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

[ABCbits]

User: Furball808

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

I don't understand how this is a soft fork.  Any block with old and new bytes would be potentially bigger than 1 MB physical (and they are, today), so how could this still be accepted by the old protocol (as a soft fork demands) ?

How can new blocks, being bigger than 1 MB physical, still be acceptable by the old protocol ?

So where am I wrong ?

Segwit data can store more technically but as long as they are within the 4 MB limit then it will still be accepted. What you need to understand is that segwit uses block weight to count data. Hence why even if new blocks appear to be bigger, some part of the data are not being counted as part of the total size because old nodes do not recognize it. The reason why they don't is because this is a result of the new protocol.

1. The actual block size limit is 4 million weight unit, which is equal to 1 virtual MB.
2. Witness and non-witness data used to calculate in final size. See https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/upgrades/segregated-witness/#transaction-size-calculation.

Btw if you just really need the raw block by height or hash, another easy way is to go to

Code:

https://btc.com/block

and from here you can just click on the view raw button and choose whether you need the binary or the hex.

The link itself isn’t clickable on its own, you need to add a block height or hash.

btc.com doesn't offer block explorer website or API these days. According to https://web.archive.org/web/20250426094539/https://btc.com/, the change happened on April 2025.

Have you tried using privacy coins? Convert your bitcoins into privacy coins. Privacy coins hide who sent the coins. So once you have converted your bitcoins, the link is practically untraceable. From then on you can convert your now privacy coins to bitcoin again and send it to new wallet addresses. Just remember to swap it on a different platform than the one you first swapped before.

This post is misleading, since some privacy coin have weaker privacy and may be tracked if you're not being careful. For example, ZEC due to optional privacy feature.


User: Pathsofglory38

Additional information (optional):
* This user suspected using AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66088265#msg66088265.

List of post:

First of all I’ll say this post shouldn’t be here but rather in the bitcoin discussion forum.
However every transaction on bitcoin are public and traceable using your public key, so when you spend directly from an exchange linked wallet address will definitely expose your identity due to the fact that you must have done KYC and you’re trying to break the link without violating the laws because you want to avoid trouble like audit or frozen funds or maybe sanction.
I will say the best way to spend bitcoin with privacy without getting into trouble is to stay legit and take low risk by
1. Setup privacy-focused wallet and practice
2. Use the lighting network for everyday spending
3. Direct spending at bitcoin merchant ( about too much conversation)

1. This post is unhelpful due to vague suggestion. For example, what counts as privacy focused wallet?
2. People generally withdraw Bitcoin from exchange to their wallet, before spending it. It's partly because exchange have high withdraw fee.

[LoyceV]

This post belongs in this topic:

Are you really afraid of quantum computers? And do you think using a fresh address would prevent you from being compromised through quantum computers? I don't think so

[Satofan44]

This post belongs in this topic:

Are you really afraid of quantum computers? And do you think using a fresh address would prevent you from being compromised through quantum computers? I don't think so

Yeah I already have him tagged. He's shitposting and spreading false information in many places, it is not just limited to that board. He does not know a single thing about the topic that he is writing about, but the campaign manager happily pays for that junk.

[ABCbits]

User: alani123

Additional information (optional):
* While i only list 2 posts, this user actually created more posts containing false information about Taproot, SegWit and OP_RETURN.

List of post:

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way. Although, in terms of adoption, many thousands of NFT users abused exploits introduced by taproot soft forks to pump useless data like images into bitcoin. The so called ordinals and inscriptions had a huge impact on the bitcoin Blockchain. So although very far from the envisioned use, taproot did receive a lot of use just because it introduced these colours that wouldn't have let BTC to otherwise support this ridiculous NFT tulip mania.

Taproot actually have 2 main technical benefit,
1. Schnorr Signature. It aggregate signature, which reduce signature size then Taproot address require N-of-M signature for spending.
2. Tapscript. When you spend Bitcoin from Taproot address with multiple spending condition, Tapscript only reveal part of the script which reduce overall TX size and slightly improve privacy.

NFT and token actually can be "created" on Bitcoin network without using SegWit or Taproot. Counterparty (exist since 2014) and Runes (which use OP_RETURN) prove that.

I read it, and I read it again. I can't see why anyone would want this. When syncing Bitcoin Core, you sync everything. When using an API, I assume you're looking for specific parts, and the parts you're looking for shouldn't be altered. So I see absolutely no use for this.

When bitcoin core 30 is implemented (it's already scheduled to) the OP_RETURN limit being turned off will result to unlimited amounts of data being added in a block and utilizing the witness discount.

Ordinals become obsolete. There will be no more need for stitching together 40 byte inputs through third party tools and external implementations. This means that anyone storing the Blockchain in full could potential have entire images or files of whatever has been uploaded. And yes it's no lie that this can result in harmful files which many parties would be interested to filter.

As if everyone hadn't been warned before this being implementation on core 30. This makes bitcoin prone to sabotage and nodes even more centralised.

1. OP_RETURN doesn't benefit from witness discount, because OP_RETURN isn't categorized as witness data.
2. If spammer switch from Ordinal (or other approach that use witness data) to OP_RETURN, the negative impact would be lower since OP_RETURN isn't added to chainstate/UTXO set and maximum block size (in bytes) would be lower.

[alani123]

Thanks for the mention, I don't find this thread very original because someone else had also in the past tried to let's say "call out" people with different opinions on bitcoin.

I don't really like this which-hunty approach and I don't find it to be helping the discourse that needs to be had about bitcoin's future though. The development bitcoin has had in the last decade has been very lackluster and unexiting. At least some people would say that stability is good but even as thins improvements in the utility of BTC transactions have been so miniscule in spite of so much time spent in development that so many of these supposedly cutting edge technologies implemented in bitcoin keep making incredibly less and less sense.

If you like delwing into technical theory, bitcoin today is less immutable and decentralised than when satoshi had removed most of the OPcodes to protect it from bad actors. Todya we get so many developers funded by corporations that see a lot of money to be made in tokenizing bitcoin transactions, monetising using BTC etc. All these supposed use cases seeking to build on bitcoin as if it's an EVM chain take away from its main purpose though.


And yet here we sre where I get labelled as "spreading fake information" for having an non mainstream opinion.
Anyway OP, I kinda like you as a poster and no hard feelings either way but with all due respect. If you don't like what someone is saying in a forum, I find it more appropriate to correct them on the spot with a reply.

At least got me, if I say something bad, stupid or outright false, I like to believe that I'm not doing it with mal intent and will take it when it's pointed out. So feel more than free to respond to my posts as you see them even if we sometimes won't agree.

But in any case, I love BTC and having a slightly different take doesn't take away from the vision we're here for.

[Satofan44]

Thanks for the mention, I don't find this thread very original because someone else had also in the past tried to let's say "call out" people with different opinions on bitcoin.

There are opinions and there are lies. Go to mainstream discussion or X if you want to write opinions on facts or on science.

If you like delwing into technical theory, bitcoin today is less immutable and decentralised than when satoshi had removed most of the OPcodes to protect it from bad actors.

This is absolutely not correct. Posting opinions in technical topics as the truth is dangerous. Such lies have led many people to dabble in shitcoins and lose money. Bitcoin has never been more immutable and decentralized than it is today, it was even close to the state that it is today.

[alani123]

Yes you're the person I had in mind above. Welcome 😁

No, I don't think opinions can be dangerous because we aren't really talking about nuclear bombs here or anything of the likes.
So who or what am I endangering with my opinions? What is the tangible danger sitting besides the action of me merely mentioning simple thoughts and observations?

[Satofan44]

Yes you're the person I had in mind above. Welcome 😁

No, I don't think opinions can be dangerous because we aren't really talking about nuclear bombs here or anything of the likes.
So who or what am I endangering with my opinions? What is the tangible danger sitting besides the action of me merely mentioning simple thoughts and observations?

If even 1 person is deterred from Bitcoin back to fiat or to another shitcoin as a result of your posts, you have caused more damage than good to Bitcoin in your entire life. So yes, you are causing damage with misinformation like anyone else who is posting misinformation. You can deny it with many mental gymnastic methods, but those that don't accept the damage of misinformation usually don't because they are on the sending side of it.

You are not a engineer or researcher. You have absolutely no expertise to draw these conclusions, yet you persist in making shit up. What does that say about you? Sometimes you are not even trying at all.

[alani123]

Genuinely, do you believe someone about to use bitcoin would be dissuaded to do so if someone on bitcointalk just had an opinion on how bitcoin transactions could become better or not? And even if that's the case, maybe we could just let it be? If there are imperfections in BTC aren't we supposed to point them out as a community? Or should we just collectively shut our mouths like an organized religion would?

If we can't even have layman discussions here in a forum then where?

[Satofan44]

Genuinely, do you believe someone about to use bitcoin would be dissuaded to do so if someone on bitcointalk just had an opinion on how bitcoin transactions could become better or not?

It happens all the time. If I were to find a person who was dissuaded by you, you would do some mental gymnastics to explain how that case does not prove anything. Thousands, tends of thousands of people were hurt by the lies of Roger Ver, Craig Wright and many others. How more obvious can it be that YES it does happen all the time?

And even if that's the case, maybe we could just let it be?

Yes indeed, let's cause harm and be proud of the harm we cause.

If there are imperfections in BTC aren't we supposed to point them out as a community? Or should we just collectively shut our mouths like an organized religion would?

Writing lies in an assertive way is not having a discussion. Being misinformed is not the same as pointing out "imperfections".

If you like delwing into technical theory, bitcoin today is less immutable

Like this shit. A single datacenter cluster could have easily rewritten the entirety of Bitcoin in the early days, but yeah it was more immutable back then.  

For reference, @ABCbits I had him previously tagged for writing some lies about LN. For one that it is centralized, which could not be a more basic and stupid lie. Secondly, that it is insecure because of some fringe attack vector that he read on X. 2 years later this attack has been successfully used zero times even when millions of dollars are up for grabs.

[alani123]

LN attacks haven't been used in a large scale but so were defi attacks. Unused until wallets were drained, networks frozen etc. So long as the stakes become higher and the vulnerabilities are there it's a very fundamental issue. Introducing vulns to BTC is an issue even if some of them are not very viable economically or impractical.

Anyway, just talking about these topics isn't really harmful speech. If you even believe in the concept of harmful speech there's more productive avenues to pursue in policing it. Maybe report your neighborhood terror group organisers, join the guardian angels or something. I can't believe we're even wasting brain juice talking about how bad of a guy I am for having an opinion on some BTC related dev decisions ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[Satofan44]

LN attacks haven't been used in a large scale but so were defi attacks. Unused until wallets were drained, networks frozen etc. So long as the stakes become higher and the vulnerabilities are there it's a very fundamental issue. Introducing vulns to BTC is an issue even if some of them are not very viable economically or impractical.

The lies have been proven in this thread. Similarly to pretty much every cancerous entity, when exposed you persist in your errors instead of trying to make up for them. You can move on now.

Anyway, just talking about these topics isn't really harmful speech. If you even believe in the concept of harmful speech there's more productive avenues to pursue in policing it. Maybe report your neighborhood terror group organisers, join the guardian angels or something. I can't believe we're even wasting brain juice talking about how bad of a guy I am for having an opinion on some BTC related dev decisions ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Yes, you are a bad guy. You're just a fake Turk after all, nothing more.    

[ABCbits]

And yet here we sre where I get labelled as "spreading fake information" for having an non mainstream opinion.

Do you really consider saying things such as OP_RETURN utilize witness discount or Taproot have no functional feature as opinion (rather than stating information)?

[alani123]

The thread I was responding was saying that taproot benefits haven't really been widespread or enjoyed by most users. I think my response was pretty topical in that context

[ABCbits]

The thread I was responding was saying that taproot benefits haven't really been widespread or enjoyed by most users. I think my response was pretty topical in that context

So what is relation between Taproot slow adaption and stating Taproot have no functional feature? FYI, the OP of that thread also mention Taproot functionality/benefit.

--snip--
Taproot as we know offers cheaper transaction fee for users and it enhance privacy by using complex transaction firmat like multisig, lightning channels etc which are indistinguishable from simple single signature transactions.
--snip--

[alani123]

Isn't the above quote kinda wrong in that even with taproot bitcoin core and on-chain transactions don't happen though the lightning network?
Yes some taproot features enable LN functionality but that's still not something done on chain or even part of bitcoin core to consider it functionality within the main stack of BTC features.

In any case I doubt that with the low adoption taproot has it has played much of a role in reducing fees. Users transacting BTC have been enjoying 1 vByte transactions for a while now. So what's the fee reduction we're talking about?

[ABCbits]

Isn't the above quote kinda wrong in that even with taproot bitcoin core and on-chain transactions don't happen though the lightning network?
Yes some taproot features enable LN functionality but that's still not something done on chain or even part of bitcoin core to consider it functionality within the main stack of BTC features.

1. He probably talk about Point Time Lock Contract (PTLC) on Lightning Network, which utilize Taproot.
2. Opening and closing LN channel require you to create Bitcoin on-chain transaction.
3. As reminder, Bitcoin Core is just one of many Bitcoin full node software.

In any case I doubt that with the low adoption taproot has it has played much of a role in reducing fees. Users transacting BTC have been enjoying 1 vByte transactions for a while now. So what's the fee reduction we're talking about?

It's already answered by other member on that thread. You and other reader may want to visit https://bitcoinops.org/en/tools/calc-size/.

Taproot as we know offers cheaper transaction fee for users

It depends. Spending from Taproot may be cheaper, but sending to Taproot is more expensive.

[alani123]

If taproot was indeed able to offer widespread advantages such as lower on chain fees I could see it as beneficial. This is what the discussion was also trying to allure to, but based on the above even that seems like an oversimplification?


So?

[ABCbits]

If taproot was indeed able to offer widespread advantages such as lower on chain fees I could see it as beneficial. This is what the discussion was also trying to allure to, but based on the above even that seems like an oversimplification?


So?

I can see why you consider @casey15 statement is oversimplified. But i don't understand what do you ask when you say "So?".

[alani123]

You could say I'm grasping at straws here trying to figure out if you'll do me a favour and tell me what I said that was so factually wrong other than being an opinion.

Taproot enables better LN usage along with other features but I don't see it as a huge advantage for anyone seeking to transact BTC on chain (and perhaps that's how adoption remains low).

I think the most contentious thing for you might have been what I said alluring to ordinals. But the discussion was about adoption... So I'll raise you this:

Based on on-chain data ordinals did cause a spike in taproot usage. This is a fact, right?
Perhaps even ordinals were so far the primary driver of taproot adoption of we purely judge adoption based on the on-chain stats.

But whether or not this was ORTHODOX taproot usage is another matter in its entirety and can be based on everyone's subjective opinion. In my personal opinion ordinals were not proper use of BTC. And when questioned about what taproot offered to every BTC user so far, I mentioned what I see as the most widespread usage so far.

Otherwise I'm all for seeing what taproot has to offer to the widespread BTC userbase but... After we established that saying taproot lowers on-chain fees is an oversimplification and while we already have 1sat/vByte capabilities, how exactly am I wrong when I say that the benefit of taproot has to offer isn't currently enjoyed when transacting on-chain for most users?
Maybe there will be some features in the future but until then why should the burden of proof fall upon me? I think I already base what I'm saying on data well enough.