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

[ABCbits]

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.

Here are list of post that state information (not opinion) that contain wrong information.

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way.

This part is about stating Taproot have no functional feature. This is wrong because Taproot have several functional feature (see my previous reply).

because it introduced these colours that wouldn't have let BTC to otherwise support this ridiculous NFT tulip mania.

This part is about stating NFT or token isn't supported/possible on Bitcoin network without Taproot. It's proven wrong with existence of Counterparty (exist since 2014) and Runes (which use OP_RETURN).

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.

This part is about stating OP_RETURN utilize witness discount. It's wrong because OP_RETURN isn't counted as witness data by current protocol.

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.

This part is about stating Bitcoin become even more centralized. It's wrong because spammer who use OP_RETURN (over witness data) will result to smaller block size and less new UTXO.

[LoyceV]

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way.

This part is about stating Taproot have no functional feature. This is wrong because Taproot have several functional feature

I'll play devil's advocate here: he's not saying Taproot doesn't have functional features, he's saying they're not important. The word "important" implies an opinion.
I only found out 2 months ago I've used Taproot without realizing it. I can't say it's very important to me

because it introduced these colours that wouldn't have let BTC to otherwise support this ridiculous NFT tulip mania.

This part is about stating NFT or token isn't supported/possible on Bitcoin network without Taproot. It's proven wrong with existence of Counterparty (exist since 2014) and Runes (which use OP_RETURN).

I'd argue a step further: NFTs, Ordinals or Runes don't exist on Bitcoin, it has nothing to do with Bitcoin. On the Bitcoin network, it's just (respectively) UTXOs or OP_RETURN data. The "meaning" comes from external uses, but to me, as a Bitcoin user, it's just dust or a waste of transaction fees.

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.

This part is about stating OP_RETURN utilize witness discount. It's wrong because OP_RETURN isn't counted as witness data by current protocol.

I've seen the OP_RETURN discussion, followed by the Knots discussion, but to me, this is mostly "politics" with 2 strong opposing sides. I'd say the "unlimited amounts of data" is obviously wrong, but I'd also assume that's just a figure of speech.

[ABCbits]

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way.

This part is about stating Taproot have no functional feature. This is wrong because Taproot have several functional feature

I'll play devil's advocate here: he's not saying Taproot doesn't have functional features, he's saying they're not important. The word "important" implies an opinion.
I only found out 2 months ago I've used Taproot without realizing it. I can't say it's very important to me

I've read his reply few times, but i still find this part lean closer to stating information rather than stating opinion. So i guess i'll just accept to agree to disagree with you and others.

because it introduced these colours that wouldn't have let BTC to otherwise support this ridiculous NFT tulip mania.

This part is about stating NFT or token isn't supported/possible on Bitcoin network without Taproot. It's proven wrong with existence of Counterparty (exist since 2014) and Runes (which use OP_RETURN).

I'd argue a step further: NFTs, Ordinals or Runes don't exist on Bitcoin, it has nothing to do with Bitcoin. On the Bitcoin network, it's just (respectively) UTXOs or OP_RETURN data. The "meaning" comes from external uses, but to me, as a Bitcoin user, it's just dust or a waste of transaction fees.

You're right. But it doesn't change the fact there are user defined protocol/standard for NFT/token that doesn't use either SegWit or Taproot.

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.

This part is about stating OP_RETURN utilize witness discount. It's wrong because OP_RETURN isn't counted as witness data by current protocol.

I've seen the OP_RETURN discussion, followed by the Knots discussion, but to me, this is mostly "politics" with 2 strong opposing sides. I'd say the "unlimited amounts of data" is obviously wrong, but I'd also assume that's just a figure of speech.

I understand what you say, although we talk about different part, "OP_RETURN utilize witness discount" and "unlimited amounts of data".

[alani123]

"Unlimited" is just a euphemism because previously there was a limit. Of course a single tx is always limited by the block size. Everything is also limited by the universe's size but we still use the word unlimited to explain that something goes beyond usual limits. Perhaps there can be something truly unlimited for once though and that might be your appetite to police my words

We can have a debate all day about these topics but if you say we can agree to disagree you may as well remove your trust rating from my profile 

[Satofan44]

I only found out 2 months ago I've used Taproot without realizing it. I can't say it's very important to me

There is a huge difference between saying that something is not important and that something is not important to you. He didn't say "to me". Therefore, he's spreading misinformation against Taproot the same way that he is spreading misinformation about the LN. He has never contributed anything to Bitcoin, so therefore this comes as no surprise.

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way.

Pure lie, there is nothing to talk about here.

[suchmoon]

I only found out 2 months ago I've used Taproot without realizing it. I can't say it's very important to me

There is a huge difference between saying that something is not important and that something is not important to you. He didn't say "to me". Therefore, he's spreading misinformation against Taproot the same way that he is spreading misinformation about the LN. He has never contributed anything to Bitcoin, so therefore this comes as no surprise.

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way.

Pure lie, there is nothing to talk about here.

Pretty much anything you say on this forum has an implied "in my opinion" attached to it, unless it's a blatantly obvious fact, in which case the distinction wouldn't matter anyway.

Your example is particularly absurd. To any sane observer "important" is a judgement, not a statement of fact.

[Satofan44]

Pretty much anything you say on this forum has an implied "in my opinion" attached to it, unless it's a blatantly obvious fact, in which case the distinction wouldn't matter anyway.

The problem with that is that you can always use it as a defense for lying, and often someone would draw the line at some arbitrary point where many statements would be approved (as "your opinion") but many others would be disallowed (where "your opinion" crosses the line). The more you exaggerate an example for this, the worse it gets. Why is he allowed to lie about Bitcoin here without consequences but not about some senior user? Does it matter what exactly the lie is? Is it because Bitcoin can't defend itself that makes it allowed?  Let's revisit what he said:

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way.

While he did use "important" and it can be seen as a judgement (not that many will take it as this), it changes when it is coupled with "functional way". The interpretation of this can be many depending on the reader, one of which could be "taproot does not bring functional improvements".  With taproot we are talking about facts, and the only correct assertion regarding it in the context that is spoken would be something like this: Taproot is very functionally important/has many functionalities/use cases but it is not important to me. Every other kind of interpretation is wrong. There is nothing to debate about that as taproot's functional importance is factually real (even if we are use the "judgement" word "importance"). If those functionalities or their importance are not obvious to someone, that doesn't change anything about it. If one is not familiar with the topic, one should not make assertive statements.

Your example is particularly absurd. To any sane observer "important" is a judgement, not a statement of fact.

It is not a particularly good example, but I went with what they wrote. Anyway, "in my opinion" and "to me" are not always the same thing. He could be of the opinion that taproot is amazing, and still say that it is useless to him personally. This would happen more frequently. There is a lot of cryptography that is absolutely amazing and important (in my opinion, but in this example also factually), but I don't directly use it yet -- which makes it rather useless to me at the moment.

[alani123]

Taproot is not particularly new. If it was great and important its usage among bitcoin transactions would be increasing instead of being on a downtrend past the Ordinals hype.

Data proves you wrong. What other evidence do you require? ABCBits said "give it a year". Again, Taproot isn't new.
What other logical fallacies do we have? "Have faith"? Maybe "trust the process"?

[ABCbits]

We can have a debate all day about these topics but if you say we can agree to disagree you may as well remove your trust rating from my profile 

1. I only say "agree to disagree" to 1 out of 4 parts that state information.
2. I haven't see you prove information you stated is correct (especially about statement OP_RETURN utilize witness discount).
3. See what i quote below.

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.
--snip--

Taproot is not particularly new. If it was great and important its usage among bitcoin transactions would be increasing instead of being on a downtrend past the Ordinals hype.

Data proves you wrong. What other evidence do you require? ABCBits said "give it a year". Again, Taproot isn't new.
What other logical fallacies do we have? "Have faith"? Maybe "trust the process"?

I never say that.

[suchmoon]

Pretty much anything you say on this forum has an implied "in my opinion" attached to it, unless it's a blatantly obvious fact, in which case the distinction wouldn't matter anyway.

The problem with that is that you can always use it as a defense for lying, and often someone would draw the line at some arbitrary point where many statements would be approved (as "your opinion") but many others would be disallowed (where "your opinion" crosses the line). The more you exaggerate an example for this, the worse it gets. Why is he allowed to lie about Bitcoin here without consequences but not about some senior user? Does it matter what exactly the lie is? Is it because Bitcoin can't defend itself that makes it allowed?

What happened to free speech then? It's free until we don't like it?

If the allegedly lying person is disruptive to the discussion of a specific topic then we have a bunch of forum rules (trolling etc) that should be applied, which obviously doesn't work in this shithole of a forum, but guess what... your red trust does nothing to discourage or prevent that sort of thing either.

In this particular case though (alani123) I see a lot of hurt feelings but no particular malice. Having a different opinion or even being mistaken is not the same as lying, which implies intent to deceive.

Is taproot important? Not in any functional way.

While he did use "important" and it can be seen as a judgement (not that many will take it as this), it changes when it is coupled with "functional way". The interpretation of this can be many depending on the reader, one of which could be "taproot does not bring functional improvements".  With taproot we are talking about facts, and the only correct assertion regarding it in the context that is spoken would be something like this: Taproot is very functionally important/has many functionalities/use cases but it is not important to me. Every other kind of interpretation is wrong. There is nothing to debate about that as taproot's functional importance is factually real (even if we are use the "judgement" word "importance"). If those functionalities or their importance are not obvious to someone, that doesn't change anything about it. If one is not familiar with the topic, one should not make assertive statements.

That's a lot of... stuff. You ignored the implied "in my opinion" and added your own speculation to twist it into something nefarious. Is that the only way we're allowed to discuss Bitcoin features? Praise it before saying anything even mildly unfavorable lest someone twist it into a pretzel. That's some Nork shit, and not in a cool Australian way.

[Satofan44]

What happened to free speech then? It's free until we don't like it?

The whole point of this thread was that "free speech", also known as mostly bullshit, is not allowed in the technical board. Either it is, or it isn't. If we start making differences between each case based on perceived intent, the history of the user, disruption and whether any financial harm can arise out of it, we are just going to add a lot more bias into the idea. Either all kind of bullshit is allowed there or it is not. Pick which way you want it to be, but don't go acting as a lawyer for some users and not for others.

In this particular case though (alani123) I see a lot of hurt feelings but no particular malice. Having a different opinion or even being mistaken is not the same as lying, which implies intent to deceive.

You mean the guy that said LN was centralized (IIRC). Who said that it LN is completely insecure because of some fringe vulnerability that can not be exploited against anybody, much less the whole network? Yes, definitely no malice there. Completely normal behavior.

That's a lot of... stuff. You ignored the implied "in my opinion" and added your own speculation to twist it into something nefarious.

When there is a pattern of misinformation, nefariousness is implied by the person who is posting.

Is that the only way we're allowed to discuss Bitcoin features? Praise it before saying anything even mildly unfavorable lest someone twist it into a pretzel. That's some Nork shit, and not in a cool Australian way.

He does not have the knowledge or experience to write any substantial criticism of any of the features or their implementation. He is just doing medium-level FUD, things that sounds correct but are completely false like this.

If it was great and important its usage among bitcoin transactions would be increasing instead of being on a downtrend past the Ordinals hype.

The most basic argument dismisses this stupidity, it is a false sequitur with a idiotic appeal to popularity. Bech32 was amazing, it took an eternity to become mainstream. Importance and greatness has nothing to do with the adoption curve. Here, I corrected him now in a factual way (if the reader of this post has ever read a single research study in their whole lives). Now he will not change his tune, but he will continue to spread this misinformation. That to you, is not malicious behavior? Perhaps I am new here, but you seem quite young.  

[alani123]

So... Based on what you say, taproot isn't really important right now. But then why are you stating personal opinion as fact that it is? 🤔 Would you give yourself a negative trust tag in this instance? You're just speculating that Taproot might become important because you like it at this point.

P.S. I'm giving myself a break from this debate for the weekend so feel free to go crazy

[Satofan44]

So... Based on what you say, taproot isn't really important right now. But then why are you stating personal opinion as fact that it is? 🤔 Would you give yourself a negative trust tag in this instance? You're just speculating that Taproot might become important because you like it at this point.

The question here is whether you are an uneducated retard or whether you are a malicious uneducated retard. Stop making up lies.

The only facts here: Taproot is great and amazing, it's importance is unbelievable -- even if it takes a 1000 years for adoption. The real importance of something does not instantly create adoption, there is no casualty there. It took doctors several decades to adopt something basic as the practice of handwashing, I guess it wasn't important enough.  

[ABCbits]

User: Roberto888

Additional information (optional):
* I've reported at least 6 of his post, and all of them marked good by moderator. But he keep creating false/fake/unhelpful posts.
* According to https://bpip.org/Profile?id=3706715, he create 30 posts with 8 posts already deleted by moderator.
* I suspect this user use AI/chatbot, which is also reason when i report his posts.

List of post:

Sweep it directly to your own cold storage wallet immediately. Do not import the key into any online software or website. Use a trusted, open-source wallet like Electrum in an airgapped, offline environment to sign the transaction. Broadcast it quickly. The moment you touch it, the whole world is watching that address.

Another user already explain what's wrong with this post.

Sweep it directly to your own cold storage wallet immediately. Do not import the key into any online software or website. Use a trusted, open-source wallet like Electrum in an airgapped, offline environment to sign the transaction. Broadcast it quickly.

That is not the issue here.

Those "puzzle" private keys have limited range, #71 specifically is easy enough to be solved in mere seconds once its public key is exposed.
The moment you broadcast the transaction to the network, signed offline or not, its public key will be revealed to those thousand "puzzle-stealers" who watch it.
And given the info above, it'll just be a game of who's transaction that spends the same input that'll get into a block.
It may take a lot of quick unconfirmed txn replacements that could eventually spend the majority of the amount as fee.
So even if he somehow wins that, the end result wont be good.

Yes, hash rate can fluctuate. It's likely a connection issue with the mining pool. Try switching to a different pool server to see if it stabilizes. The hardware itself seems fine since it's not overheating.

If there's connection issue to mining pool, the mining pool website should show dropped hashrate to 0 rather than dropped to 1 TH/s.

[ABCbits]

User: pliego

Additional information (optional):
* This user received accusion of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66187060#msg66187060.
* This user may be hacked/bought due to these 3 behavior.

Trust summary for pliego

This user's password was reset recently.

This user's email address was changed recently.

This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.

List of post:

--snip--

sounds like a serious technical headache but if those 1cas coins are still there it is worth the effort, stay patient because one wrong command could wipe everything xd

It's unhelpful since it doesn't make any technical suggestion.

--snip--
Thank you in advance.

using that 1500kwh deficit for mining is a smart way to offset the bill, just make sure you can handle the heat and noise in a residential setup

It's unhelpful since,
1. Heat and noise is potential problem that all miners have. But @meangoat suggest his house isn't occupied for first 8 months, due to stating no electricity usage.
2. Other users already give more specific pointer/suggestion, including 1500 kWh may be too low for some modern bulky ASIC.





User: PepeLapiu

Additional information (optional):
* This user very frequently repeat information that is known to be wrong.

List of post:

--snip--
All bad excuses to reject attempts to fight spam. And going as far as taking out filters. Also OpenRelay and SlipStream are services offered specifically to push more spam on bitcoin.

It doesn't take a 2 digit IQ to know all this will absolutely result in more spam. And it's just a question of time before someone fills the chain with illicit material.
--snip--

Illicit and other possible illegal content already exist on Bitcoin blockchain, even before SegWit deployed on mainnet.

--snip--
It's just an example that i remember right away, there are all kinds of data stored on Bitcoin even since a decade ago[1]. Should i mention that research from few years ago discover some kind of content including hundreds link to child porn[2]? Should i also mention shortly after Ordinal launch, someone use it to add porn/explicit image[3]?

If you run non-pruned Bitcoin full node, your device already store such data.

[1] https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html#ref14
[2] https://fc18.ifca.ai/preproceedings/6.pdf, section 4.3 Investigating Blockchain Files.
[3] https://crypto.news/bitcoin-ordinals-encounters-explicit-images-days-after-launch/

A shit ton of illicit, disgusting material will be posted on chain. With op_return blown up, they won't have to break up their shit into a 100 different transactions and have to ask Mara's spamware SlipStream for permission.

This speculation doesn't make sense because,
1. Spammer already can use Ordinal (which use witness data to store arbitrary data with witness discount) which relayed by Bitcoin Core nodes.
2. If they follow standardness, they only need to split when the TX size is above 100 vKB/400000 weights. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v30.1/test/functional/test_framework/blocktools.py#L53.

[ABCbits]

User: Taurox

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 2 accusation of spamming using AI/chatbot.

List of post:

--snip--
dyor on the prune mode if you are worried about storage, you can run a node with like 10gb nowadays

User @Cricktor already explain what's wrong with this post.

dyor on the prune mode if you are worried about storage, you can run a node with like 10gb nowadays

You apparently didn't any DYOR in this particular case when spamming the forum with such false statements.

The chainstate directory (current UTXO set) alone is currently 11GiB large, a chosen prune size comes on top of it. Are you suggesting to use the minimum prune size of 550MiB yielding around 12GiB of storage needs, not even accounting for any indexes? How useful would such a small prune size be to barely meet your claim "with like 10gb nowadays"? Bullshit...

honestly i tried one of those mobile "miners" and my phone got so hot i thought the battery was going to explode, it is a great way to kill your hardware for about 10 cents worth of shitcoins, definitely not a sustainable roadmap for anyone serious about stacking sats

This reply is off-topic/unhelpful since the topic is about Bitcoin (not altcoin) mining.

[LoyceV]

This reply is off-topic/unhelpful since the topic is about Bitcoin (not altcoin) mining.

I remember the days when the Mining board was strictly moderated. How can Bitcoin mining using an Android phone have reached 4 pages and survived 5 months? I've reported it to be locked

[sapta]

User: Taurox

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 2 accusation of spamming using AI/chatbot.

I always like your report, ABCbits, and I logged in today expecting nothing... But damn. Nuked finally as this user didn't seem to stop after a few warning deletion.

This reply is off-topic/unhelpful since the topic is about Bitcoin (not altcoin) mining.

I remember the days when the Mining board was strictly moderated. How can Bitcoin mining using an Android phone have reached 4 pages and survived 5 months? I've reported it to be locked

This one was archived.