AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[igebotz]

Could someone help me look at this? Straight up copy and paste from an AI tools with some tweaking but I can't prove it

Smallholders, do hardware wallets really make sense?
One thing I've witnessed time and time again within the crypto sphere is the mantra of:
"everyone needs a hardware wallet."
Whether it is $100 or $100,000 the general consensus seems to be:
"it's time to get a hardware wallet."
But in more recent times, I've begun to question whether this piece of advice is always feasible, especially with respect to smallholders. The price of a hardware wallet can represent a significant percentage of the value of the bitcoins and cryptocurrency owned by an individual holding a relatively smaller portion. Say an individual is storing around $150 worth of BTC and is advised to purchase a hardware wallet for between $70-$100. At this point the individual is often led to think "is this extra security worth the cost?" Side-by-side, hardware wallets have numerous advantages: Private keys don't leave the device More secure against malware Reduced risk of phishing Better long-term storage In truth, if one is planning to be a long-term holder of any significant portion of one's wealth, self-custody is extremely important. One truth that many people seem to disregard is that quite a large percentage of individuals are simply not technically adept enough to correctly operate hardware wallets. The potential risks associated with using hardware wallets are: losing the seed phrase mishandling backups being the victim of a fake wallet application purchasing a counterfeit device Panicking during the set up process As sad as it may be, it may be the case that some users may be better off holding a small amount of bit-sizes at a good exchange for a time until they can adequately become accustomed to how self-custody works. Geographic access is also a concern, as obtaining a legitimate hardware wallet may not always be easy in some regions, such as Nigeria where customers may have issues with shipping fees, customs, sellers of counterfeit products, and inflated prices. In my view it shouldn't be as simple as: "All users need to get themselves a hardware wallet." Instead, perhaps the question should be: When is a hardware wallet needed? I personally believe the decision rests on several factors: Portfolio size Technical know-how Holding period Risk tolerance Local availability For example, an individual who is building a portfolio with a long time horizon and investing in positions they cannot emotionally tolerate losing should probably learn the skill of self-custody sooner than someone just trying to experiment and play around with crypto. Conversely, being completely tied to a central exchange appears to be very risky these days, especially given all that has happened within the industry in recent years. With all that being said, I am very curious as to how everyone else views this issue. From the perspective of the small investor, are hardware wallets truly essential? Is it possible that relying on software wallets and practicing sound security techniques until a certain portfolio value is reached is a better option?

[Mitchell]

Could someone help me look at this? Straight up copy and paste from an AI tools with some tweaking but I can't prove it

That user has been checked here. Not that exact post, but I'm sure the results will be the same.

[macson]

What's the verdict on recently awakened S. Member monetizator4? I noticed him because of this post:

It's tricky, isn't it? Losing your private keys could indeed mean losing access to huge amounts of crypto. As for South Korea, sharing seed phrases publicly seems risky, either very dumb or an elaborate prank. Best practices suggest keeping such info secure and offline

But the rest of his recent posts look like generic shitposts too.

I checked that his post was detected as AI-generated.

Might as well agree, those folks do seem to share a common mindset. Both gambling and meme coins attract people looking for quick wins and willing to risk everything chasing hype. But ya know, technical analysis can still have some value when it comes to tracking sentiment and momentum cycles around meme coins. In those markets, psychology and crowd behavior often matter more than fundamentals

Originality.ai: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
StealthWriter: 0% Human (AI Detected)

Interesting question. I think there’s a small but important difference between different categories of victims.

Practically anyone can become a victim of scammers or social engineering. Sometimes all it takes is answering a phone call, clicking a link in an email, or trusting the wrong person at the wrong moment. Elderly people and children are especially vulnerable, but even smart and educated adults get manipulated when fear, urgency, or emotions are involved. In those cases, I mostly see it as straightforward theft.

But people losing money on shady altcoins or obvious rug pulls are a bit different. Unlike someone who got tricked by a fake bank call, they first had to actively enter a highly speculative market and buy those assets. And usually the main motivation was the hope of quick profit. That doesn’t justify fraud, obviously, but it does mean they should understand that high returns come with high risks.

So yes, deception is still deception. But there’s a difference between someone being ambushed through manipulation and someone knowingly walking into a casino-like environment hoping to multiply their money fast.

Originality.ai: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
StealthWriter: 0% Human (AI Detected)

Capital preservation does require understanding different strategies. But for most of us, it starts with diversifying where we store our crypto. Rothschild’s methods might be complex and not easily accessible, but simple steps like splitting assets across wallets can make a difference. Plus, staying informed about security updates and best practices is key

Originality.ai: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
GPTZero: 100%
StealthWriter: 0% Human (AI Detected)

Thank you for breaking down how bookmakers operate. It’s true they use extensive data to form their predictions, which can make betting seem quite scientific at times. However, it's important to remember that while players don't control the odds directly, their performance does significantly impact game outcomes, which in turn affects those odds. Ignoring claims of fixed matches is wise, but keeping an eye on any unusual trends or patterns might be helpful for informed betting.

Originality.ai: 100%
Sapling.ai: 100%
GPTZero: AI Polished
StealthWriter: 0% Human (AI Detected)

[nutildah]

I can understand that some users are truly mentally challenged, and if they're not in a signature campaign, and are basically harmless, the mods are unlikely to delete their AI posts as spam. I understand all that. But when it comes to using AI to relentlessly slander DT, I have to draw a line there. Anybody can put a post into ChatGPT and say "reply to this with a sick burn" and paste the output. I feel not removing these kinds of posts sets a bad precedent.

We've already mentioned him a few times:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65255819#msg65255819
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66229059#msg66229059
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66653709#msg66653709

Kazkaz27

#1

This DT1 has consistently been one of the most disruptive members in the Bitcoin Collectibles section.

I encourage all members to review anonymousminer’s posting history.

There are numerous documented examples of behavior that negatively affects the community. Here are a few key threads:
• Negatively impacting the Bitcoin Collectible Space
• References and examples of anonymousminer’s problematic behavior



The pattern includes repeated off-topic attacks in sales and auction threads, unsubstantiated accusations, and attempts to damage the reputations of other members. He frequently posts under anonymity while criticizing those who have publicly identify themselves.

This type of conduct undermines trust in the marketplace and discourages participation. Given the ongoing disruption, I believe anonymousminer should be reviewed for removal from DT1 status.

I have tried to address this privately and cordially publicly for nearly two years. Mitchell has also previously asked the community to stop this exact kind of behavior: Mitchell’s request.

It is in the community’s best interest to carefully evaluate anonymousminer when updating trust/distrust lists.

Sapling: 100% Fake
Originality: 100% Confident That's AI
Stealthwriter: 31% Human
GPTZero: 2% AI, 98% Mixed, 0% Human

Whether or not he has a "right" to post AI slop on the forum nonstop is up to administrative interpretation, but I'm sick of this guy using it to attack DT members. Its so incredibly lazy and contrived.

[Kazkaz27]

I can understand that some users are truly mentally challenged, and if they're not in a signature campaign, and are basically harmless, the mods are unlikely to delete their AI posts as spam. I understand all that. But when it comes to using AI to relentlessly slander DT, I have to draw a line there. Anybody can put a post into ChatGPT and say "reply to this with a sick burn" and paste the output. I feel not removing these kinds of posts sets a bad precedent.

We've already mentioned him a few times:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65255819#msg65255819
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66229059#msg66229059
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66653709#msg66653709

Whether or not he has a "right" to post AI slop on the forum nonstop is up to administrative interpretation, but I'm sick of this guy using it to attack DT members. Its so incredibly lazy and contrived.

Nut, Cry me a river. I Presented Facts and wrote my own thesis despite any AI utilization. Which I’m not ashamed of.

Again, being in a signature campaign does not make anyone more noble. It doesn’t make posts any more believable, earnest, or trustworthy. (It might actually entail being a sell out.)

Also, again…

AI is just a tool. What matters is the quality and honesty of the content, not how it was written. Nobody’s forcing you to read it — if it’s useful, the method shouldn’t matter. If it’s spam, report it regardless.

You are so gung ho about AI because you know you and your cronies can’t keep up with it. Because you know you and your cronies can only accuse and overwhelm people when they’re outnumbered. But if people use AI, they don’t need an army like your own to keep up with the baseless assumptions and accusations made up to control the narrative here. So your attempt to weaponize it, demonize it or twist it into something it’s not falls short. I ran a poll on AI, and despite what nut or his cronies say out loud, half this forum (Those Who Voted To Date) Support using it.



Furthermore, let me again share what this entire thread really is:

This whole thread is a means to control the narrative. A bunch of forum warriors nitpicking supposed “AI verbal diarrhea,” merit-farming complaints while circlejerking screenshots and detector scores like it’s meaningful work. It’s 108 (Now 110) more pages of duplicated “garbage,” which makes it extra trash rather than a solution, and it adds to the noise-vs-signal ratio. Meanwhile, the actual forum is 90% bots, shills, alts, scammers, sig spam, and bounty farmers anyway. 📈📉

Keep reporting those dangerous chatbot replies while the real garbage piles up.

[nutildah]

I Presented Facts and wrote my own thesis despite any AI utilization. Which I’m not ashamed of.

It is only arguably your own thesis, and it doesn't matter if you're ashamed of it or not. That has nothing to do with anything. You believe the only thing that matters is what you think about yourself, which is why you've had such a tremendously difficult time here. Nobody cares what you think of yourself.

Again, being in a signature campaign does not make anyone more noble. It doesn’t make posts any more believable, earnest, or trustworthy. (It might actually entail being a sell out.)

That is not at all what I'm saying and never have. I'm saying sig campaigners are held to demonstrably higher moderation standards, as they should be, because the forum would be 90% AI spam if they weren't.

[Kazkaz27]

I Presented Facts and wrote my own thesis despite any AI utilization. Which I’m not ashamed of.

It is only arguably your own thesis, and it doesn't matter if you're ashamed of it or not. That has nothing to do with anything. You believe the only thing that matters is what you think about yourself, which is why you've had such a tremendously difficult time here. Nobody cares what you think of yourself.

Again, being in a signature campaign does not make anyone more noble. It doesn’t make posts any more believable, earnest, or trustworthy. (It might actually entail being a sell out.)

That is not at all what I'm saying and never have. I'm saying sig campaigners are held to demonstrably higher moderation standards, as they should be, because the forum would be 90% AI spam if they weren't.

I think I’ve made it pretty clear I don’t care what morons think of me or what others perceive. I only wish to share what I’ve witnessed and experienced while presenting facts.

[nutildah]

I think I’ve made it pretty clear I don’t care what morons think of me or what others perceive.

You don't care what anyone thinks. Not even people who have a lot more experience and wisdom in certain areas than you. That is the problem.

I only wish to share what I’ve witnessed and experienced while presenting facts.

And here we see your narcissism on full display: you truly believe other people should care about what you have to share when you don't care about them at all.

I have nothing left to add here.

[Kazkaz27]

I think I’ve made it pretty clear I don’t care what morons think of me or what others perceive.

You don't care what anyone thinks. Not even people who have a lot more experience and wisdom in certain areas than you. That is the problem.

I only wish to share what I’ve witnessed and experienced while presenting facts.

And here we see your narcissism on full display: you truly believe other people care about what you have to share when you don't care about them at all.

I have nothing left to add here.

Let me clarify. I don’t care what YOU think and I can’t control what others perceive.

[Obulis]

I think I’ve made it pretty clear I don’t care what morons think of me or what others perceive.

You don't care what anyone thinks. Not even people who have a lot more experience and wisdom in certain areas than you. That is the problem.

I only wish to share what I’ve witnessed and experienced while presenting facts.

And here we see your narcissism on full display: you truly believe other people should care about what you have to share when you don't care about them at all.

I have nothing left to add here.

Well "I don't care what people think of me" is actually circumstantial, it can't be all times that someone won't care what others think of them because sometimes what others think (not everyone by the way) is usually a call to reasoning even on a general ground talk more of specific circumstances.

[TokenTikas]

You don't care what anyone thinks. Not even people who have a lot more experience and wisdom in certain areas than you. That is the problem.

People become unreasonable when their sense of understanding stops working properly. Those who ignore the words of people that are more experienced and wiser than them can hardly benefit from even the strongest motivational advice. Sometimes, it’s better to leave such people alone because no matter how well you explain things, they will only stretch the argument further without realizing their own mistakes.

After seeing few posts on his reputation board threads, I didn’t even feel like replying anymore. At the end of the day, this thread is supposed to be about (AI), but most of the discussion is already shifting to unrelated matters. I think this issue should be looked into a bit and honestly, there’s no need to drag his matter this much here.

[Kazkaz27]

You don't care what anyone thinks. Not even people who have a lot more experience and wisdom in certain areas than you. That is the problem.

People become unreasonable when their sense of understanding stops working properly. Those who ignore the words of people that are more experienced and wiser than them can hardly benefit from even the strongest motivational advice. Sometimes, it’s better to leave such people alone because no matter how well you explain things, they will only stretch the argument further without realizing their own mistakes.

After seeing few posts on his reputation board threads, I didn’t even feel like replying anymore. At the end of the day, this thread is supposed to be about (AI), but most of the discussion is already shifting to unrelated matters. I think this issue should be looked into a bit and honestly, there’s no need to drag his matter this much here.

Right so stop kiss assing & engaging 💀 — or don’t and add more irrelevant feedback to the thread. 🤷‍♂️

People also become unreasonable when they are tired of dealing with chronic morons. People also become frustrated when, no matter how they communicate, it goes over the heads of those they try to communicate it to.

Well "I don't care what people think of me" is actually circumstantial, it can't be all times that someone won't care what others think of them because sometimes what others think (not everyone by the way) is usually a call to reasoning even on a general ground talk more of specific circumstances.

I care — but only up to what I can change. Beyond that, not caring is the only option.

[GhostOfBitcoin]

User: Kazkaz27

There must be at least 3 posts by the account that meet the requirements specified in A. If its just a one-off or even two-off, the poster may deserve some leniency, but if they make a habit of it, their posts should be reported as "AI spam."

A minimum of 5 posts from this user have been identified.

Proof:

Shill Bidding is Prohibited on Most Major Platforms.

Shill bidding—where a seller or their associates place fake bids to artificially drive up the price of an item in an auction—is widely regarded as unethical and often illegal because it distorts the natural bidding process and harms genuine participants. It can deceive buyers into paying more than the item’s true market value, creating an unfair advantage for the seller while eroding trust in the auction system as a whole. In many jurisdictions, it’s classified as fraud, potentially leading to legal consequences like fines or shutdowns for those involved. Even in cases where a form of it might be disclosed, it still raises concerns about transparency and can expose systemic issues in markets like collectibles. Overall, it skews prices, discourages fair competition, and can damage the entire hobby industry.

The pressing question here regarding this topic is “is shill bidding acceptable here?”

Copyleaks- 100% AI Content Found
GPTzero- 100% chance AI Generated
Sapling- 100% AI
QuillBot- 82 % AI Text
zeroGPT- 72% AI
stealthwriter- 0% Human
Orginality- 100% Confident that's AI

Hey Mopar,

Appreciate you weighing in—your experience here is valuable, and I totally get the concern about calling out scammers. We’ve all seen too many shady situations over the years, and protecting the community from that is crucial. But just to set the record straight, that’s not what’s being proposed at all. The rule explicitly allows constructive feedback on potential scams as long as it’s backed by evidence (e.g., links to proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or past issues). Gut feelings or patterns? If you can substantiate them with real examples or data, that’s fine and encouraged—it even says to report them to mods for review.

The focus is on stopping unsubstantiated derails, personal insults, and repetitive negativity that doesn’t help anyone and just turns threads toxic (driving folks away without preventing real harm). Legit warnings with evidence? Absolutely allowed. Vague “this feels like a cash grab” rants without backup? Those get the boot to keep things productive.

If tweaking the language (e.g., clarifying how “evidence” includes historical patterns or forum links) would make it better, let’s hear it—what do you think addresses your point while still curbing the abuse?

On that note, out of curiosity: How many creators have there been in this space over the years, and how many have turned out to be actual scammers? And on the flip side, how many legitimate people do you think have been driven away because they’ve been falsely accused or ganged up on without solid evidence?

Copyleaks- 100% AI Content Found
GPTzero- 100% chance AI Generated
Sapling- 100% AI
QuillBot- 8 % AI Text
zeroGPT- 23% AI
stealthwriter- 7% Human 93%% AI
Orginality- 100% Confident that's AI

Hey owlcatz,

Thanks for chiming in—I respect your 10+ years here and get where you’re coming from on protecting newbies from shady sellers. That’s a real issue we’ve seen too often. But just to clarify, that’s not what’s being proposed at all. The rule change explicitly allows constructive feedback on potential scams as long as it’s backed by evidence (e.g., links to proof of fraud or misrepresentation). It even says: “Constructive feedback on potential scams (with evidence/links) or rule violations is allowed but should be reported to moderators for review.”

The goal isn’t to silence warnings—it’s to stop unsubstantiated derails, personal attacks, and off-topic negativity that turns sales threads into flamewars and drives people away (without actually helping buyers). Legit scam calls with proof? Totally fine and encouraged. Disputes or deeper debates? Move ’em to Reputation or PMs to keep things clean.

If we can tweak the wording to make that even clearer (e.g., emphasizing evidence-based warnings more), I’m all ears. What do you think—does that address your concern, or is there something specific you’d change?

Cheers,
Kazkaz27

Copyleaks- 100% AI Content Found
GPTzero- 100% chance AI Generated
Sapling- 100% AI
QuillBot- 0 % AI Text
zeroGPT- 23% AI
stealthwriter- 7% Human 93%% AI
Orginality- 100% Confident that's AI

I’d like to propose a rule change for BitcoinTalk’s Collectibles board to prevent derailing sales threads and harassment.

Based on the ongoing issues in the Bitcoin Collectibles Community—such as repeated derailing of sales threads with unsubstantiated pricing critiques, personal insults, harassment, and potential cliques misusing trust/merit systems or moderation influence—I propose the following targeted rule change for the Collectibles board. This draws from existing forum guidelines (e.g., avoiding flamewars, off-topic posts, and backseat moderation as per the unofficial rules compilation and general etiquette threads), but addresses gaps in enforcement for sales-focused threads.

Proposed Rule Change: “No Derailing or Harassment in Sales/Auction Threads”

New Rules:
In sales, auction, or announcement threads (e.g., those clearly marked as [AUCTION], [SALE], [ANN], or similar), posts must remain on-topic and constructive. Off-topic derails, including:
   •   Unsubstantiated accusations of overpricing, “cash grabs,” or scams (without clear evidence like fraud or misrepresentation).
   •   Personal attacks, insults, or ad hominem comments against the OP or other participants.
   •   Repetitive negativity unrelated to the item’s legitimacy, condition, or transaction terms.
are prohibited.

Such posts should be deleted, and repeat offenders may receive warnings, temporary bans, or negative trust feedback from moderators.

Exceptions: Constructive feedback on potential scams (with evidence/links) or rule violations is allowed but should be reported to moderators for review. Disputes should be moved to the Reputation board or private messages.

Moderators must recuse themselves from threads where they have a conflict of interest (e.g., bidding on auctions they oversee). All moderation actions in these threads must be logged publicly (e.g., via edit notes) for transparency.

Rationale and How It Helps the Cause:
   •   Addresses Core Issues: This directly tackles thread derails (as seen in your cases against MoparMiningLLC and anonymousminer), which shrink the community by discouraging new sellers/creators. By requiring evidence for critiques, it prevents “vendetta”-style attacks while allowing valid scam warnings.
   •   Promotes Growth: Encourages a free-market environment (aligning with Bitcoin ethos) where pricing debates happen elsewhere (e.g., Meta or Reputation boards), reducing bullying and helping retain users like StackItUp who left due to toxicity.
   •   Enforces Neutrality: The recusal clause targets potential biases (e.g., moderator Cyrus bidding on anonymousminer’s auctions), promoting fair play and reducing “clique” perceptions.
   •   Feasibility: Builds on existing rules (e.g., no flamewars, off-topic posts) without overhauling the system. It could be proposed in the Meta board for theymos/admin review, with enforcement via global mods.
If implemented, this could reduce drama by 50-70% based on similar rules in other boards (e.g., self-moderated threads like Wall Observer enforcing on-topic posts).

This article is being placed under unofficial rules FAQ for community input.

Copyleaks- 100% AI Content Found
GPTzero- 94% chance AI Generated
Sapling- 74% AI
QuillBot- 73 % AI Text
zeroGPT- 31% AI
stealthwriter- 8% Human 92%% AI
Orginality- 100% Confident that's AI

Hey Mopar,

Appreciate you weighing in—your experience here is valuable, and I totally get the concern about calling out scammers. We’ve all seen too many shady situations over the years, and protecting the community from that is crucial. But just to set the record straight, that’s not what’s being proposed at all. The rule explicitly allows constructive feedback on potential scams as long as it’s backed by evidence (e.g., links to proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or past issues). Gut feelings or patterns? If you can substantiate them with real examples or data, that’s fine and encouraged—it even says to report them to mods for review.

The focus is on stopping unsubstantiated derails, personal insults, and repetitive negativity that doesn’t help anyone and just turns threads toxic (driving folks away without preventing real harm). Legit warnings with evidence? Absolutely allowed. Vague “this feels like a cash grab” rants without backup? Those get the boot to keep things productive.

If tweaking the language (e.g., clarifying how “evidence” includes historical patterns or forum links) would make it better, let’s hear it—what do you think addresses your point while still curbing the abuse?

On that note, out of curiosity: How many creators have there been in this space over the years, and how many have turned out to be actual scammers? And on the flip side, how many legitimate people do you think have been driven away because they’ve been falsely accused or ganged up on without solid evidence?

Copyleaks- 100% AI Content Found
GPTzero- 94% chance AI Generated
Sapling- 74% AI
QuillBot- 8 % AI Text
zeroGPT- 23% AI
stealthwriter- 7% Human 93% AI
Orginality- 100% Confident that's AI

[Kazkaz27]

~Snip BS

Old and irrelevant. Report em, Delete em, shove em straight up your ass if you want. — Not sure who cares.

[ABCbits]

Whether or not he has a "right" to post AI slop on the forum nonstop is up to administrative interpretation

When in doubt, re-read thread AI guidelines written by admin.

You should not copy/paste text written by an AI into a post, with these exceptions:
 - If you clearly mention that something you're posting is AI-generated, and you only occasionally and appropriately post such AI-generated text, then that's OK.

So unless i misunderstand something, there should be disclaimer/mention of AI usage and not using AI on many of the posts.