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

[LoyceV]

Newbie arzuo was already on my Ignore list, and is a candidate for this topic:

In many cases, the wallet data may be interpreted as something completely different from the blockchain index! Sometimes, during scanning, the scan starts to load due to insufficient data or the estimated search time is longer.
Maybe the reload you were doing was related to some other large data or it could be caused by an error.
Although the apparent reason for this delay is hidden in the scan format or graphics feature, it is not clear what exactly is happening!!

These new wallets are likely to have many technical flaws and issues! Which take time for experts and users to notice!
As a new wallet, it is comforting to take some time to get used to it, and it is very important to be well-acquainted with it and seek expert advice before making large transactions.

Due to advanced technology, it has become easier to commit fraud, like yesterday I saw a post where a musician's Bitcoin was hacked (because you used the wrong wallet from the Apps Store) just because of his slight carelessness!!

I wouldn't be surprised if this is chatbot verbal diarrhea: who writes "flaws and issues" or "experts and users"?

[ABCbits]

Useless signature spammer, and the last paragraph just rewrote my own words. Please do your magic @ABCbits.

Donneski

I'm not sure about this user. Some of his other post on technical board appear to to be better[1], but he also received at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot[2]. I'll check in detail later, but i welcome opinion or thought from other members.

[1] https://bitlist.co/search?author=Donneski&board_id=4,14,6,40,41,42,81,76,137,37,97,98,100,138,231,261&limit=20&sort_by=date_desc
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66495679#msg66495679

Newbie arzuo was already on my Ignore list, and is a candidate for this topic:
--snip--
I wouldn't be surprised if this is chatbot verbal diarrhea: who writes "flaws and issues" or "experts and users"?

He's also in my ignore list and it turns out i already reported some of his posts when i check my past report. So i'll tag him.


User: arzuo

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

In many cases, the wallet data may be interpreted as something completely different from the blockchain index! Sometimes, during scanning, the scan starts to load due to insufficient data or the estimated search time is longer.
Maybe the reload you were doing was related to some other large data or it could be caused by an error.
Although the apparent reason for this delay is hidden in the scan format or graphics feature, it is not clear what exactly is happening!!

1. The actual reason/issue already explained by other member on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5580300.msg66618458#msg66618458.
2. Statement "during scanning, the scan starts" doesn't make sense, since it imply Bitcoin Core run another scan while perform a scan.

The thread topic is about solo mining, so no matter your strategy you use won't lead to profit unless you "lucky" enough to mine a block.

First and second sentence are conflicted with each other. Second sentence imply it's something not worry because he claim it's just a theoretical idea.

[Satofan44]

tygeade

Quantum threat is not fake, it's real and it will happen. But we need to also realize that quantum is not one sided thing. Even with quantum it is not going to be instant, like a second and it's all gone, it just makes it faster and doable. And quantum will not be at the hands of people who will first try to crack bitcoin as first thought, if anything they would try to get nuclear codes as first thought, because it's a system that is being worked on with billions, and people who are rich that way, and governments, will want that first.

Meanwhile, we can make the security even more stronger but if once invented then quantum computing also will evolve. Personally I still believe quantum computing is kind of alien technology hence we need long way to see it working around us.

Another useless word-salad shitposter.

[ABCbits]

tygeade

Quantum threat is not fake, it's real and it will happen. But we need to also realize that quantum is not one sided thing. Even with quantum it is not going to be instant, like a second and it's all gone, it just makes it faster and doable. And quantum will not be at the hands of people who will first try to crack bitcoin as first thought, if anything they would try to get nuclear codes as first thought, because it's a system that is being worked on with billions, and people who are rich that way, and governments, will want that first.

Meanwhile, we can make the security even more stronger but if once invented then quantum computing also will evolve. Personally I still believe quantum computing is kind of alien technology hence we need long way to see it working around us.

Another useless word-salad shitposter.

Added to my ignore list.


User: Fariya456

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66650184#msg66650184.
* This user trust page currently says "This user's email address was changed recently." and "This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.".

List of post:

"The situation is definitely challenging but mathematically interesting. Since you have the first 34 characters of a 52-character WIF (Wallet Import Format), you are missing 18 characters.

In a Base58Check encoded WIF, the last few characters (specifically the last 4 bytes before encoding) are the checksum. If the missing 18 characters are at the very end, it means you're effectively missing about 13-14 bytes of the actual private key plus the 4-byte checksum.

As Cricktor mentioned, if you have the Public Key, your search space narrows down significantly. Instead of a blind brute-force, you can use specialized tools. While FinderOuter is great for simple cases, for a range of 18 missing Base58 characters (which is quite large), you might need to look into:

BitCrack or VanitySearch: If you can adapt them for a specific range.

Kangaroo (Pollard's rho): This is much more efficient than simple brute-force if the public key is known.

A word of caution: 18 characters in Base58 represents roughly 58
18
  combinations. Even with the public key, this is a massive computational task. If you don't have deep technical knowledge of Python or C++, I would suggest not sharing those 34 characters with anyone claiming they can 'fix' it for you—they might just brute-force the rest and take the funds.

Stay safe and keep experimenting with specialized recovery scripts on GitHub!"

1. Another user falsely claim brute force (while utilizing public key) will take lots of computation or time. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5580016.msg66608242#msg66608242 already prove it could be finished in few minutes.
2. BitCrack is poor choice, since it doesn't utilize public key which makes the brute force take lots of computation.
3. VanitySearch is terrible suggestion, since it's intended to generate vanity address. I checked https://github.com/JeanLucPons/VanitySearch, but there's no guide how to use it for recovery purpose.

[ABCbits]

User: Faridulme

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66650819#msg66650819.
* This user trust page currently says "This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.".
* This recently received merit from Fariya456, another account that i tagged recently.

List of post:

Suggested Reply for Bitcointalk
The drop in verification progress despite a faster internet connection is a classic bottleneck issue, and nc50lc touched on a very important point regarding hardware resources.

While increasing dbcache to 3000 (3GB) is a good start, here are a few technical insights you can add to the discussion to ensure a smoother sync:

1. The "UTXO Set" Factor:
Internet speed only matters for downloading the raw block data. The real "work" happens during the validation of transactions. As you get closer to the "tip" of the blockchain, the blocks are much fuller and the UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) set is larger. This requires more CPU cycles and faster Disk I/O (SSD is almost mandatory nowadays).

2. Optimizing dbcache further:
If you have 16GB of RAM or more, you can safely push dbcache even higher during the initial sync (IBD).

Formula: Try to leave about 2-4GB for your OS and other apps, and give the rest to Bitcoin Core.

Why? A larger dbcache keeps more of the UTXO set in RAM, reducing the number of times the node has to write/read from the slower disk.

3. Check for "Swap" usage:
As mentioned by nc50lc, if your RAM usage hits the limit and the OS starts using "Swap memory" on your hard drive, the sync speed will crater. Monitor your system's RAM usage; if it’s consistently at 90%+, lower your dbcache slightly.

4. Disk Connection:
If you are using an external drive, ensure it's connected via USB 3.0 or higher. A slow interface can bottleneck even the fastest NVMe SSD.

Summary for the OP: Don't worry too much about the internet speed right now. Focus on keeping as much of the validation process in your RAM as possible without triggering swap, and ensure your CPU isn't thermal throttling during the heavy validation phase.

1. "Suggested Reply for Bitcointalk" is probably most obvious proof that this reply is AI generated text.
2. Some suggestion (such as increasing dbcache based on RAM capacity and usage) already mentioned by other user.


User: bluetwoseven_korean

Additional information (optional):
* When i write this reply, 10/10 of his post/thread deleted by moderator, which is indicator he create spam post.

List of post:

1. 16 years necroposting.
2. The thread doesn't mention quantum computer at all.

[arzuo]

Newbie arzuo was already on my Ignore list, and is a candidate for this topic:

In many cases, the wallet data may be interpreted as something completely different from the blockchain index! Sometimes, during scanning, the scan starts to load due to insufficient data or the estimated search time is longer.
Maybe the reload you were doing was related to some other large data or it could be caused by an error.
Although the apparent reason for this delay is hidden in the scan format or graphics feature, it is not clear what exactly is happening!!

These new wallets are likely to have many technical flaws and issues! Which take time for experts and users to notice!
As a new wallet, it is comforting to take some time to get used to it, and it is very important to be well-acquainted with it and seek expert advice before making large transactions.

Due to advanced technology, it has become easier to commit fraud, like yesterday I saw a post where a musician's Bitcoin was hacked (because you used the wrong wallet from the Apps Store) just because of his slight carelessness!!

I wouldn't be surprised if this is chatbot verbal diarrhea: who writes "flaws and issues" or "experts and users"?

I'm sorry
I actually found this post today after going to the trust link from my profile!
I actually learned a lot of new things in this forum through this forum and am still learning!
I'm actually very sorry I found this post today
If I made any mistakes, please forgive me everyone!!
LoyceV
ABCbits
I'm sorry again If any mistakes !!! I am New!!

[LoyceV]

and am still learning!

You could learn more from reading than from posting.

I'm sorry again If any mistakes !!! I am New!!

Shitposting verbal diarrhea from a chatbot has nothing to do with being new.

[ABCbits]

User: WIYO1

Additional information (optional):
* I reported few of his spam post and deleted by moderator, but he keep spamming.
* I suspect he use AI/chatbot to spam.

List of post:

Yeah, the important bit here is that watch-only ordering is not magic, it's just Core reconstructing wallet state from what it can actually see. If the relevant historical blocks are missing because the node was pruned, then it can't properly discover the old transactions no matter how correct the descriptor is. The descriptor tells Core what to look for, it does not summon old block data from the shadow realm.

The descriptor is basically a map, not the actual blockchain data. Without those historical blocks stored locally, Core cannot magically recover or verify past wallet activity.

For this kind of testing, I'd stop mixing pruned mode with descriptor import tests. It creates exactly this kind of half-working swamp where one wallet seems fine and the other behaves weirdly because their birth times, ranges, change descriptors, and rescan windows are not identical. Testnet4 is small enough that I'd just run it unpruned and remove that variable entirely. Life is too short to debug missing archaeology.

Using a combination of descriptor test only and pruned mode introduces another level of confusion, particularly when the wallet setting vary slightly. Because Testnet4 is already lightweight, running Testnet4 without pruning makes for a much easier debug and eliminates lots of wasted time when trying to locate problems due to missing historical data.

Also, if you're dumping descriptors from an existing wallet and importing them elsewhere, make sure you import the full set, including internal/change descriptors, with proper ranges and timestamps. A lot of people import only the receive side and then wonder why the wallet acts like it was hit in the head with a shovel when change outputs enter the story. Use listdescriptors true, inspect what you're actually moving over, then import the whole family, not just the pretty cousin.

If you only care about future receives, timestamp now is fine. If you care about old funds and ordering/history, use an unpruned node and rescan from a sane birth time. Otherwise you're basically asking a wallet to remember a movie after you deleted half the film reel.

A significant factor that folks frequently overlook when referencing imported descriptors is that, although that singular descriptor appears accurate upon import, after the change outputs appear, the wallet transaction history appears incomplete and disorganized. By importing the entire descriptor set with the proper ranges and timestamps associated with each descriptor, it can have a huge effect on how the user experiences their transaction wallet. Additionally, if the user cares about their previous transaction history, it’s normally safest to import into an unpruned node and then use a proper rescan of their transaction history versus waiting for the blockchain data associated with missing transactions to automatically heal themselves.

Most of his post only rephrase points that already mentioned by @flapduck. It's obviously not helpful and could be considered as plagiarism with paraphrasing by some people.

there’s a new fake Sparrow wallet in the Apple store again!
once again, the scammer is trying to get your seed phrase/words so they can steal your valuable Bitcoins!
the original Sparrow wallet is only available as a desktop version... all other mobile versions are fakes!

Big thumbs up for bringing this up cygan. These scammers obviously are trying to target those that have been looking for the mobile app because last I checked sparrow is almost as popular as exodus and Electrum especially if it relates to bitcoin transactions.

bringing attention to this issue can save many people. Staying cautious is key when dealing with Bitcoin wallets and apps.

This is literally another reminder that just because it comes from the apple store or play store doesn't mean it's real or authentic these providers should at least care more because people trust these stores too much most times.

people rely heavily on these stores for security. It’s important for users to stay cautious and not assume authenticity just because an app is listed there.

This will be our first attempt at monetization to sustain the project for the future, both near and far. We are also open to suggestions, so if you have any ideas to help us sustain the project, don't hesitate to share.

₈₆₇

Probably, if you manage to attract some crypto card issuer and integrate their card into the wallet’s loop, you will be able to monetize your project further. Besides, it could add value to the wallet itself and, in turn, expand its client base. I personally would love to use it  ^{even though I already have several wallets with integrated cards like Pavy, Ready, Trusty Plus, etc}.

This method of integrating will lead to a transformation in how wallets are perceived as being more than just the 'technical' aspect but evolving into a total financial ecosystem for every user. The card system provides an easy way for users to make purchases, which is essential because it can promote usage and access.

Unhelpful, because it basically agree with quoted post while rephrase the points.


User: PocketAurora

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive at least 1 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66701711#msg66701711.

List of post:

CKPool isn’t ideal for very small miners like Bitaxe. A better option is Public Pool, which is built for small miners and still lets you solo mine (you keep the full reward if you find a block). Running your own node is another option, but more advanced. 

I and other member already explain why this statement is wrong, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5580857.msg66670043#msg66670043 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5580857.msg66639642#msg66639642.

Unhelpful, because all points already mentioned by other members on previous posts.

Unhelpful, because OP of that thread already mention his idea doesn't drop earlier block/history for all nodes.

[arzuo]

and am still learning!

You could learn more from reading than from posting.

I'm sorry again If any mistakes !!! I am New!!

Shitposting verbal diarrhea from a chatbot has nothing to do with being new.

Actually it was my mistake, I'm sorry for that and for the late reply. Actually that post was a mistake,
I had many tabs open in my browser and I was testing a translator and tools generator, so a copied content was submitted inside to test my code, which I didn't notice,

(Although I was preparing to submit another content after writing it.)

Actually I'm a freelancer and do a lot of coding and website work, so I keep many browsers open at the same time, which resulted in this fatal mistake.

I'm sorry again!!!!🙏