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

[ABCbits]

User: Ethan_Crypto

Additional information (optional):
* This user received many accusation regarding AI/chatbot-generated spam text.

This guy should definitely be banned. Just because he alters a few words from the GPT output here and there, it doesn't mean that his posts should stand. I reported one of his other threads in Dev & Tech Discussion and it was deleted. 100% of this guy's topics are AI-generated, or at the very least AI-assisted. Its a weird conundrum when they open an AI-generated topic & it gains traction, and sadly merits. Honestly I think these threads should be deleted so it will discourage people from posting in such nonsense threads in the future, but the mods don't always delete them.

I agree. Unfortunately it's one of some cases where AI/chatbot spammer took long time, lots of report and multiple feedback before it got permanently banned/nuked. It reminds me of this case, where it took 3.5 months after received it's first feedback. Let's see how long until this account got permanently banned/nuked.

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

User: Silver005
--snip--

[ABCbits]

User: Mastercon

Additional information (optional):
* This user also got accusation regarding possible cheating on review campaign, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5335270.msg65428902#msg65428902.

List of post:

If you do a full disk encryption setup while running a full Bitcoin Core node on an SSD drive, does the very demanding i/o activity while downloading+verifying the blockchain do too much wear and tear on the drive?

I would assume that SSD drives, since they don't have mechanical parts, are safer to run a full disk encryption node than an HDD, but nonetheless, what would you consider when shopping for drives?

Also what about built-in drive encryption vs software encryption like VeraCrypt or dm-crypt (which I think is what most Linux distros use by default)? I would assume there's no need to even bother with built-in encryption and you should buy one without it and just encrypt it yourself with open source software.

Anyway I just wanted to know if full disk encryption has been tested and if it's safe for the drives, and if anything, what settings to tweak in order to make it more reliable.

In the bitcoin core app there is a toggle that says RPC server, you need to enable that. But the bitcoin core only works for you and saves your transactions unencrypted on your mac. If you want to have it encrypted, access your node from anywhere or be nice to others and let them use your node as well you would need something like an electrum server, additionally to the bitcoin core software. And when you do that it is easier to run a tiny linux machine or a VM on your mac with for instance Umbrel or some bitcoin node docker. Have a look at umbrel, they even sell the whole thing done. However, you must know that it is more expensive and you trust them to make any node choice for you; on the other hand it is convenient.

Bitcoin core runs on a mac. But then you start with electrum server, etc. And you end up just buying a tiny linux machine that runs all the time. On Mac you can also have a VM run (in for instance UTM) of Umbrel... that sets up everything for you and you just need to open some ports on your router.

As stated in my previous reply, it's mostly off-topic which makes it unhelpful.

--snip--

Do you post this reply on wrong thread or intentionally being off-topic?
1. OP never state he own any Mac device.
2. OP never mention or ask anything about connecting to Bitcoin node, so why do you mention RPC?
3. Other full node and application that use RPC-JSON protocol still can connect to your full node, even if FDE is enabled. So i don't understand why you mention Electrum server.

It does have serious consequences for labour. it imo must be paired with significant mitigating measures to peg wages and middle/lower class assets and savings to the impending rise in inflation. Which as an action will actually exacerbate inflation further, requiring you to ultimately backstop your treasury bonds with aggressive tax policy on the rich or as I prefer backing of hard assets like Bitcoin. Bitcoin inflates, it's algorithmic inflation. and it could be outperformed by fiat for over a decade and I'd be still using it. In fact that's what I am explicitly prepared for out of concern for the next blocksize wars a decade+ bear market. 


I haven't heard you come correct here about much. You can identify the abuses of fiat and the use case of protecting yourself from fiat with Bitcoin. That's about the most I can credit you with. We only have a little window into who you are and what you think and to be honest a lot of what you show us is this kind of tantrum about irrelevant things like feelings.

It comes with being right about lots of stuff and having an extremely high degree of confidence in my awareness and intimacy with the context, the BIP processes and the specific BIP you are talking about, the author and their motivations, Bitcoin itself, as well as a fair grasp on the boarding subjects of linguistic language drift and currency denominations. I am arrogant. That's because I'm confident you cannot challenge my argument. And you haven't. You have chosen to focus on your hurt feelings and my refusal to empathize with you.

This is totally off-topic reply on thread asking about Bitcoin mining. For more context, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5544555.msg65421357#msg65421357.



Source: https://ninjastic.space/post/65406836

1. The 2nd paragraph is off-topic, since the thread only ask general question about how to mine Bitcoin.
2. Antminer S9 isn't best example of ASIC, since it's old ASIC.
3. Investor (as in people who buy Bitcoin) doesn't necessarily have to spend their money on mining or running node.

[LoyceV]

I'll archive Newbie Astt12's post here for reference before it gets removed:

If the recruitment is Bitcoin, then I think that this investment will show everyone the right path and potential. I have been observing for a long time that many people invest in Bitcoin. I think that this is the right path to investment and this is the real potential. Because this investment will take life to a much higher level later. The first explanation of all stages is that people seek profit. No one wants to invest without profit. Basically, this makes many self-sufficient. It can be obtained by investing. Which we will get.

Bitcoin Technical Support isn't the place for this.

[Satofan44]

User: Bitcoin Smith

But my question was mostly just technical - to better understand these things. So far I haven't parted with a single SAT yet. I don't trade or anything like that.

Yes the trail breaks when you transfer Munn to Speed via LN because it's happening offline and only who control the entry as well as exit nodes can link that if they want to and it is almost impossible via chain analysis to link back the transfer with KYCed address unless you reuse the address again to link with any KYCed funds again.

Obviously wrong as LN does no such thing and it is not designed to do this.

User: dkbit98

Is that one Lightning transfer enough to cut the trace or it is still somehow possible to associate the final address back to the original exchange?

No it's certainly not enough.
Lightning Network is centralized network and analytic companies like Chainalysis are already tracking everything on Lightning Network.
Another problem is that Lightning is not mean for larger amount of coins, and you also need to get back coins on-chain at some point.

It is a decentralized P2P network, and you can't track everything on LN no matter what you do.

Is one post enough? In both cases the information is extremely false, one can potentially damage the user and the other is damaging LN's reputation with lies. I'll watch out for more..  

[ABCbits]

--snip--
Is one post enough? In both cases the information is extremely false, one can potentially damage the user and the other is damaging LN's reputation with lies. I'll watch out for more..  

It's not self-moderated thread, so anyone can mention another user who they think spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board. What @Bitcoin Smith also said doesn't make sense to me either. But i expect @dkbit98 can give acceptable reasoning why he think LN is centralized, so i'll wait him to reply about it either on this or that thread.

[Bitcoin Smith]

User: Bitcoin Smith

But my question was mostly just technical - to better understand these things. So far I haven't parted with a single SAT yet. I don't trade or anything like that.

Yes the trail breaks when you transfer Munn to Speed via LN because it's happening offline and only who control the entry as well as exit nodes can link that if they want to and it is almost impossible via chain analysis to link back the transfer with KYCed address unless you reuse the address again to link with any KYCed funds again.

Obviously wrong as LN does no such thing and it is not designed to do this.

What @Bitcoin Smith also said doesn't make sense to me either.

I still don't think what I said is false information, I haven't said the OP to use LN to mix his coins in this way but when he send from one to another and withdraw it to a different unused address then it is almost impossible to link with the origin of the trail and that's what I used exactly the word 'almost impossible' and the only way to link is to have access to LN nodes and where the funds are routed through. SO if that's wrong then I need an explanation why I am wrong and I am happy to learn though cause that's what this place is about. But just saying in many ways doesn't prove my statement is wrong.

[Satofan44]

I still don't think what I said is false information, I haven't said the OP to use LN to mix his coins in this way but when he send from one to another and withdraw it to a different unused address then it is almost impossible to link with the origin of the trail and that's what I used exactly the word 'almost impossible' and the only way to link is to have access to LN nodes and where the funds are routed through. SO if that's wrong then I need an explanation why I am wrong and I am happy to learn though cause that's what this place is about. But just saying in many ways doesn't prove my statement is wrong.

If you don't know something, you should not write about it. Especially not in the technical boards. I tried to make a really good reply there and had you read it before writing yours, you would know you are wrong. Responding to a thread without reading other replies usually means you are a spammer. Further, you could just read also the research paper that I linked afterwards too but instead you are busy writing more posts.   Your statement is a lie, using the word almost does not excuse you from it.

--snip--
Is one post enough? In both cases the information is extremely false, one can potentially damage the user and the other is damaging LN's reputation with lies. I'll watch out for more..  

It's not self-moderated thread, so anyone can mention another user who they think spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board. What @Bitcoin Smith also said doesn't make sense to me either.

I get it now I think. You report people that you think deserve to be tagged for this, and if someone who does that agrees with your post they will do it on their own. Did I get it right? I also wanted to ask about something else. I've seen many members here tagged as AI spammers. Isn't that something that a user would get banned for?

But i expect @dkbit98 can give acceptable reasoning why he think LN is centralized, so i'll wait him to reply about it either on this or that thread.

I have tagged Bitcoin Smith then, and I'll give dkbit more time but I don't think there is any way to justify this position. As part of the LN challenge, I recently opened a channel with a random node of an unknown person. I interacted with LN, I closed the channel without anybody's interference or knowledge. There is not a single part of LN that is centralized. Even if the node or channel topology looked centralized, that does not make the protocol centralized. That does not give someone centralizing powers either.

[Bitcoin Smith]

If you don't know something, you should not write about it. Especially not in the technical boards.

I believe bitcointalk is still a discussion forum where users share and learn but gatekeeping and being dismissive is not gonna be helpful for anyone either.

I tried to make a really good reply there and had you read it before writing yours, you would know you are wrong.

Yes, you made a good reply which I read but that's not OP was asking, he was asking about LN and privacy and your reply concentrated moving to Monero if privacy is the priority factor. And my point is clear though when funds transferred between LN and withdrew to unused bitcoin address it is not traceable and that's what I had in my mind and if you are someone who can prove that is wrong, I am not dismissing that as long as it's valid with clear explanation.

Responding to a thread without reading other replies usually means you are a spammer.

Then you must read every replies that's posted here to distinguish yourself.

Further, you could just read also the research paper that I linked afterwards too but instead you are busy writing more posts.   Your statement is a lie, using the word almost does not excuse you from it.

Yes I was busy writing more posts as you were busy with your research(home) work, I am not planning on becoming a dev so reading 26 pages isn't something I am gonna be doing to accept if I am wrong, I am not a narcissist.

[nutildah]

I also wanted to ask about something else. I've seen many members here tagged as AI spammers. Isn't that something that a user would get banned for?

In my opinion, yes. However, AI (ChatGPT & Grok, mostly) hasn't been around for long enough for the forum administration & moderators to decide whether or not copy/pasting AI generated text should be considered plagiarism, which is fair. Additionally, it would be bad if users suspected of posting AI-generated content when they actually weren't got banned. Its sometimes hard to definitively know the difference.

There is not a single part of LN that is centralized. Even if the node or channel topology looked centralized, that does not make the protocol centralized. That does not give someone centralizing powers either.

Philosophically speaking, nothing is _completely_ decentralized, including Bitcoin. Everything has various degrees of centralization -- its an analog scale as opposed to digital. So dkbit98 might have just been saying that LN was "centralized" in his opinion, according to his own standards. He's a fairly intelligent poster & several others around here do indulge in the same kind of linguistic liberties, even when its not agreeable to everyone.

[Satofan44]

I also wanted to ask about something else. I've seen many members here tagged as AI spammers. Isn't that something that a user would get banned for?

In my opinion, yes. However, AI (ChatGPT & Grok, mostly) hasn't been around for long enough for the forum administration & moderators to decide whether or not copy/pasting AI generated text should be considered plagiarism, which is fair. Additionally, it would be bad if users suspected of posting AI-generated content when they actually weren't got banned. Its sometimes hard to definitively know the difference.

That's unfortunate, I hope that changes soon. I mean suspected cases can be left open, but many cases are very clear. Sometimes you can even guess accurately without using any tools to check due to key words used or due to the writing structure used. As an example, nobody in the world uses the word meticulous as often as ChatGPT does.   

There is not a single part of LN that is centralized. Even if the node or channel topology looked centralized, that does not make the protocol centralized. That does not give someone centralizing powers either.

Philosophically speaking, nothing is _completely_ decentralized, including Bitcoin. Everything has various degrees of centralization -- its an analog scale as opposed to digital. So dkbit98 might have just been saying that LN was "centralized" in his opinion, according to his own standards. He's a fairly intelligent poster & several others around here do indulge in the same kind of linguistic liberties, even when its not agreeable to everyone.

Fair enough, that is true and that is how it should be written. That said, absolutist and damaging statements such as his don't belong in that type of threads I would say. It is more for LN discussion threads. As a newbie seeking to establish himself here or seeking very specific help it can be quite off-putting.

[ABCbits]

--snip--

I get it now I think. You report people that you think deserve to be tagged for this, and if someone who does that agrees with your post they will do it on their own.

It's roughly right. Although so far people usually don't bother giving additional tag, despite giving merit to the reference post, this thread or give positive reply to the reference post.

I also wanted to ask about something else. I've seen many members here tagged as AI spammers. Isn't that something that a user would get banned for?

Some member who mentioned in this thread suspcted using AI/chatbot. But AFAIK the reason they got banned isn't due to AI/chatbot usage, but due to massive general spam, SEO spam, plagiarism or other violation.

What @Bitcoin Smith also said doesn't make sense to me either.

I still don't think what I said is false information, I haven't said the OP to use LN to mix his coins in this way but when he send from one to another and withdraw it to a different unused address then it is almost impossible to link with the origin of the trail and that's what I used exactly the word 'almost impossible' and the only way to link is to have access to LN nodes and where the funds are routed through. SO if that's wrong then I need an explanation why I am wrong and I am happy to learn though cause that's what this place is about. But just saying in many ways doesn't prove my statement is wrong.

In that case, do you mind answer question about your statement that i psoted on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5546439.msg65485015#msg65485015?

[ABCbits]

User: BADecker

Additional information (optional):
* I strongly recommend all readers to ignore this user forever.

List of post:

You sound scared. Are you scared? ALL encryption is under attack by quantum light. But if this advancement is used with Bitcoin - not against it - think of how strong Bitcoin could become.

1. Bitcoin doesn't even use encryption cryptography.
2. Not all encryption cryptography is under risk of quantum computer (QC) existence. https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/7869 give technical explanation why AES-256 encryption is secure against QC.

If Bitcoin devs don't add a much larger size to the hashes being produced now, the whole Bitcoin will be overrun by the QL computer soon.

1. When people talk about QC risk on Bitcoin, they refer to it's signature cryptography (ECDSA with secp256k1 curve) rather than it's hashing cryptography (RIPEMD-160 and SHA-256).
2. QC risk against SHA-256 is deemed impractical, see https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/59390.

[ABCbits]

User: Triskel Data

Additional information (optional):
* SEO spammer.

List of post:



Thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5548040.msg65524720#msg65524720
Archived link: https://ninjastic.space/topic/5548040

1. The website link barely talks about Bitcoin.
2. The image link isn't related with Bitcoin.
3. There's no correlation between block size and energy used to mine a block. In short, energy used to mine a block affected by ASIC miner use and mining difficulty.
4. Claim of faster TX speed/latency is pointless without mentioning time to compress and decompress.

This is a new kind of SEO spam on technical board, where it appears legit on first glance. There are other questionable/false technical information on that thread, but i wouldn't bother to mention all of it.

[Ivystar5]

I have question here on this thread regarding the tagging !

If someone has limited technical knowledge does that mean the person should not post there ? because I don't really have technical knowledge to a great extent but I'm practicalising and learn at my own pase this thread seem to be prohibiting me from posting there because I could have complicated understanding of a subject and make a post about it to get tagged.

Even though neutral tag isn't something too bad but should one be afraid of the technical board because of the few who already knows about the technicality of bitcoin?

[Zaguru12]

I have question here on this thread regarding the tagging !

If someone has limited technical knowledge does that mean the person should not post there ? because I don't really have technical knowledge to a great extent but I'm practicalising and learn at my own pase this thread seem to be prohibiting me from posting there because I could have complicated understanding of a subject and make a post about it to get tagged.

Even though neutral tag isn't something too bad but should one be afraid of the technical board because of the few who already knows about the technicality of bitcoin?

First of all when you don’t have knowledge about a thing I think the best thing is to never say anything concerning that thing except you’re learning something and wants to ask questions. Secondly if your technical knowledge isn’t that high enough you can still answer questions on the technical board or join conversation but on subjects you have little knowledge about you can simply just make your posts looks like you’re open to discussion with phrases like “base on your understanding or knowledge” this will certainly be corrected if it is wrong and will help both you and the others to understand more.

What I see on this thread is members spreading misinformation with maybe certainty in their statement. The technical board is certainly for everyone and not necessarily technical experts

[Satofan44]

If someone has limited technical knowledge does that mean the person should not post there ?

Yes, please don't post answers to technical questions when you do not have sufficient information to answer said questions.

because I don't really have technical knowledge to a great extent but I'm practicalising and learn at my own pase this thread seem to be prohibiting me from posting there because I could have complicated understanding of a subject and make a post about it to get tagged.

In most cases this will cause more harm than good, so don't do it. Stick to general discussion threads or simpler threads.

[ABCbits]

If someone has limited technical knowledge does that mean the person should not post there ? because I don't really have technical knowledge to a great extent but I'm practicalising and learn at my own pase this thread seem to be prohibiting me from posting there because I could have complicated understanding of a subject and make a post about it to get tagged.

Asking question is perfectly fine, no matter your degree of knowledge. But if you intend to help someone, i would suggest you to give answer that you're fairly sure it's right and exclude detail that you're not fairly sure is correct.

[Ivystar5]

If someone has limited technical knowledge does that mean the person should not post there ? because I don't really have technical knowledge to a great extent but I'm practicalising and learn at my own pase this thread seem to be prohibiting me from posting there because I could have complicated understanding of a subject and make a post about it to get tagged.

Asking question is perfectly fine, no matter your degree of knowledge. But if you intend to help someone, i would suggest you to give answer that you're fairly sure it's right and exclude detail that you're not fairly sure is correct.

Quite comprehensive but then I feel like it has scared a lot of people away in my opinion.

Was literally reading some post there and I see that the decrease in posting over there changed from when this thread was created.

Anyways ima try my best to only converse where my knowledge is sufficient and leave the rest to those who knows but if I see that no one is out there responding to the messages I will recommend resource to read and leave the thread. That should be cool

[ABCbits]

--snip--

Quite comprehensive but then I feel like it has scared a lot of people away in my opinion.

Was literally reading some post there and I see that the decrease in posting over there changed from when this thread was created.

Your opinion makes sense. But personally i'd rather see less activity than reading more technical non-sense.

Anyways ima try my best to only converse where my knowledge is sufficient and leave the rest to those who knows but if I see that no one is out there responding to the messages I will recommend resource to read and leave the thread. That should be cool

In most cases, that's fine.

[kotajikikox]

If someone has limited technical knowledge does that mean the person should not post there ? because I don't really have technical knowledge to a great extent but I'm practicalising and learn at my own pase this thread seem to be prohibiting me from posting there because I could have complicated understanding of a subject and make a post about it to get tagged.

Asking question is perfectly fine, no matter your degree of knowledge. But if you intend to help someone, i would suggest you to give answer that you're fairly sure it's right and exclude detail that you're not fairly sure is correct.

Quite comprehensive but then I feel like it has scared a lot of people away in my opinion.

Was literally reading some post there and I see that the decrease in posting over there changed from when this thread was created.

Anyways ima try my best to only converse where my knowledge is sufficient and leave the rest to those who knows but if I see that no one is out there responding to the messages I will recommend resource to read and leave the thread. That should be cool

If we want to learn, I believe we should partake in the discussion nonetheless. There is a difference between acting like an expert and just genuinely curious and eager to learn. There might be newbies who feel quite scared to post under a thread because they do not have sufficient knowledge about the matter but if they do want to ask a question and further expand the discussion then they should participate anyway,

The problem is some people only participate for the sake of adding more posts even if the post does not make that much sense. There should be no shame in admitting we do not understand something and therefore would want to know about it more.