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

[ABCbits]

User: sigaieu

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

Grey button means invalid seed with wrong checksum. You might also be struggling with Electrum installation. I had a problem with installation a few months back. Fixed it. If Electrum is asking you more than the seed prhase it might be a phishing .exe. Do you have the address to check the balance to make sure it is still there? And there is another possibility I don't want to discuss publicly but it has happened to me once.

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

Grey button means invalid seed with wrong checksum. You might also be struggling with Electrum installation. -snip-

In OP's specific case:
It's a valid Electrum seed with Native SegWit Reserve number but the client is an original/fake old version that doesn't support such reserve number.
The "other data" is a misconception of old Electrum's restore text field like what I've mentioned above.

Please take your time to read the earlier replies before repeating what's already been posted by others, specially on old threads that you want to bump.
That way, your post will be more meaningful and could actually help the OP and others.

And also:

Ok. it was the solution. The wallet has been restored! It could have been so simple. But at least I learned something.

1. SSD usually is much faster than HDD, especially for random read/write.
2. Transaction is confirmed when it's included in a block, not when user node is fully synced.

[ABCbits]

User: Assiduous

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65771118#msg65771118.

List of post:

Running a node on older hardware is definitely possible, but it’s good that you’re asking these questions first.
Hardware:
2GB RAM and an HDD will work, but don’t expect smooth performance. Initial sync will be slow and the system may feel sluggish. If upgrading RAM to 4GB or using an SSD (even externally) is an option, it will improve things a lot. Still, for learning purposes, your current setup is usable.
Full vs pruned node:
A pruned node still fully validates the blockchain, it just doesn’t keep all old blocks. On limited hardware, pruning makes much more sense. You get the security and learning benefits without stressing your disk and system. A full node is nice, but not essential in your case.
Linux choice:
If you’ve never used Linux before, stick to something simple and stable. Ubuntu LTS or Linux Mint are both good options. They have strong community support and plenty of guides specific to Bitcoin Core.
Tor:
Tor isn’t required, but it’s a plus for privacy and censorship resistance. I’d suggest running the node normally first, then enabling Tor later once everything is working and you’re more comfortable.
Overall, the most important thing is reliability, not raw power. A modest node that stays online and verifies its own transactions is already a meaningful contribution to the network.

1. Both full node and pruned node still stress the device. On device with small RAM capacity, massive read/write (due to UTXO/chainstate) still happens. In addition, both still download and verify whole blockchain.
2. The one who asked question already mentioned he could upgrade the RAM, so saying " If upgrading RAM to 4GB ... is an option" isn't exactly helpful.
3. Other part of his port already mentioned by other member.

But I could also just upgrade the ram of the other laptop that I've mentioned to 8GB.

This is one of the better explanations I’ve seen on the OP_RETURN discussion lately. A lot of the panic seems to come from treating this change as something fundamentally new, when in reality it mostly reshuffles incentives.
The key point, in my opinion, is that OP_RETURN has always been the least harmful way to store non-financial data. The real damage to nodes and decentralization comes from fake pubkey outputs and, to a lesser extent, Taproot witness abuse. Making OP_RETURN more flexible doesn’t open a new door — it just makes the safest door more visible.
I also agree with the economic argument. NFTs don’t appear out of thin air just because a policy default changed. As long as fees remain the same, profitability remains the same. Anyone claiming Bitcoin Core 30 will suddenly flood the chain with junk seems to ignore this.
The only realistic risk I see is social, not technical: a short-term hype cycle around “OP_RETURN-based NFTs”, similar to what happened with Ordinals. That could temporarily increase data usage, but it wouldn’t change the long-term equilibrium.
A gradual increase in standardness limits might have avoided some controversy, but overall this looks more like damage mitigation than spam enablement. Good post, and thanks for keeping it accessible without oversimplifying.

1. This reply isn't exactly helpful since it mostly summarize and rephrase thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5559215.0
2. NFT based on OP_RETURN already exist far before Bitcoin Core v30 released, such as Runes.
3. NFT profitability doesn't really care about TX fee rate. It's proven during past Ordinal hype, where there are many Ordinal TX with very high fee rate.

[LoyceV]

User: Assiduous

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65771118#msg65771118.

I gave him neutral feedback in September, reported 4 posts (all on the tech boards) this morning, 6 posts were deleted, but the chatbot spammer didn't get banned. I've added him to my ignore list and won't ever report him again.
This feels so pointless

[ABCbits]

User: Assiduous

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65771118#msg65771118.

I gave him neutral feedback in September, reported 4 posts (all on the tech boards) this morning, 6 posts were deleted, but the chatbot spammer didn't get banned. I've added him to my ignore list and won't ever report him again.
This feels so pointless

Yeah. Looking at past few months, it seems whoever doing this keep creating new account once they receive tag/trust feedback. I agree it feels pointless these days, but i simply hate so much seeing  spam on certain board i visit.

Edit: it seems they never realize that they could avoid receiving tag/trust feedback from me (and few other member) if they spam elsewhere.

[LoyceV]

I agree it feels pointless these days, but i simply hate so much seeing  spam on certain board i visit.

I hate the spam, and really don't get why Mods are so lenient nowadays on plagiarism copied from a chatbot's ass.
This post got deleted, so he just posts it again. Humans fighting bots is a tremendous waste of time.

[examplens]

I agree it feels pointless these days, but i simply hate so much seeing  spam on certain board i visit.

I hate the spam, and really don't get why Mods are so lenient nowadays on plagiarism copied from a chatbot's ass.
This post got deleted, so he just posts it again. Humans fighting bots is a tremendous waste of time.

Maybe these are cases where we need some Satofan44's to wake up in us and leave red tags. It is obviously account farming, and only red trust can devalue that business.
By merit, this account is a member rank. The moment he reaches a rank that is acceptable in the signature campaign, he will appear here with an appeal to remove the current neutral 'spammer' tags.

[LoyceV]

leave red tags.

I won't do it myself, but I also don't mind that lovesmayfamilis tagged him in red. I always considered the feedback system to be for anything the forum doesn't handle, so scams get tagged but plagiarism doesn't. But in this case, if the forum doesn't ban them, maybe this is the only thing that can lead to change. At the risk of further reducing the value of negative feedback for actual scammers.

[AuchanX]

User: Assiduous

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65771118#msg65771118.

I gave him neutral feedback in September, reported 4 posts (all on the tech boards) this morning, 6 posts were deleted, but the chatbot spammer didn't get banned. I've added him to my ignore list and won't ever report him again.
This feels so pointless

He is again spreading fake posts generated by AI on the technical board. I have submitted all the details in the AI ​​Spam Report Reference Thread.Almost a year after getting the tag from you, he has woken up and started generating posts generated by AI again.

[Assiduous]

ABCbits,lovesmayfamilis,AuchanX,LoyceV

You four have deliberately tagged me using false information and false accusations against me. You will be judged, and that will happen very soon. You are not good people.

[ABCbits]

--snip--
Maybe these are cases where we need some Satofan44's to wake up in us and leave red tags. It is obviously account farming, and only red trust can devalue that business.
By merit, this account is a member rank. The moment he reaches a rank that is acceptable in the signature campaign, he will appear here with an appeal to remove the current neutral 'spammer' tags.

I personally won't do it, without other stronger reason. But i don't disagree with other member who decide to leave negative feedback.

ABCbits,lovesmayfamilis,AuchanX,LoyceV

You four have deliberately tagged me using false information and false accusations against me. You will be judged, and that will happen very soon. You are not good people.

I have few questions,
1. Does that mean tag from Satofan44 is correct / appropriate ?
2. Why do you falsely accuse AuchanX?

[LoyceV]

I have few questions,

Don't There's no point arguing with spammers.

[ABCbits]

I have few questions,

Don't There's no point arguing with spammers.

Those are rhetoric questions.


User: DonaldCryptoTalk1

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 2 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65778439#msg65778439 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65581422#msg65581422.
* This user already received 3 feedback due to spamming with AI/chatbot.
* I reported some of his post, but he continue to spam.

List of post:

--snip--

Excellent ELI5 explanation. The “three doors” analogy is especially effective at explaining why lifting the OP_RETURN standardness limit doesn’t magically create a new attack vector, but instead nudges existing behavior toward the least harmful path.

One point that’s often missed in these debates and that you explain well is that Bitcoin has never been able to prevent arbitrary data entirely. Attempts to “ban spam” usually just push it toward methods that are worse for node operators, particularly permanent UTXO bloat. From that perspective, OP_RETURN is not a concession, but a containment strategy.

I also appreciate the distinction between technical incentives and market driven hype. Any short term spike after v30 will almost certainly be social (novelty, protest, marketing), not structural. Long term usage will still be governed by fees and demand, and those economics remain unchanged.

While a gradual increase might have reduced backlash, the core argument stands: changing defaults doesn’t change what Bitcoin allows, only which trade offs are encouraged. And in this case, the trade off clearly favors node sustainability and decentralization.

1. He quoted entire d5000 thread which have about 9 thousand character.
2. Most of his post simply summarize and rephrase d5000 thread.


User: hmbdofficial

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

List of post:

Can someone explain the upgrade better but in a simplified context.

before segwit upgrade was introduced bitcoin transaction operate the legacy transaction where the unlocking code for a transaction which is the signature are put  together with the transaction data in the input as such the signature data is part of every transaction data then the TXID will be created from entire transaction data including the signature data as well, which consumes more storage.

but with the introduction of the segwit the signature data was separated from the transaction data thereby creating the TXID from only the transaction data not including the signature data which gives more storage space for the transaction data.
this should be the simplest way to explain the segwit upgrade  you can see link below for better understanding.

https://learnmeabitcoin.com/beginners/guide/segwit/

1. As stated by other user on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5569700.msg66287462#msg66287462, this explanation isn't easy/clear to understand.
2. Claim of legacy TX consume more storage is wrong, since raw bytes of P2PKH (legacy address) and P2WPKH (native segwit address) isn't that different. Here's example calculation from https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-transaction-size-calculator/

Code:

Number of inputs 1
Input script type P2PKH
Signatures per input 1

Transaction size in raw bytes: 158
Transaction size in virtual bytes: 158
Transaction size in weight units: 632

Code:

Number of inputs 1
Input script type P2WPKH
Signatures per input 1

Transaction size in raw bytes: 161.5
Transaction size in virtual bytes: 79
Transaction size in weight units: 316

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?

Did you realise you’re saying you want to have a group of 128- 256 random numbers instead of the 12 -24 phrase thats what you’re asking for indirectly because there is no way you have a wallet without seed phrase, except if it’s a custodian wallet where you can assess fund through 2FA

If you cannot manage 12 -24 word I don’t how you can manage the 128-256 bit numbers because those numbers are like the entropy of that seed.

1. Actually there are some wallet software that let you create wallet seedphrase, such as Electrum and Bitcoin Core.
2. While it's possible to get raw pass key and manage it manually, usually it's managed by OS or certain application you use.

Passkeys are broadly integrated at an operating system level.

If you want all your passkeys on all your devices, operating system be damned, you need a password manager. Most of the best password managers support passkeys, allowing you to store and sync them on nearly any device.

User: Tinubu

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use AI/chatbot.
* This user received at least 2 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See https://bitlist.co/post/66195448 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66204255#msg66204255.

List of post:

All suggestion on this post already mentioned by other member.

1. While it's not user-friendly approach, other user already mention it's actually possible to prune by date. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5568319.msg66170419#msg66170419.
2. Suggesting to use block explorer isn't helpful, since the one who asked question already mentioned his goal is to learn about pruning system.

There are some methods to trivially check if the node is synced to some degree, but none can verify whether it's completely synced.

Obvious indicators:

- If you cannot connect to the LND node address, then its channel graph has definitely not been built.
- Similarly, if the list of peers is zero or perhaps one (I could ask for this information for instance), the node is obviously not reachable so and therefore not likely to be synced, as LND nodes need to be online 24/7.

You can also check the block number...is node at the latest block..??
And it should also match the network size ( how many channels does it know..??)

I also learnt that LND has built-in a status check that you can look at..but you really can't be sure that the node is completely synced..(but that is enough for it to work properly)...so you can check multiple things at a time..like (peers + blocks + channels + uptime)..this can tell you if it's "good enough to use" but not "perfect"..

Another user explain what's wrong with this post.

You can also check the block number...is node at the latest block..??
And it should also match the network size ( how many channels does it know..??)

I also learnt that LND has built-in a status check that you can look at..but you really can't be sure that the node is completely synced..(but that is enough for it to work properly)...so you can check multiple things at a time..like (peers + blocks + channels + uptime)..this can tell you if it's "good enough to use" but not "perfect"..

The poster can wait for someone to post and then shortly post after them. Alternatively they can get this information from someone else. It does not prevent cheating in any meaningful way. The topic here is not about how one can check if a node is truly synced, but about how fraud can be avoided in the challenge. I've already answered it, it can not be avoided. Stop responding with AI nonsense. @NotATether it is better to avoid topics like this, we just encourage spammers.

[Satofan44]

fortelen

Yea it can be done. a chain can switch between UTXO and account model but it is a big job not just a do it quick thing. You would need a major protocol upgrade and migration logic. totally can be done just heavy engineering and pain lol

It is not even worth mentioning how stupid and generic this post is. He bumped a thread that had no replies since January 27, and when combined with the idiocy of his post it is clear that this was solely done in a desperate attempt to raise his post count. @ABCbits this time I expect strictness, it is after all in the appropriate section.  

I wish that the forum had section-bans and that a new moderator could be assigned for the technical boards. With this spammy users who for whatever god forsaken reason of leniency don't deserve a permanent ban could be issued permanent section bans.

[ABCbits]

fortelen

Yea it can be done. a chain can switch between UTXO and account model but it is a big job not just a do it quick thing. You would need a major protocol upgrade and migration logic. totally can be done just heavy engineering and pain lol

It is not even worth mentioning how stupid and generic this post is. He bumped a thread that had no replies since January 27, and when combined with the idiocy of his post it is clear that this was solely done in a desperate attempt to raise his post count. @ABCbits this time I expect strictness, it is after all in the appropriate section.  

I was too lazy to make report, but you gave me reason to do it. On related note, i also notice some account have changed their tactic from blindly copy/pasting AI generated text to creating generic/rephrased post.

I wish that the forum had section-bans and that a new moderator could be assigned for the technical boards. With this spammy users who for whatever god forsaken reason of leniency don't deserve a permanent ban could be issued permanent section bans.

The forum doesn't have such feature. And IIRC it only happened once, see Note: franky1 is banned from the this subforum.


User: fortelen

Additional information (optional):
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:

All stated points already mentioned by other member on earlier posts. So it's not helpful and even deleted by moderator.

can a Blockchain move from utxo to account model? or opposite ?

Yea it can be done. a chain can switch between UTXO and account model but it is a big job not just a do it quick thing. You would need a major protocol upgrade and migration logic. totally can be done just heavy engineering and pain lol

Unhelpful, because it's generic and other member already give more detailed answer.

Why are all the `genesis.hashMerkleRoot` values ​​the same in the Bitcoin network, yet the `consensus.hashGenesisBlock` values ​​printed are different? How is this implemented?

The Merkle root in the genesis block is just the hash of the single coinbase tx — that’s why it’s always the same.

The genesis block hash (hashGenesisBlock) is different per network (mainnet, testnet, regtest) because the header fields like nTime, nNonce, nBits are different.

So same Merkle root + different header → different block hash. Simple tweak in header fields makes each network unique in its own way.

Also unhelpful, because all points of this post already mentioned by different user on earlier post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570070.msg66245724#msg66245724) with more details.


User: lornadane

Additional information (optional):
* This is purchased/bought account, https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6618/66184634.html.
* This user receive at least 1 accusation of mass spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66183623#msg66183623.
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:

All points already mentioned by other member, which is probably why this post deleted by moderator.

1. Some points already mentioned by other member.
2. You can create Bitcoin TX safely using application other than official Ledger app.
3. If the device isn't genuine, it's likely all of the Bitcoin already hacked and OP would ask why his Bitcoin got hacked in first place.

--snip--

hey,

can’t help with anything shady or ransom-type stuff. if you’ve got legit encrypted data, best move is proper recovery/legal routes, not btc deals.

stay safe.

1. The implication of "shady or ransom-type stuff" doesn't make much sense when the one who asked question give very few details.
2. Legal route wouldn't help with encrypted data, unless it somehow use backdoored encryption and government would expose the backdoor existence just to help one person.


User: CryptoVoyager24

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66367056#msg66367056.
* I reported some of his post, but he continue to spam.

List of post:

Bitcoin node usually store whole or partial blockchain, so the claim "from the *Node's validation perspective*, the trace is gone" and "The node forgets, but the chain remembers." are wrong.


User: OsaiEmma

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

1. Most point already mentioned by other member.
2. OS choice matters, especially with limited RAM. Some OS use less RAM, which means you can allocate more RAM for Bitcoin Core.
3. Without changing the hardware, you can't run unpruned node. Bitcoin blocksize is bigger than 500GB.

Unhelpful, because all point already mentioned by other member and even deleted by moderator.


User: asrinur

Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg62497278#msg62497278.
* This user have history of cheating signature campaign, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LPM0fxEDmg-iaswe-_Lxh2ne3_2m-V1mlEeF8X3lACc/edit?usp=sharing.
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:

1. Other member already mentioned it's safe to sell/move Bitcoin from legacy address.
2. There's no mention of custodial wallet/login, so using term "login" doesn't make sense.

Unhelpful, because all point already mentioned by other user.


User: Eze BTC

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

--snip--
Your analogy is a poor one, because computer can guess/brute-force much faster than human. BTCRecover have speed over 100 thousand per second using GPU released 6 years ago[1]. BIP39 use 2048 rounds[2] while average brainwallet only use 1 round, but human usually can't avoid using guessable passphrase[3].

[1] https://docs.btcrecover.org/en/latest/GPU_Acceleration/#performance-notes
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki#from-mnemonic-to-seed
[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4768828.0

The irony is that, your analogy is wrong. Having a strong, long and confidential passphrase makes it difficult to brutforce and arrive at expected result. Don't get me wrong, nothing is 100% perfect. The main point is that, it is not easy as you think.

https://api.cms.eset.com/au/cyber-resilience-why-cyber-risk-audit-makes-you-stronger

1. My reply doesn't contain any analogy, which is attempt to ignore the fact his suggestion have reduced/lower security.
2. The link shared is invalid, with message "404 Not Found". Trying to share API link doesn't make sense in that discussion.

Why are all the `genesis.hashMerkleRoot` values ​​the same in the Bitcoin network, yet the `consensus.hashGenesisBlock` values ​​printed are different? How is this implemented?

They all contain same transaction, which is the coin base. That's a reason why they are same.

The difference in consensus.hashGenesisBlock values printed is attributed to the block header fields that are differently set for each block chain.

Why are all the `genesis.hashMerkleRoot` values ​​the same in the Bitcoin network, yet the `consensus.hashGenesisBlock` values ​​printed are different? How is this implemented?

The Merkle root is the same because the genesis block contains the same single coinbase transaction on all Bitcoin networks. Since the Merkle root is derived only from the transactions, it does not change.

What differs is the block header. Each network (mainnet, testnet, regtest, signet) uses different values for fields like nTime, nBits, and nNonce. These header differences produce different block hashes, which is why consensus.hashGenesisBlock is not the same.

In Bitcoin Core, this is handled by creating the same transaction and Merkle root, then varying the header parameters when constructing the genesis block for each network.

You're on point. The block header fields such as the nTime, nBits, etc. are what changes accross mainnet, testnet, regtest and signet. The effect of this is the genesis block hashes. Also, the difference in hashes are what enforce separation of networks.

Unhelpful, because all points of this post already mentioned by different user on earlier post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5570070.msg66245724#msg66245724) with more details.

Digging on Shor’s Algorithm, I have come to a conclusion that it remains a major threat theoretically. In solving curve discrete logarithm issue which it is capable of, it allows deriving keys privately from public keys that are exposed in vulnerable addresses like older P2PKH, P2PK that are reused, or Taproot spends. This put a high amount of BTC at risk from a harvest now, decrypt later attacks. The amount is estimated to be 6+ million BTC. You can see how huge that is when converted to dollar using the current price. The point is, Shor’s algorithm is a threat.

1. Another user already explain what's wrong with this thread on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5571797.msg66308078#msg66308078.
2. Bitcoin does not use encryption cryptography. So statement "harvest now, decrypt later attacks" doesn't make much sense.

[Satofan44]

I wish that the forum had section-bans and that a new moderator could be assigned for the technical boards. With this spammy users who for whatever god forsaken reason of leniency don't deserve a permanent ban could be issued permanent section bans.

The forum doesn't have such feature. And IIRC it only happened once, see Note: franky1 is banned from the this subforum.

I was not aware of this. This makes the current situation even worse then since there already exists a precedent. I see no reason why a list couldn't be compiled by users and then enforced by local moderators. If users refuse to adhere to their pseudo-section ban, they can be issued global bans afterwards in progressive lengths as is the custom. Why is this not a thing? It seems to me that neither Cyrus nor the global administrators care at all about this place. They could do this without involving theymos, but they are unwilling to do anything new at all.

[Elonn Wardd]

What are you guys doing over here so if someone makes a mistake when posting in technical board can’t you guys just correct the mistake.
So why are you tagging them, please ABCbits explain.

[Satofan44]

What are you guys doing over here so if someone makes a mistakes when posting in technical board can’t you guys just correct the mistake.
So why are you tagging them, please ABCbits explain.

How about users don't shitpost about things that they know nothing about? Those are not "mistakes" as it is deliberate shitposting to increase post count or it involves the deliberate use of AI, so fuck off back to the 3rd world shithole that you crawled out of.

[Elonn Wardd]

What are you guys doing over here so if someone makes a mistakes when posting in technical board can’t you guys just correct the mistake.
So why are you tagging them, please ABCbits explain.

How about users don't shitpost about things that they know nothing about? Those are not "mistakes" as it is deliberate shitposting to increase post count or it involves the deliberate use of AI, so fuck off back to the 3rd world shithole that you crawled out of.

What do you mean by 3rd world those US look like a 3rd world to you.
You are a big fool and very poor.

[ABCbits]

What are you guys doing over here so if someone makes a mistake when posting in technical board can’t you guys just correct the mistake.
So why are you tagging them, please ABCbits explain.

I have answered somewhat similar question/concern in past, so i will quote my older posts.

I do come across wrong information too on other board of this forum and I wish a thread can also be specifically created where user can report  members who are steadily passing wrong and misleading information to readers.
--snip--

Yeah, wrong information happens on all boards. But on technical board it's especially worse since there's expectation people know what they're talking about.

I think in order to be mad at someone for spreading misinformation you have to determine if it’s being done because the person is an idiot and doesn’t understand something that they think they do, or if they are genuinely trying to spread FUD. Both are possible, but one is evil.

It's hard to measure such thing. So it's more practical to use different measurement such as whether the information could less to financial loss or how frequent someone spread misinformation. Although IMO most of them simply copy-paste whatever generated by AI they use.

2. From what i've seen, this thread and giving trust feedback somewhat reduce total of non-sense on technical board.

In addition,
1. some account i tagged are either relative new account, already tagged due to other reason (spamming with AI/chatbot, hacked account or other questionable action).
2. sometimes i report their post to moderator or only tagged after continuous spreading false/unhelpful information.

[OsaiEmma]

User: OsaiEmma

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

1. Most point already mentioned by other member.
2. OS choice matters, especially with limited RAM. Some OS use less RAM, which means you can allocate more RAM for Bitcoin Core.
3. Without changing the hardware, you can't run unpruned node. Bitcoin blocksize is bigger than 500GB.

Unhelpful, because all point already mentioned by other member and even deleted by moderator.

The only false information I had was about the OS, cause the user said he had 1TB external drive which is at his disposal which he can use, now concerning the OS, I was speaking based on my experience and not from doing any research which I should've, I used windows in running my node, I have a friend who used macOS and there were no much difference so that's why i said "I think" before talking about the OS so it's not like I made a very big blunder there, although doing my research now, I've come to see that I was completely wrong and I own up to it.
But what I don't understand is why there is a comment on this in my trust, I mean it's one thing to repeat what others have written due to one not reading through the whole thread and making a few mistakes here and there based on your own POV, limited knowledge, and experience which we are all here to keep learning and growing, and leaving a comment in my trust because of these.

You can go ahead and delete my post or reply, but not including it in my trust, for goodness sake, I mean that is not what the trust system was made for, or am I wrong?

I humbly ask that you remove the comment in my trust cause I try my best to keep to the rules and not take up any negative feedback or trust, someone else was slandering my post saying I'm spreading misinformation and account farming which I just ignored cause the person is unreasonable, and made a comment in my trust too, and this, I am not really comfortable, if I'm at fault and maybe It deserves being mentioned in my trust, I'll just move on, but I don't think this does, please I request that you remove the comment, thank you