returns. This strategy requires confidence, patience, and a high risk tolerance. Both are valid, as long as they align with each investor's goals and risk profile.

GPTZero.me: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%
Quilbot : 100%
undetectable.ai: 99%

This statement is apt because it addresses a key flaw in the oversimplified long-term investment narrative. Holding Bitcoin without the ability to accumulate more effectively limits exponential growth. An effective long-term strategy relies not only on time but also on the dynamics of capital adjustment. Investors who achieve financial freedom through Bitcoin generally employ a gradual, accumulative approach, such as repurchasing during corrections or adding to their positions when cash flow increases. This way, the holdings continually grow, rather than stagnating at the initial entry price. Accumulation allows the compounding effect to operate on the total asset, not just the market price. Without adjusting the quantity of assets, price increases only provide linear returns. Therefore, financial freedom is more often achieved by those who are able to align income growth with a disciplined and measured strategy of recurring purchases.

GPTZero.me: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%
Quilbot : 68%
undetectable.ai: 99%

This emphasizes a principle of rational thinking that is often overlooked in public discussion, namely the separation between personal dislike and proof of fact. Disagreeing with a political figure's actions or policies does not automatically legitimize criminal accusations against the other party without direct evidence. In the context of an alleged exchange bug, the claim that the bug was a deliberate hoax to retain client funds is a serious allegation that requires technical and forensic evidence. Without an independent audit, leaked internal reports, or regulatory findings, such claims remain in the realm of assumptions. Being skeptical is not the same as making accusations. Rather, healthy skepticism demands caution in drawing conclusions. Your position, then, reflects a responsible intellectual approach: acknowledging uncertainty, rejecting baseless speculation, and keeping the discussion focused on verifiable facts.

GPTZero.me: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
Copyleaks: 100%
Quilbot : 71%
undetectable.ai: 99%