Users who spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board

[LoyceV]

This user already have 4 neutral feedback and now he decide to spam technical board.

User: Silver005

Why wasn't he banned months ago? If Mods let chatbot plagiarism go unpunished, Bitcointalk will be completely overrun in a few years.

[1714676701]

1714676701

[1714676701]

1714676701

[1714676701]

1714676701

[1714676701]

1714676701

[ABCbits]

This user already have 4 neutral feedback and now he decide to spam technical board.

User: Silver005

Why wasn't he banned months ago? If Mods let chatbot plagiarism go unpunished, Bitcointalk will be completely overrun in a few years.

It looks like my, @nutildah's[1] and other's report finally got this user banned. Although IMO nuke would be better option in this case. Hard to believe it took about a month and lots of reports to make it happen. This wouldn't be enough to discourage spammer who use AI or copy-paste bot (with spinner feature).

Delete reply: Re: Why Herbalists Live Longer than Christains in topic #5483863 by member #3530138
Delete reply: Re: What is the next step for Solana? in topic #5484303 by member #3530138
Delete reply: Re: Is Bitcoin mining a profitable business? in topic #5480238 by member #3530138
Autoban user: N/A in topic #0 by member #3530138
Delete reply: Re: Is politics really necessary? in topic #5464993 by member #3530138
Delete reply: Re: Is there a way to bridge out bitcoin testnet to bitcoin signet? in topic #5486853 by member #3530138
Delete reply: Re: Why Bitcoin is the only crypto you should BUY in topic #5422147 by member #3530138

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63730993#msg63730993

[ChiBitCTy]

I'm trying to find this guy as surely someone posted about him here already but no dice yet, will keep looking but..Anyone remember that one user who had that bald headed weird looking guy as his forum avatar who used to be the king of doing this, maybe 5-6 years back..I mean it was all day, every day..I can't remember his name but he was maybe up there with "The one above all" (which I'm also forgetting his orig forum name, as I think TOAA was his 3rd-5th alt or so..hard to keep up).  Those two were so deranged I almost miss them, and miss Tman going at them, who was equally loony just in a diff way, though a former friend (when he was thought to be trustworthily ..smh).  

[nutildah]

It looks like my, @nutildah's[1] and other's report finally got this user banned. Although IMO nuke would be better option in this case. Hard to believe it took about a month and lots of reports to make it happen. This wouldn't be enough to discourage spammer who use AI or copy-paste bot (with spinner feature).

What's especially dumb is he was fighting for his right to AI spam all the way to the last minute:

Well the rules are very ok because it help us to be able to write very well in English,than to use AI because by using AI it just like someone who is doing expo in the classroom and it will not help us anywhere if we continue to use AI,but when you do your best with your brain it's preferable even though you sentence is not long enough,but at least the little that you were able to put down is commendable more than the good write up you have stolen from the AI..

Again please is there any moderator who can monitor all this,and be able to identify this AI write up and finish them out or how did get the find out who uses AI write?

This is what his posts look like w/o ChatGPT... Ay yayay. Sad to say it but a decent % of users shouldn't be posting on this forum at all. I just can't believe how incredibly low the bar is for getting accepted into a sig campaign here (granted the aforementioned offender was not yet in a campaign). Campaign managers should really set higher standards so we don't have to read the barrage of nonsense that comes from their campaigners, and so those that aren't interested in writing anything remotely interesting don't even bother trying.

[ABCbits]

I'm trying to find this guy as surely someone posted about him here already but no dice yet, will keep looking but..Anyone remember that one user who had that bald headed weird looking guy as his forum avatar who used to be the king of doing this, maybe 5-6 years back..I mean it was all day, every day..I can't remember his name but he was maybe up there with "The one above all" (which I'm also forgetting his orig forum name, as I think TOAA was his 3rd-5th alt or so..hard to keep up).  Those two were so deranged I almost miss them, and miss Tman going at them, who was equally loony just in a diff way, though a former friend (when he was thought to be trustworthily ..smh).  

I think you refer to https://ninjastic.space/user/The-One-Above-All, although it doesn't seem he used to post on technical board. Anyway, if you need to look for certain user, you might want to use https://bpip.org/ search feature or list of banned username on http://loyce.club/.

--snip--

This is what his posts look like w/o ChatGPT... Ay yayay. Sad to say it but a decent % of users shouldn't be posting on this forum at all. I just can't believe how incredibly low the bar is for getting accepted into a sig campaign here (granted the aforementioned offender was not yet in a campaign). Campaign managers should really set higher standards so we don't have to read the barrage of nonsense that comes from their campaigners, and so those that aren't interested in writing anything remotely interesting don't even bother trying.

Or enforce this again with higher standard.

Campaign Operators:

Signature Campaigns are a great way to introduce your business and advertise your services to the bitcoin ecosystem but this cannot be abused by you paying people to make poor contributions en masse. As a signature campaign operator you will ultimately be held responsible for the quality of posts of users bearing your signature advertisement and you will need to monitor your users closely or it will be quickly abused. If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way. The Staff and Admins do not want to have to do this but it's a last resort in an attempt to clean up the forum as signature campaigns cannot continue to operate here in such a lazy way as it is not fair that others have to go through pages of drivel to find anything of substance nor should Staff be left to clean up the mess you are paying people to make.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.msg16904309#msg16904309

[LoyceV]

What's especially dumb is he was fighting for his right to AI spam all the way to the last minute:

AI fighting to survive. Now wait until it becomes self-aware and goes full Skynet.

[ABCbits]

User: BTTUSERNAME

Actually mobile OS usually have better security by default compared with desktop OS. For example, Android offer Application and Privacy sandbox which limit what an application can do.

That's correct. There are not much hacks that happen because of vulnerabilities present in OS but because of negligence of people. There is no way a malware can make it to your mobile unless you download some fishy app or click on some suspicious link. Rather then focusing on security of devices alone, human vigilance is also required in cyber world (or securing bitcoins). A chain is as strong as it's weakest link, and in security of Bitcoins the weakest link is human.  

It seems your major concern is basically on human vigilance. But we can all agree that, inasmuch as human vigilance and carefulness is essential when it comes to Bitcoin security, the technological advancement in Blockchain security plays a more vital role when it comes to Bitcoin security because there are so many measures provided to enhance security even when humans are not being super careful it'll be difficult for scammers and hackers to exploit them. Let's consider the Zero knowledge proofs and the multi-signature wallets for example. If you're familiar with these technologies then you'll know that these techniques makes it almost impossible for scammers and hackers to access people's wallets.

We can equally consider development and advancements in encryption and cryptography. They are also quite helpful techniques that helps to secure the bitcoin wallet. I'm not saying Human vigilance isn't important or essential, but I stand to believe that it's not the primary as there are things that are more important.

1. Long and generic reply.
2. Zero knowledge proof basically a method to verify the data without knowing the data itself. I don't know why it's mentioned as method to secure wallet.
3. Encryption is part of cryptography.
4. Bitcoin wallet usually already use strong encryption cryptography (usually AES-256), assuming the user doesn't use weak password.

Electrum uses third-party servers for its work, and this is a potential attack vector.

I've never read about an attack by giving fake block information or something. The only thing I've seen is a server telling the user to download malware.

You are completely accurate, but I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint on this. It is true that there have been no known occurrences of a block chain attack using fake block information, but I do not believe this is sufficient evidence to conclude that such an assault is impossible. For example, if an extensive group of hackers had control over the majority of the computational power in a blockchain network, they could hypothetically generate a false history of transactions, causing widespread confusion and potentially undermining the network. Although this may be considered to be a theoretical attack, it should still be considered seriously, and I do not believe we should dismiss the likelihood of such an attack simply because it has not yet been observed in the wild.

1. Fake block doesn't make sense here. If it's fake, it would be rejected by node and thus won't be propagated across Bitcoin network.
2. Performing 51% attack on Bitcoin is very expensive and generally seen as not probable attack. So average people don't have to consider this attack vector seriously.
3. If 51% attack actuall happen, which Bitcoin wallet someone use doesn't matter here.
4. 51% attack still require the attacker to create valid transaction and block, so term "false history of transaction" doesn't make sense here.
5. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".

if an extensive group of hackers had control over the majority of the computational power in a blockchain network

In the scenario of a 51% attack, neither Bitcoin Core nor Electrum is going to help you.

A 51% attack would undoubtedly pose quite a serious problem for any Blockchain, regardless of the software used to access it. As a matter of fact, both Electrum and Bitcoin Core are only designed to operate on an assumption that the underlying Blockchain is secure, but that doesn't mean they provide an assurance for security of the Blockchain from external attacks.

You're right that If eventually a 51% attack were to occur right now, both of the softwares wont guarantee user's safety or be able to protect users from the potential consequences.

But looking at it from a contrary POV, even if the softwares can't guarantee user's safety, they still won't be utterly useless in a scenario of a 51% attack, because even if the Blockchain itself was compromised, these softwares could still be used to track transactions and also verify balances. These services could stil be quite valuable to users despite the fact that they don't guarantee user's safety.

1. Saying Bitcoin Core works under assumption blockchain is secure is wrong. Bitcoin Core verify all block/TX while also can detect block reorganization.
2. Unless user send Bitcoin or expect to receive Bitcoin when 51% attack happen, there's no need to check balance or newly created transaction.
3. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".

Hi,
 I have been using blockchain.com wallet to receive crypto payments without any issue since years, though in this month, the BTC deposits (funds received) in our blockchain.com wallet were all showing as normal till 6th, but today once I try to send some funds out from my BTC wallet (its still showing balance fine, and $0 in hold funds, means all funds are showing fine as balance in BTC wallet), the available balance showing was only like $30 worth of BTC, again i try to open the wallet via web (instead of andriod), but same thing, funds are showing fine as balance in the BTC wallet, but once i try to send them out in available balance they show almost none.

Any help? I have already contacted blockchain.com via their support ticket system.

Thanks.

Sorry about that Mate.
I can remember a friend of mine was having similar case some time ago, some amount of BTC was sent into his Blockchain wallet, the BTC balance appeared fine just as you stated but whenever he tried to initiate a transaction, an error message would pop up, saying there's no BTC in his Blockchain wallet. Although his own case was slightly different from yours because it was a new wallet he opened specifically for that transaction.
After much inquiries, we discovered the BTC sent to his wallet wasn't a real one, regardless of the fact that the balance was fully loaded, that was all he had, a balance load of BTC and nothing more because the BTC there was as good as worthless, they said they called it BTC balance flash, something like that.

But since you said you've been using your wallet for years now and the bitcoin was received from a trusted person, then it's possible the problem could be from blockchain.com's database. It could also be possible that there's a bug in the wallet software that's probably causing the issue so I'll recommend using your wallet from a different device or maybe you could try to reset your wallet.

You can equally just wait for Blockchain.com's reply since you've already contacted them.

1. The only somewhat helpful information is waiting for blockchain.com's reply.
2. I did quick search for term "BTC balance flash", but didn't find any relevant result. Although based on his explanation, it's probably his friend got fooled by watch only wallet.

[nutildah]

His remaining 4 posts are mostly AI generated as well, but the 1st two have enough hand-written gibberish in them to make them fail the AI test.

Post #1:

It is true that people have the right to protect themselves if they feel threatened. On the other hand, you acknowledge that gun ownership is a distinct issue (which I believe is also true) with its own set of difficulties and implications. Yeah, these concerns can be tough to resolve, but there is still a need to try to separate them in order to have effective conversations.

In my honest opinion, I believe it is possible to understand the need of self-defense while simultaneously acknowledging the dangers of unregulated having a gun. On one hand, we have the right to defend ourselves against damage, which includes the right to use force if needed. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who could use them to hurt others. But now the problem is to find a way to balance these two objectives without intruding on people's rights or putting them in danger.

 I believe that focusing on education and training for gun ownership could be a viable option. For example, we may require gun owners to complete a safety course and pass a background check before purchasing a gun. We could also establish a mandatory system of licensing and registration to track who possesses guns and ensure that they are used responsibly. This allows for a balance between respecting people's rights to self-defense and protecting the public from damage.

And another thing is that, it's very possible that if people rely on guns too much, it can generate some sort of fear or mistrust, where they start feeling like they need to protect themselves at all costs, even when it hasn't really gotten to such extent.

Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 99.5% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake


Post #2

Greetings and welcome to the forum! I, too, am a new member here, but I have an extensive knowledge of web3 development and I would be happy to share with you. I believe I can provide some helpful suggestions on where to find resources for security audits to guarantee your smart contract is secure.

When it comes to free security audits for your smart contract, there are numerous options available. One smart place to begin is to look for open source security audit programs, such as the well-known OpenZeppelin Open Source Audit Program, that would be a pretty good starting point. 
Also, there are organizations that provide free or inexpensive audits for open source projects, such as the Ethereum Foundation and the Polkadot Web3 Foundation.

Keep in mind that these organizations have different eligibility standards, so you should visit their websites for more information. It's worth emphasizing, as I'm sure you're aware, that a free security audt may not be as comprehensive as a professional audit. However, it can still be a useful tool for finding any weaknesses or vulnerabilities in your smart contract, which can be critical in ensuring the project's integrity and safety.

Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 100% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% fake

[ABCbits]

His remaining 4 posts are mostly AI generated as well, but the 1st two have enough hand-written gibberish in them to make them fail the AI test.

--snip--

It's not surprising. Anyway, his post on this thread was deleted by moderator. You and other reader can check it on https://ninjastic.space/post/63930017.

[nutildah]

It's not surprising. Anyway, his post on this thread was deleted by moderator. You and other reader can check it on https://ninjastic.space/post/63930017.

I think he's big mad because his accounts keep getting banned... He should learn instead its better to just not break the rules.

It is easy to connect the accounts between a trail of merits; here's how I found a new one:

https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?from=Youngkhngdiddy&to=Gormicsta



Manlikefrank1

As of my last update in January, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were not explicitly illegal in Nepal....

 

Omo as of my last update in 2022, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not illegal in Indonesia....

 

Also his very first post was plagiarized:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved 11 spot bitcoin ETFs on Jan. 10, 2024. Until then, the regulators had been reluctant to approve any spot bitcoin ETF applications.so looking at their carefull actions and policy making.i don’t think Bitcoin can drop to zero.

Original:

https://www.investopedia.com/spot-bitcoin-etfs-8358373

[DaveF]

Although it took a while the mods finally got annoyed enough to ban someone years ago from the technical board https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0
And they still let him spread his troll crap in other sections. I un-ignored him the other day for some reason and after actually engaging with him I added him back to my ignore list.

If they won't actually kick someone like that off the forum these other users are sadly going to be here a while until they cross some other line.

-Dave

[ABCbits]

User: SickDayIn

Bitcoin inheritance is a complex topic for sure. Whilst there may be services out there, the problem of relying on a third party to act as an intermediary still persists and a lot of people do not want this, myself included. The solution really is just using a multi-signature wallet where say you have allocated cryptocurrency for each child. For example if you have 3 children, you have 3 wallets, all require 3 keys, so you have 9 keys in total. You distribute the keys with a trusted person such as the executor of your estate, like a family member, but you only include 1 of the keys with them for each wallet so they can't actually do anything with it. You could hide 1 key in a written will, or in other methods so when you are deceased your children will inherit the necessary keys to access the wallets.

1. This is partially off-topic response since it's 1st reply on a thread with title "Comparing Inheritance Services".
2. His suggestion to create 3 multi-signature wallet with 3-of-3 spend condition (since he said "all require 3 keys") is dangerous since you'll lose access to the Bitcoin even if one of the key is lost.

There are two different attack chain scenarios that advanced persistent threats, or nation state actors could attempt:


1) A 51% attack targeted at controlling 51% or more of the total mining power to fork Bitcoin and create a new primary Bitcoin chain.

2) A quantum computing attack on the cryptography supporting Bitcoin itself.

Whilst both are attack scenarios which can be considered, I think your thread focuses the point of discussion on the 51% attack.

Now, the way to conduct this attack would either require purchasing 51% of the existing compute power from miners (e.g. AntPool, etc), or purchasing new compute power, at 100% of the current available compute used by miners, thereby doubling the available compute of the current 100% to 200%. This is probably more likely as it would make no sense for miners to sell their hash power to a state actor who had the intention of destroying Bitcoin. Realistically they would only be successful an at attack by introducing new compute and doubling the overall supply.

However even then whilst 51% could be required theoretically, forking Bitcoin would require much more compute, like 60-70% or more. Just look at Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and the other forks that exist as examples why.

1. You don't need 51% hashrate to perform a fork. In addition, you don't need any hashrate if the fork also replace PoW with something else.
2. BCH perform fork even though it has far smaller hashrate than BTC. It's also true for BSV when it forked itself from BCH.
3. AntPool is mining pool, not miner. Besides, AntPool and few other mining pool already offer accelerator service. That means they'll harm their own service by letting someone else use their miner's hashrate.


Below reply wasn't created on technical board, but still give inaccurate technical information.

I know there is a way that you can upgrade an offline usb with Tails by cloning from another usb with the latest version.
My question is: by using this method, would you only upgrade the OS without any other changes in configuration? Would the persistent storage of the offline usb be preserved entirely?

Thx!

The intention of Tails is not to be a persistent operating system, so nothing should actually be stored on the USB. It should only simply have a copy of the version of the Tails operating system. The best thing to do would be simply overwrite the entire USB with the upgraded version of Tails you are seeking to use. Whether or not use another USB to do this is irrelevant.

1. Tails offer persistent storage feature, https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html. So it's okay to store data on USB which contain Tails.
2. Tails provide upgrade feature without overwrite, https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/.

[DaveF]

User: SickDayIn
....

This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave

[ABCbits]

User: SickDayIn
....

This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

I also notice difference between registration date and first post. But i doubt anyone would bother hack old account without any activity.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave

Thanks.

[SickDayIn]

User: SickDayIn

Bitcoin inheritance is a complex topic for sure. Whilst there may be services out there, the problem of relying on a third party to act as an intermediary still persists and a lot of people do not want this, myself included. The solution really is just using a multi-signature wallet where say you have allocated cryptocurrency for each child. For example if you have 3 children, you have 3 wallets, all require 3 keys, so you have 9 keys in total. You distribute the keys with a trusted person such as the executor of your estate, like a family member, but you only include 1 of the keys with them for each wallet so they can't actually do anything with it. You could hide 1 key in a written will, or in other methods so when you are deceased your children will inherit the necessary keys to access the wallets.

1. This is partially off-topic response since it's 1st reply on a thread with title "Comparing Inheritance Services".
2. His suggestion to create 3 multi-signature wallet with 3-of-3 spend condition (since he said "all require 3 keys") is dangerous since you'll lose access to the Bitcoin even if one of the key is lost.

There are two different attack chain scenarios that advanced persistent threats, or nation state actors could attempt:


1) A 51% attack targeted at controlling 51% or more of the total mining power to fork Bitcoin and create a new primary Bitcoin chain.

2) A quantum computing attack on the cryptography supporting Bitcoin itself.

Whilst both are attack scenarios which can be considered, I think your thread focuses the point of discussion on the 51% attack.

Now, the way to conduct this attack would either require purchasing 51% of the existing compute power from miners (e.g. AntPool, etc), or purchasing new compute power, at 100% of the current available compute used by miners, thereby doubling the available compute of the current 100% to 200%. This is probably more likely as it would make no sense for miners to sell their hash power to a state actor who had the intention of destroying Bitcoin. Realistically they would only be successful an at attack by introducing new compute and doubling the overall supply.

However even then whilst 51% could be required theoretically, forking Bitcoin would require much more compute, like 60-70% or more. Just look at Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and the other forks that exist as examples why.

1. You don't need 51% hashrate to perform a fork. In addition, you don't need any hashrate if the fork also replace PoW with something else.
2. BCH perform fork even though it has far smaller hashrate than BTC. It's also true for BSV when it forked itself from BCH.
3. AntPool is mining pool, not miner. Besides, AntPool and few other mining pool already offer accelerator service. That means they'll harm their own service by letting someone else use their miner's hashrate.


Below reply wasn't created on technical board, but still give inaccurate technical information.

I know there is a way that you can upgrade an offline usb with Tails by cloning from another usb with the latest version.
My question is: by using this method, would you only upgrade the OS without any other changes in configuration? Would the persistent storage of the offline usb be preserved entirely?

Thx!

The intention of Tails is not to be a persistent operating system, so nothing should actually be stored on the USB. It should only simply have a copy of the version of the Tails operating system. The best thing to do would be simply overwrite the entire USB with the upgraded version of Tails you are seeking to use. Whether or not use another USB to do this is irrelevant.

1. Tails offer persistent storage feature, https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html. So it's okay to store data on USB which contain Tails.
2. Tails provide upgrade feature without overwrite, https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/.

I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

User: SickDayIn
....

This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave

I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.

[ABCbits]

--snip--

I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

First of all, i appreciate you provide detailed response in this thread.

Now i understand better what you're trying to say regarding multi-sig wallet. While it's true there are few assumption on my behalf, i doubt other reader would know you're actually talking about 2-of-3 spend condition when you didn't even mention number 2 (two).

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

I see. I usually term "block organization", but term "fork" is also valid term to describe 51% attack which create new chain (with most accumulated hashrate/work). And FYI, while such attack require 51% hashrate to ensure success, someone might try it with less hashrate on transaction with only few confirmation. You can use this calculator https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/ to estimate the success rate.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I didn't use Tails back on 2016 or 2017, so i'll take your words. Anyway, it'd be great if you edit your posts to state that your previous statement is outdated.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

I don't think you're using hacked account either, so IMO there's no need to provide any proof.

--snip--

I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.

Thanks for the explanation. And FYI having multiple account actually is allowed by this forum. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0, point number 18.

[SickDayIn]

--snip--

I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

First of all, i appreciate you provide detailed response in this thread.

Now i understand better what you're trying to say regarding multi-sig wallet. While it's true there are few assumption on my behalf, i doubt other reader would know you're actually talking about 2-of-3 spend condition when you didn't even mention number 2 (two).

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

I see. I usually term "block organization", but term "fork" is also valid term to describe 51% attack which create new chain (with most accumulated hashrate/work). And FYI, while such attack require 51% hashrate to ensure success, someone might try it with less hashrate on transaction with only few confirmation. You can use this calculator https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/ to estimate the success rate.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I didn't use Tails back on 2016 or 2017, so i'll take your words. Anyway, it'd be great if you edit your posts to state that your previous statement is outdated.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

I don't think you're using hacked account either, so IMO there's no need to provide any proof.

--snip--

I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.

Thanks for the explanation. And FYI having multiple account actually is allowed by this forum. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0, point number 18.

Thanks, appreciate your response, I will make sure later on to go back and edit those posts I made with more detailed and correct information, and will keep your feedback in mind for future posts as well. Overall I think what you are doing here is positive, ensuring that high quality posts are maintained on the forum. Particular your previous comments on this thread calling out users who are using AI generated comments, there is no place for that and probably being done by people with the intention of trying to get a high ranked account so they can later scam on it. My intention is purely to contribute to the forum and reconnect here from when I lurked so many years ago, but I'll make sure I am more specific in more comments (e.g. actually mention 2 of 3 spend condition lol).

[1miau]

That's a great and helpful topic, definitely undervalued in my opinion.
When asking technical questions, I really expect to get answers backd by knowledge, not backed by assumptions or AI.

To make it easier, maybe you can add some code to your OP, where it's easier for everyone to report, similar like:

Code:

Account: 
List of posts containing false/fake information: 
Case status: still open / solved by moderators

And add below the form that it would ne nice to correct all false/fake informations.

[DaveF]

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

It just gave the appearance of it.

An account was registered and made no posts for 8+ years and then 50 posts in 2 weeks.

That usually screams an account was compromised or changed hands.

-Dave

[SickDayIn]

Thanks @ABCbits, just to summarise I have done the following:

(1) I deleted my post in the thread in relation to tails, as it was incorrect.
(2) My post in the bitcoin inheritance thread was already deleted by a moderator.
(3) I have updated my post in relation to the attack scenarios to include the new insights you shared:

Edit: Update to this post, I have been corrected by @ABCbits, you can actually perform this type of attack without a 51% hashrate successfully, but on a single transaction with only a few confirmation, a good calculator is here: https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/