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

[nutildah]

Fuck you you ruined my all hardwork.

Your plan was very stupid. It never would have worked. I saved you time by letting you know now instead of others letting you know later.

[Nheer]

Your plan was very stupid. It never would have worked. I saved you time by letting you know now instead of others letting you know later.

Very stupid indeed and the guy has been f**cking the entire forum ever since. can't stop laughing 

From his name seems this is what he loves to do

[Liocen]

Going to mention this guy here for a proper tag:

Liocen

A pure merit farmer account, probably the 10th account started by the same person. They were a self-professed newbie in July but are now summarizing complicated Bitcoin script ideas with what I suspect is purposefully-mangled AI text.

In an effort to control and make Bitcoin transactions more secure, developers have created a script called Covenant Script. Covenant Script is a scripting concept that can restrict the future use of Bitcoin’s UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output).
Normally, when you send Bitcoin, that output can be spent by anyone in a future transaction — if they provide the correct signature.
But with Covenant, you can say:
“This output can only be spent in the future on this specific script, or this specific type of output.”
Thus, Covenant imposes a “rule” or “condition” that controls the natural free flow of Bitcoin.

Although Covenant scripts (such as the OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CAT, or OP_TXHASH proposed codes) enable a new generation of scaling and privacy tools such as Ark, Vault, and Channel Factory,
some people are still hesitant to use them due to their risks or controversial aspects.

They explain the following conclusions about its risks_
▫️ Since Covenant allows anyone to create scripts that force transactions to be sent to specific addresses or conditions.
This allows governments or large organizations to create policy-enforced address lists and apply “whitelists/blacklists”.
If Covenant is used incorrectly, the fungibility and independence of Bitcoin can be damaged.
▫️ If Covenant is designed incorrectly, “recursive” or repetitive covenants can be created —
that is, a Covenant will continue to impose the Covenant on subsequent UTXOs, acting as a kind of self-propagating script.
Unexpected script loops can be created in the network,
node verification can become complicated,
even “locked output” (stale coins) can be created on the blockchain.
▫️ Using Covenants makes some transaction patterns “predictable” —
such as Ark or Vault transactions having to be in a specific format.
Although this increases privacy, analysts will be able to identify Covenant-type outputs.
▫️Every new Opcode or Covenant type change means adding new rules to the consensus layer.
If all nodes or miners do not agree, then a chain split (soft fork contention) can occur.

As pointed out by Satofan44:

They explain the following conclusions about its risks_
▫️ Since Covenant allows anyone to create scripts that force transactions to be sent to specific addresses or conditions.
This allows governments or large organizations to create policy-enforced address lists and apply “whitelists/blacklists”.
If Covenant is used incorrectly, the fungibility and independence of Bitcoin can be damaged.

This is nonsense and not a valid concern. The government and organizations already do this. Private companies can also do this. The way it is done is by centralized methods. All covenants would do is improve all of these existing methods, that are already used, and make them decentralized.

▫️ If Covenant is designed incorrectly, “recursive” or repetitive covenants can be created —
that is, a Covenant will continue to impose the Covenant on subsequent UTXOs, acting as a kind of self-propagating script.

If any upgrade is designed incorrectly it can cause small to catastrophic issues, this is not something that is convenant specific.

Covenant Script Modern Upgrade or New Vulnerability Door? We would like your valuable opinion on this.

Don't ask LLMs like ChatGPT about advanced subjects like this. They respond with generic concerns with have many flaws if analyzed well, they hallucinate all the time. Stop relying on them.

The emdashes are a big giveaway that AI was used in the creation of the post. But the edits they made to avoid detection render the post largely unreadable. And obviously its not totally AI because AI wouldn't write something this stupid:

So is Covenant dangerous?
Not at all, Covenant itself is not dangerous,
But it is dangerous if the user uses it dangerously.

And I kind wonder who "we" is:

Covenant Script Modern Upgrade or New Vulnerability Door? We would like your valuable opinion on this.

This was their excuse:

Satofan44, I don't know if you considered my post as given by AI. But I read some recent articles about Covenant Script where various people mentioned various positive and ethical aspects. In that case, I also observed deeply and realized that the matter is not a concern at all but it has played a major role in the proper management of money management. There are many people in our forum who are much more knowledgeable than many on this subject. I only presented my own thoughts to get their opinions so that if I am wrong somewhere, I can correct them. If you think that these are created by AI (ChatGpt), then you can check. nutildah sir, you may have given me Neutral Trust based on this opinion of Satofan44 but I never prepared this post of mine by ChatGpt.

Its hard to read this without thinking you're having some kind of stroke. He didn't really say anything other than "this is my opinion."

To @Liocen: stop making new accounts. You are so concerned with getting merits and ranking up that you have neglected to learn pretty much anything about Bitcoin. Nobody is going to be impressed if you take something AI wrote for you and change the wording, grammar and punctuation so much that its barely understandable, especially not in the Dev & Tech Discussion board. It is obvious this isn't your own text, please stop lying.

Dear nutildah, don't get me wrong, I have been given Neutral Trust for posting using artificial intelligence. But I did not write anything using artificial intelligence in my post. I was curious about the subject, so I read some articles, many people commented on them, and I mentioned those parts in the post where I was confused. I did not say anything that defames anyone or anything. I just posted to learn. If it is not a crime for newbies to be interested in learning, then please remove the Neutral Trust.

[nutildah]

Ooh... the plot thickens. I thought Mr. Seducer was this guy's alt but apparently he's someone entirely different.

I just posted to learn.

What? This makes no sense.

If you want to learn, stop posting and start reading. Can you learn while speaking? No. This is the same reason why you can't learn while posting.

Here's what I'll do: continue your Bitcointalk journey. After six months, if you can demonstrate that you have LEARNED something using your own brain (and have stopped with the silly merit farming posts in WO and elsewhere), I will remove the tag.

This is a very generous offer from me because I'm certain you already have other accounts on this forum. You can't change my mind about that.

[ABCbits]

Fuck you you ruined my all hardwork.

Your plan was very stupid. It never would have worked. I saved you time by letting you know now instead of others letting you know later.

Weird you're the one who got blamed twice[1-2], when another user is the one who discover possible connection between 2 account.

[1] https://ninjastic.space/post/65911205
[2] https://ninjastic.space/post/65911179


User: Xun hu

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive multiple accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65841781#msg65841781 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65906318#msg65906318.

List of post:

I have a python script that can pull all the RSZ and pubkeys from an addresses out going transactions. the only input is the address.



it took me a long time to get it perfected.

worth anything to anyone??

Hey, for high-activity addresses, batching scans and parallelizing can save a lot of time, but watch out for RPC or API limits to avoid throttling memory management is keykeeping a cache for seen inputs and streaming results to disk prevents overload, especially on busy addresses.  
always validate your extracted RSZ and pubkeys against decoded TX hexes from a node or testnet. logging intermediate results helps catch mismatches and confirm accuracy. the collected data can also power research like transaction clustering, pattern detection, or analytics dashboards. timestamped logs make everything reproducible and easier to debug.
 
One last thing: mass collection of pubkeys has privacy implications. If testing on mainnet, include disclaimers and be mindful of sensitive patterns. Balancing speed, memory, and validation while staying responsible is the best way to handle complex addresses.

1. Off-topic/unhelpful since @mrnimbus only ask whether his script is worth/useful for other person and doesn't ask for advice.
2. Mentioning privacy implication when collecting pubkey is rather weird, when Bitcoin blockchain is publicly available for everyone.

solid goal

No need for fancy APIs your full node itself is a goldmine grab blocks via bitcoin-cli getblock, pick the fields you care about (height, timestamp, tx count), dump a few hundred into a CSV or lightweight DB, then chart with Plotly/Grafana
start small, watch patterns emerge, and you’ll soon see things no API can show mempool waves, dust floods, or fee spikes straight from your node.

RPC docs are your roadmap: https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/rpc/

trust me once your node feeds your charts, the blockchain suddenly feels alive

For context, the goal is "Visualizing Bitcoin On-Chain Data". This suggestion isn't very helpful, since Bitcoin Core doesn't have address index or other index that can be used to obtain necessary data quickly for data visualization.

Firstly, we should explore some wallets to check their interface so that we can choose a more user-friendly interface. In this case, research the wallet reviews and community feedback to judge its reputation.

Secondly, we should choose a recovery-friendly wallet, meaning if anyone loses access to the wallet, there should be an easy recovery option.

Thirdly, we need to choose a wallet that supports our preferred coin.

Finally, security is the most important feature. There must be 2-factor authentication and encryption options to double-secure our valuable wallet.

Thank you for reading the post.

1. This thread initial posted on Development & Technical Discussion board. So those general suggestion aren't exactly helpful for those who visit this board.
2. 2FA feature usually available on web wallet, shared custodial wallet or custodial service, where it may pose more security risk or involve 3rd party which may not be desirable for one's security.


User: Liocen

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive at least one accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg65910655#msg65910655.

List of post:

I have a Mycelium wallet on Android, which works fine. But when I import the seed into Electrum, not all addresses show up. I see incoming transactions from 2020, but I don't see incoming transactions from 2025. I do however see the change that came from sending the transactions received in 2025!
Just in case, I tried increasing the gap limit to 500+, but that didn't help. All addresses are native Segwit addresses, so I'd expect all of them to use the same derivation path.
I now have Bitcoin in Mycelium that doesn't show up in Electrum using the same seed, and that doesn't feel right.

Any ideas where to start searching for a cause?

This issue is mainly caused by the difference in derivation path
Although you said that “all addresses are native SegWit”, Mycelium and Electrum sometimes use different derivation paths.
The default path for native SegWit (bech32) in Electrum is:

m/84’/0’/0’/0

But Mycelium in some versions (especially older or multi-account versions) can use any of the following paths:
m/44’/0’/0’ → legacy (1… address)
m/49’/0’/0’ → nested SegWit (3… address)
m/84’/0’/0’ → native SegWit (bc1… address)

Or a custom path if you have created multiple accounts. For example

m/84’/0’/1’ m/84’/0’/2’ m/84’/0’/3

When you import a seed into Electrum, it only scans addresses on one path. So even though transactions from 2020 are visible, if new receive addresses from 2025 are created on a different path, Electrum will not scan them.
Possible solution to the problem:
By checking the derivation path in Mycelium:
Go to the “Accounts” section in Mycelium and tap on your active account.
If you go to “Account Info” or “Export” → “Show XPUB”, you will see the Extended Public Key (xpub/zpub).
Copy that zpub.
Create a new wallet with a custom derivation path in Electrum
Open Electrum → File → New/Restore
“Standard wallet” → “I already have a seed” → enter your seed → “Options” → check “BIP39 seed”
Then enter the Mycelium path in “Derivation path” (e.g. m/84’/0’/1’ etc., multiple attempts may be required)
After the wallet is created, check if the missing balance is visible.
XPUB comparison:
Go to Electrum’s “Wallet → Information” and check xpub/zpub, and match it with Mycelium’s.
If different → you are using the wrong derivation path.

You have decided to increase the gap limit, but it will only take effect if the derivation path is correct.

1. This post is unhelpful according to the one who asked question, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5561541.msg65893053#msg65893053.
2. Mentioning derivation path of legacy/P2PKH and nested segwit/P2SH-P2WPKH address when the one who asked question already mentioned all address is native segwit.
3. XPUB comparison doesn't make sense when his previous guidance is importing extended public key rather than BIP39 words/seed.

In an effort to control and make Bitcoin transactions more secure, developers have created a script called Covenant Script. Covenant Script is a scripting concept that can restrict the future use of Bitcoin’s UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output).
Normally, when you send Bitcoin, that output can be spent by anyone in a future transaction — if they provide the correct signature.
But with Covenant, you can say:
“This output can only be spent in the future on this specific script, or this specific type of output.”
Thus, Covenant imposes a “rule” or “condition” that controls the natural free flow of Bitcoin.

Although Covenant scripts (such as the OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CAT, or OP_TXHASH proposed codes) enable a new generation of scaling and privacy tools such as Ark, Vault, and Channel Factory,
some people are still hesitant to use them due to their risks or controversial aspects.

They explain the following conclusions about its risks_
▫️ Since Covenant allows anyone to create scripts that force transactions to be sent to specific addresses or conditions.
This allows governments or large organizations to create policy-enforced address lists and apply “whitelists/blacklists”.
If Covenant is used incorrectly, the fungibility and independence of Bitcoin can be damaged.
▫️ If Covenant is designed incorrectly, “recursive” or repetitive covenants can be created —
that is, a Covenant will continue to impose the Covenant on subsequent UTXOs, acting as a kind of self-propagating script.
Unexpected script loops can be created in the network,
node verification can become complicated,
even “locked output” (stale coins) can be created on the blockchain.
▫️ Using Covenants makes some transaction patterns “predictable” —
such as Ark or Vault transactions having to be in a specific format.
Although this increases privacy, analysts will be able to identify Covenant-type outputs.
▫️Every new Opcode or Covenant type change means adding new rules to the consensus layer.
If all nodes or miners do not agree, then a chain split (soft fork contention) can occur.

So is Covenant dangerous?
Not at all, Covenant itself is not dangerous,
But it is dangerous if the user uses it dangerously. Moreover, it is powerful.
Just as caution is required when using powerful tools, proper security design and setting limits are essential in the case of Covenant.

Developers working on Covenant have proposed different versions to see if this capability can be added without breaking the consensus rules of Bitcoin Core. For example-
Jeremy Rubin proposed “OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV)”
Gleb Naumenko proposed “OP_TXHASH or TXHASH”

Covenant Script Modern Upgrade or New Vulnerability Door? We would like your valuable opinion on this.

1. Bitcoin UTXO actually can be spend if the TX provide appropriate ScriptSig. It can be something else other than providing correct signature, such as providing multiple expected signature or creating the TX after certain block height.
2. OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CAT and OP_TXHASH are just bunch of OPCODES. It's not part of covenant itself and have other potential usage.
3. Other issue with this thread already stated by other member on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5561784.msg65900263#msg65900263.

[Liocen]

Ooh... the plot thickens. I thought Mr. Seducer was this guy's alt but apparently he's someone entirely different.

I just posted to learn.

What? This makes no sense.

If you want to learn, stop posting and start reading. Can you learn while speaking? No. This is the same reason why you can't learn while posting.

Here's what I'll do: continue your Bitcointalk journey. After six months, if you can demonstrate that you have LEARNED something using your own brain (and have stopped with the silly merit farming posts in WO and elsewhere), I will remove the tag.

This is a very generous offer from me because I'm certain you already have other accounts on this forum. You can't change my mind about that.

I'm sorry 😓 I didn't understand. If I understood, I wouldn't have posted like a fool. If I understood, I would never have posted. After I came to the forum, I thought that I could express my thoughts, if there was any mistake, those who know will teach me, especially those who are reputed members. And I'm really not an alternative to anyone, if I were, I wouldn't have posted like this.
Anyway, I posted on the technical board as a newbie, it was my mistake. I should have been more restrained,,, I learned from this mistake and realized that there is no room for mistakes here. Thank you nutildah and those who informed me about this matter. I learned a lot.
Now, what are the things that I should definitely pay attention to if I want to be in the forum? Apart from this mistake, what other things should I avoid? Please advise.

[LoyceV]

I'm sorry 😓 I didn't understand. If I understood, I wouldn't have posted like a fool. If I understood, I would never have posted. After I came to the forum, I thought that I could express my thoughts

Comparing the things you type on your own to the things you copy from a chatbot nicely shows your lack of writing skills. But you're still not being honest: if you wanted to express your thoughts, you wouldn't have used a chatbot.

[nutildah]

And I'm really not an alternative to anyone, if I were, I wouldn't have posted like this.

C'mon man, that's obviously bullshit. You started posting on July 28th and on that same day you posted this in the WO thread:

If it's for fun🙂

                                                                 MERIT SOURCE COMPLAINTS DEPT:


USER COMPLAINT (please be brief):  __________Why didn't they welcome me (the future legend) 😌._______________

So when (actual) newbies from your local section join the forum, do they get some advice like "try to suck up for merits in the WO thread in order to rank up quickly"? I'm guessing they do not, but if they do, that is some of the worst advice ever. Its a surefire way to retard your potential as a forum member.

Now, what are the things that I should definitely pay attention to if I want to be in the forum? Apart from this mistake, what other things should I avoid? Please advise.

Avoid lying.

[ABCbits]

User: TotallyTech

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use AI/chatbot, especially becuase he created 8 long posts in less than 1 hour.
* This user also receive at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65923571#msg65923571.

List of post:

Hi All,

I'm pretty confused (although that is easy to do)

I changed my sharing settings to share the internet v ia ethernet cable to another computer, and Bitcoin Core crashed.

I restarted the computer + Bitcoin Core, and although BitcoinCore said it was 'syncing', the next day it appears to have downloaded all the data again.

However, this time it has downloaded it somewhere on my internal drive (which I have checked is now circa 700Gb more full).

The strange thing is that I cannot find where the blocks have been downloaded to. I've tried searching for the blocks themselves e.g. blk00008.dat but cannot find them. And there is nothing at ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin" or here "/Users/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin

I cannot find any installation of Bitcoin on my computer as I moved everything to an external hard drive.

Has changing the network setting on the mac redirected Bitcoin core to install somewhere else entirely?

Many thanks

S

Yes, changing your network settings on macOS can inadvertently redirect Bitcoin Core's data storage location, especially if you've moved your installation to an external drive. Here's how to locate and manage your Bitcoin Core data:

1. Verify Bitcoin Core's Data Directory

Bitcoin Core typically stores its data in the following default directory:


~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin


To access this folder:

Open Finder.

Press Command + Shift + G to open the "Go to Folder" dialog.

Enter the path above and press Return.

If you've configured Bitcoin Core to use a custom data directory, the location might differ. To confirm the current data directory:

Launch Terminal.

Run the following command:

  defaults read org.bitcoin.Bitcoin-Qt datadir


This command will display the path to the data directory Bitcoin Core is currently using.

2. Check for Disk Space Usage

To determine where the blockchain data is stored and how much space it's occupying:

Open Disk Utility (found in Applications > Utilities).

Select your external drive from the list on the left.

Click on the "Info" button (i) to see detailed information about the drive, including the amount of used and available space.

If the external drive is nearly full, it's possible that Bitcoin Core has started using your internal drive for additional storage.

3. Locate Blockchain Files

The blockchain files are typically stored in the blocks directory within the Bitcoin Core data directory. To find these files:

Navigate to the Bitcoin Core data directory (as identified earlier).

Look for a folder named blocks.

Inside the blocks folder, you'll find files like blk00000.dat, blk00001.dat, etc., which contain the blockchain data.

4. Ensure Correct Data Directory Usage

If you want to ensure Bitcoin Core uses a specific data directory (e.g., on your external drive):

Open Terminal.

Stop Bitcoin Core if it's running.

Run the following command to start Bitcoin Core with the desired data directory:

  /Applications/Bitcoin-Qt.app/Contents/MacOS/Bitcoin-Qt -datadir="/path/to/your/external/drive/Bitcoin"


Replace "/path/to/your/external/drive/Bitcoin" with the actual path to your desired data directory.

This command will launch Bitcoin Core using the specified data directory, ensuring all data is stored on your external drive.

Changing network setting on macOS does not change where Bitcoin Core store blockchain data.

What you're describing here is not atomic.

You've reintroduced a trusted third party. "Charlie signs a note that itemId+creator maps to H/txid" is just escrow by reputation. The game client gives you no verifiable link between the traded object and a Bitcoin preimage before the trade. Blizzard can roll back trades, duplicate items, or ban accounts. An addon can't provide a binding commitment. PGP proves Charlie spoke. It does not prove the item will reveal the preimage, or that the specific item traded is the one Charlie described.

True atomicity would require the game to emit a signed, publicly verifiable receipt for the exact trade (or a TEE attestation) that can be used as a Bitcoin adaptor signature or HTLC trigger.

You're correct in asserting that merely having a trusted party (like Charlie) sign a note linking an in-game item to a Bitcoin preimage doesn't establish a truly atomic transaction. This approach introduces a reliance on reputation and doesn't provide verifiable proof that the specific item traded corresponds to the Bitcoin preimage. To achieve true atomicity in such trades, the game would need to emit a signed, publicly verifiable receipt for the exact trade, or utilize a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) attestation.

A notable example of integrating TEEs with blockchain technology is the Ekiden project. Ekiden combines blockchains with TEEs to enable confidentiality-preserving smart contracts. By leveraging TEEs, Ekiden ensures that the execution of smart contracts remains private and secure, while still benefiting from the blockchain's integrity guarantees. This approach addresses the critical gaps in current blockchain systems by providing both confidentiality and performance improvements.
arXiv

Implementing such a system in a game would allow for the creation of verifiable receipts or attestations for in-game item trades. These receipts could then be used as Bitcoin adaptor signatures or HTLC triggers, ensuring that the trade is atomic and secure. This would eliminate the need for a trusted third party and provide a verifiable link between the traded item and the Bitcoin preimage.

In summary, while the current approach relies on trust and doesn't provide verifiable proof, integrating TEE-backed smart contracts could enable true atomic trades in games, ensuring security and confidentiality.

1. Off-topic/shilling attempt, since the thread is specifically talks about Bitcoin atomic swap.
2. The discussion use assumption there's no change/support from the game itself, so mentioning implementation on the game isn't exactly helpful.

[ABCbits]

User: Eddriod

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use AI/chatbot.

List of post:

Lately, I’ve been diving deep into the mechanics of how mnemonic phrases actually protect digital assets, and I’ve come to a realization that feels fascinating and unsettling, the entire security model of a mnemonic is nothing more than a bet against time and computing power.

🔹 The Foundation of Mnemonic Security

A 12–24 word mnemonic phrase is not inherently “secure” because of some magical encryption; it’s secure because we don’t have enough computing power or time to test every possible combination in a reasonable window.

Each word in a mnemonic represents 11 bits of entropy, and a 24-word mnemonic carries 256 bits in total. That’s so astronomically large that even with every supercomputer combined, you wouldn’t scratch the surface in millions of years, with today’s computing limits.

🔹 Security Through Delay

I like to call this concept “security through delay.”
It’s the idea that the only thing stopping someone from brute forcing a mnemonic is the delay imposed by computation time.

Once that barrier falls, due to advancements in distributed systems, GPU parallelization, or quantum computing, the walls protecting mnemonic-based wallets thin drastically.

🔹 My Experiment: Simulating Mnemonic Testing

Out of curiosity (and for educational purposes), I wrote a Node.js script that can generate random mnemonic combinations and validate them against checksum patterns and also iterate possible phrases with as little as one word know with exact position amongst the 12/24 words essentially simulating what a brute-force attempt would look like in a constrained environment.

The code doesn’t hack anything — it just explores how wallets derive from mnemonic entropy and how computationally expensive it is to validate each phrase through checksum rules.

Here’s what I learned from the process:

1. Even one missing word multiplies the time cost exponentially. Recovering a 24-word mnemonic with even 1 unknown word is computationally monstrous.

2. Checksum validation narrows the space, but not enough to be practical.
The checksum eliminates invalid combinations, but not nearly enough to make brute-forcing viable.


3. Parallelization helps, but only marginally.
Even when distributing across threads or GPUs, time remains the ultimate limiting factor.

This experiment made clear, the safety of your mnemonic phrase doesn’t lie in a secret algorithm, it lies in the absence of sufficient computing power to test all possibilities within your lifetime.

Until the balance between entropy and computation shifts, time remains the unsung guardian of our digital wealth.

1. Another user give some explanation what's wrong with this post on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562819.msg65941327#msg65941327 (https://ninjastic.space/post/65941327)
2. There's no encryption involved on BIP39, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki.


User: LeTH3knXoDArzm

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use AI/chatbot.

List of post:

I think you forgot that - I talk for Electrum - there's that 100,000 sha256 rounds -, that make unfeasible to even think to put in practice the brute force. Other wallets that got mnemonics probably got some security mechanism in place also.

Another user give some explanation what's wrong with this post on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562819.msg65944150#msg65944150 (https://ninjastic.space/post/65944150).

Edit: this user explained his mistake with some details on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5562819.msg65954660#msg65954660, so i decide to remove the neutral tag.

[Liocen]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I was ready to prove myself. But you unnecessarily considered me negative. ABCbits and nutildah you gave me negative trags only because I wanted to know something on the technical board. So should I assume that no questions can be asked on the BitcoinTalk forum? Can't make even the slightest mistake? Or there is no helper who can correct someone's mistake?
Initially, when I came to the forum, I was very happy, I also saw a specific local board of my community. There, two contests were also organized after I came. I have never done food carving in my life but seeing my fellow travelers, I became interested in doing food carving and later when another contest was organized on the occasion of our Victory Day, I also drew a picture there, only inspired by the activities of the forum members.
I thought that this is another world of the internet where I can learn something extraordinary along with learning something ordinary. But I did not know that making mistakes is not normal here. I don't know what goes on here and in what context the IDs are collected? But I learned this thing that someone can easily suspect another person of being a bad person.
However, whatever I say here, you may not believe it or you may be annoyed.
I think I have not done anything to get a negative tag due to which I have been given a negative tag. And you could have banned me for the mistake I made that such a mistake cannot be made. Because I had no previous idea about the forum. Nutildah and ABCbits, will you forgive the accusation brought against me and remove the negative tag? And if not, tell me that I will not come to the forum again. Because I have no previous experience about the forum, I will ask you a second time and again I will get a negative tag from you. I am waiting for your answer.

[Satofan44]

I think I have not done anything to get a negative tag due to which I have been given a negative tag. And you could have banned me for the mistake I made that such a mistake cannot be made. Because I had no previous idea about the forum. Nutildah and ABCbits, will you forgive the accusation brought against me and remove the negative tag? And if not, tell me that I will not come to the forum again. Because I have no previous experience about the forum, I will ask you a second time and again I will get a negative tag from you. I am waiting for your answer.

If you have some here to contribute or discuss things it does not matter what kind of tags you have. Feedback is not even visible in the board in question Development & Technical Discussion.

If you care about your tags that means that you are lying about your reasons for being here and are most likely trying to farm merit to join a signature campaign and continue to shitpost.

Do not make AI posts and do not make statements about things that you do not understand. Questions are different from FUD-style statements supported by your personal hallucination of knowledge.

Their tags are not even negative, they are neutral. They will not be removed. Only my tag is negative, but I am not part of default trust and it most certainly will never be removed.

You can stick around with this account and discuss things, or you can try again to farm merit with a new account.  
To nobody's surprise, this one is Nigerian too. 

[TheirEgoAtThePeakLevel]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I was ready to prove myself. But you unnecessarily considered me negative. ABCbits and nutildah you gave me negative trags only because I wanted to know something on the technical board.

How fine?  You never tried to learn anything instead, you just spammed ai generated nonsense and spread fake or misleading information on the tech board.

so you deserved the tag now.

Initially, when I came to the forum, I was very happy, I also saw a specific local board of my community. There, two contests were also organized after I came. I have never done food carving in my life but seeing my fellow travelers, I became interested in doing food carving and later when another contest was organized on the occasion of our Victory Day, I also drew a picture there, only inspired by the activities of the forum members.

You’re still lying. You know this isn’t your only account and you also know the quick merit earning trick . You used ai to take advantage of it and earn merit as much as possible.

I thought that this is another world of the internet where I can learn something extraordinary along with learning something ordinary.

You kept spreading fake and false information with the help of ai without having any practical knowledge. You should be ashamed of that.

Rather than apologizing and admitting you made a mistake by using ai and spreading fake info you are now just trying to provoke the users who left you neutral feedback.

It’s clear that you much care more about your trust ratings for future campaigns than about actually improving your bad habits.

[Liocen]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I was ready to prove myself. But you unnecessarily considered me negative. ABCbits and nutildah you gave me negative trags only because I wanted to know something on the technical board.

How fine?  You never tried to learn anything instead, you just spammed ai generated nonsense and spread fake or misleading information on the tech board.

so you deserved the tag now.

Initially, when I came to the forum, I was very happy, I also saw a specific local board of my community. There, two contests were also organized after I came. I have never done food carving in my life but seeing my fellow travelers, I became interested in doing food carving and later when another contest was organized on the occasion of our Victory Day, I also drew a picture there, only inspired by the activities of the forum members.

You’re still lying. You know this isn’t your only account and you also know the quick merit earning trick . You used ai to take advantage of it and earn merit as much as possible.

I thought that this is another world of the internet where I can learn something extraordinary along with learning something ordinary.

You kept spreading fake and false information with the help of ai without having any practical knowledge. You should be ashamed of that.

Rather than apologizing and admitting you made a mistake by using ai and spreading fake info you are now just trying to provoke the users who left you neutral feedback.

It’s clear that you much care more about your trust ratings for future campaigns than about actually improving your bad habits.

How was my post an AI post? How did you know it was an AI post?
And why don't you understand that if I had previous experience, why would I risk my ID?

[ABCbits]

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I was ready to prove myself. But you unnecessarily considered me negative. ABCbits and nutildah you gave me negative trags only because I wanted to know something on the technical board.

negative

So should I assume that no questions can be asked on the BitcoinTalk forum?

From what i quoted, you're sharing information rather than asking question.

Can't make even the slightest mistake?

From what i quoted, it's more than slight mistake.

Or there is no helper who can correct someone's mistake?

Several member already mention/explain your mistake.

I thought that this is another world of the internet where I can learn something extraordinary along with learning something ordinary. But I did not know that making mistakes is not normal here. I don't know what goes on here and in what context the IDs are collected? But I learned this thing that someone can easily suspect another person of being a bad person.
However, whatever I say here, you may not believe it or you may be annoyed.

Sorry, but i don't understand your question. What do you mean by "the IDs are collected?"?

And you could have banned me for the mistake I made that such a mistake cannot be made.

I'm not moderator, staff or admin, so i don't have permission to ban you.

Nutildah and ABCbits, will you forgive the accusation brought against me and remove the negative tag? And if not, tell me that I will not come to the forum again. Because I have no previous experience about the forum, I will ask you a second time and again I will get a negative tag from you. I am waiting for your answer.

I never give you negative tag. I won't tell you not to come to the forum again either.

[Satofan44]

Bitcoin core V30, knots and op_return all being  a blockchain technology.
Let's not forget the fact that Bitcoin core is being maintained by a group of developers which offcourse makes outstanding. I regard it as Bitcoin protocols reference implementation. Bitcoin core is more budget friendly if I should say and is an open source and very easy to use given an easy and simple less complex features.
Bitcoin knots can also be seen as a resemblance of Bitcoin core because they both have similar features and are both easy and free to use, but the Bitcoin knots focuses on security performances and scalability. It has been built and equipped with more features compared to the Bitcoin core.
Op_ return basically is best especially when it comes to storing high and large data files. Documents that seem to look alike and even identical files or verification status can be very good on the op_return. The op_return cost is usually based on the transaction fees

The merit page says it all. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3652862

[ABCbits]

User: Jaksonhard

Additional information (optional):
* This user also receive at least 2 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66012476#msg66012476 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482297.msg66010698#msg66010698.

List of post:

A 12 word BIP39 seed phrase provides 128 bits of entropy and that's enough.
You can have more words and more entropy. For example, a 24 word BIP39 seed phrase provides 256 bits of entropy, but since any bitcoin private key provides 128 bits of security, you don't really increase your security by generating a seed phrase with more than 12 words.

A 12-word BIP39 seed phrase already gives you 128 bits of entropy, which is considered secure enough to protect a Bitcoin wallet. While you can use longer phrases-like a 24-word seed providing 256 bits of entropy-it doesn't really make your wallet any safer in practice. This is because a Bitcoin private key in itself only requires 128 bits of security to be effectively unbreakable. So, while using more words may feel extra safe, for real-world security 12 words are already enough and very strong.

This post is unhelpful since it mostly rephrase @hosemary post.

Looks like a good path.. Two extra sanity checks I use before letting a watch-only touch the network: try to do things that require keys and confirm hard failure. In Core, dumpwallet should error with "private keys are disabled," and signrawtransactionwithwallet on a dummy tx should refuse to sign.

That's actually a very smart approach. Doing those additional sanity checks before connecting a watch-only wallet to the network can save you from some serious mistakes. Many people overlook such small but crucial steps. Testing commands like dumpwallet and making sure that it fails with "private keys are disabled," or checking that signrawtransactionwithwallet refuses to sign a dummy transaction, really confirms that your setup is secure. Better safe than sorry, especially when it comes to wallets. All this verification means you're just observing funds, not putting them at risk in any way.

And one more tip that might be helpful: PSBTs can leak derivation paths and global xpubs. If you ever hand a PSBT to anything other than your offline box, create it with bip32derivs=false or strip derivs first. That keeps your keys unspilled and your privacy intact.

That’s a very good reminder, actually. Most people don’t know that PSBTs contain some sensitive information regarding derivation paths and global xpubs that can compromise their privacy once shared with online devices or third-party tools. It would be smart to use the setting `bip32derivs=false` or strip the derivation data before sharing. It will ensure that no extra information is leaking about your key structure. It might be a small step, but it can save a lot in keeping your wallet setup private and your security uncompromised, especially in dealing with partially signed Bitcoin transactions across devices.

This post is unhelpful since it mostly agreeing with @flapduck, while also rephrasing @flapduck post.

There are people raising concerns about CP being on the blockchain but people argue that it’s already been technically possible . You can use knots if you have a varying opinion. But the bottomline is that there’s no one true fix to prevent anything no one would want on the blockchain because that will be censorship. How is the blockchain still better than other databases is that those encrypted won’t be as visible to anyone as much as others in other platforms like X or TikTok.

With that said, it is true that the blockchain is not totally impervious to bad actors, and concerns about CP and other illegal or harmful material being stored on it certainly are valid. But people should realize that the blockchain doesn't condone or encourage it it's a decentralized system for recording data in perpetuity. Unlike X or TikTok social platforms where one instantly shares and sometimes publicly views content, anything illegal stored on a blockchain is usually encrypted and inaccessible to normal users. There is no perfect way to prevent misuse without introducing censorship, but the transparency and immutability of blockchain make it so much more reliable and resistant to tampering compared to centralized databases.

1. In reality, most arbitrary data stored on Bitcoin isn't encrrypted and can be seen easily if you use website that support it (such as Ordinal explorer).
2. This post is unhelpful since it mostly rephrase @Furball808 post.

[examplens]

1. In reality, most arbitrary data stored on Bitcoin isn't encrrypted and can be seen easily if you use website that support it (such as Ordinal explorer).
2. This post is unhelpful since it mostly rephrase @Furball808 post.

His posts were apparently rephrased using AI tools. It seems like the worst combination we want to see here. Spam, AI-generated posts, plus can somehow be considered plagiarism

User: Jaksonhard

List of post:

A 12-word BIP39 seed phrase already gives you 128 bits of entropy, which is considered secure enough to protect a Bitcoin wallet. While you can use longer phrases-like a 24-word seed providing 256 bits of entropy-it doesn't really make your wallet any safer in practice. This is because a Bitcoin private key in itself only requires 128 bits of security to be effectively unbreakable. So, while using more words may feel extra safe, for real-world security 12 words are already enough and very strong.

GPTZero says: 96% AI generated, 4% Mixed, 0% Human

That's actually a very smart approach. Doing those additional sanity checks before connecting a watch-only wallet to the network can save you from some serious mistakes. Many people overlook such small but crucial steps. Testing commands like dumpwallet and making sure that it fails with "private keys are disabled," or checking that signrawtransactionwithwallet refuses to sign a dummy transaction, really confirms that your setup is secure. Better safe than sorry, especially when it comes to wallets. All this verification means you're just observing funds, not putting them at risk in any way.

GPTZero says: 99% AI generated, 1% Mixed, 0% Human

That’s a very good reminder, actually. Most people don’t know that PSBTs contain some sensitive information regarding derivation paths and global xpubs that can compromise their privacy once shared with online devices or third-party tools. It would be smart to use the setting `bip32derivs=false` or strip the derivation data before sharing. It will ensure that no extra information is leaking about your key structure. It might be a small step, but it can save a lot in keeping your wallet setup private and your security uncompromised, especially in dealing with partially signed Bitcoin transactions across devices.

GPTZero says: 100% AI generated, 0% Mixed, 0% Human

[nutildah]

Bitcoin core V30, knots and op_return all being  a blockchain technology.
Let's not forget the fact that Bitcoin core is being maintained by a group of developers which offcourse makes outstanding. I regard it as Bitcoin protocols reference implementation. Bitcoin core is more budget friendly if I should say and is an open source and very easy to use given an easy and simple less complex features.
Bitcoin knots can also be seen as a resemblance of Bitcoin core because they both have similar features and are both easy and free to use, but the Bitcoin knots focuses on security performances and scalability. It has been built and equipped with more features compared to the Bitcoin core.
Op_ return basically is best especially when it comes to storing high and large data files. Documents that seem to look alike and even identical files or verification status can be very good on the op_return. The op_return cost is usually based on the transaction fees

The merit page says it all. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3652862

Just for the record, I got a PM from this user asking if I would reconsider my neutral tag. I am updating it to make it less harsh but this is clearly an account farmer who is rushing too quickly to rank up his accounts. I wouldn't surprise if he has alts that participate in the same contests this account does. Like, really read the above-quoted post to get a sense of how bad this user's posts are. Just seems like a bunch of loosely-given opinions that were manufactured on the fly in a hard-to-read format. This is why I'm against using AI for grammar as well... it would simply transform a poorly articulated shitpost into a polished shitpost.

[ABCbits]

User: Mhassan38

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

Sounds like you’re asking about how to build a bitcoin explorer if I get your question  clear, What you just need to do is to activate the full transaction index by adding txindex=1 to your bitcoin.conf parse all the history data and dump it in a database then you’ll keep track of new transactions data on your own database as blocks comes with blocknotify or real-time with with ZMQ notifications.

1. This post is unhelpful, since the one who asked question never mention he want to build or create a Bitcoin explorer. He only he tried using block explorer to get raw block data without success.
2. Even if the the one who asked question wish to build his own Bitcoin block explorer, suggest to run or modify existing open-source block explorer (such as https://github.com/mempool/mempool) usually is better suggestion.

I have trouble about this seed phase, many crypto wallet I have opened before got lost because of seed phase, can't this seed phase be removed from wallet and allow pass key or some codes? Why is it that necessary? What's your opinion "seed phase or passed key?

 lol you’re kind of funny though did you knw what it would have look like if not for the seed phrases? have you imagined what 256 bit would have looked like?
Again Seed phrases work completely offline and on paper. You can write them down and store them in a safe or bank vault.
But Passkeys are digital credentials stored in hardware-bound secure elements. You can’t “write down” a passkey on paper and re-import it later on a new device without a synced cloud service.

One seed phrase generates billions of private keys hierarchically (HD wallets).
Replacing this with passkeys would require managing hundreds or thousands of separate passkeys (one per address), which is impractical.

1. It's actually possible to export passkey and write it down, even though many application don't offer such feature. Here's an example, https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10407.
2. On cryptocurrency wallet that support passkey, usually 1 passkey can be used to secure 1 wallet (not 1 address).