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