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

[LoyceV]

Can't the attacker just derive the exact Bitcoin address from the raw public key?

Yes, but there's no need: usually the address is broadcasted (when it gets funded) before the public key is shared (when sending a transaction).

[ABCbits]

--snip--
To perform dust attack, you only need to know the Bitcoin address. public key doesn't matter here.

Can't the attacker just derive the exact Bitcoin address from the raw public key?

Yes, attacker (or anyone else) could generate Bitcoin address from the public key. But in almost all cases, the Bitcoin address is known first before the public key. Bitcoin address become known after it receive Bitcoin or the owner share it to other people. But public key become known after you spend Bitcoin from the associated address, the owner share signed message to other people or the owner share the public key directly to other people.

[eternalgloom]

Yes, attacker (or anyone else) could generate Bitcoin address from the public key. But in almost all cases, the Bitcoin address is known first before the public key. Bitcoin address become known after it receive Bitcoin or the owner share it to other people. But public key become known after you spend Bitcoin from the associated address, the owner share signed message to other people or the owner share the public key directly to other people.

So I would say that according to the question, his answer is correct in this case.

But the other two posts that you mentioned are really unhelpful wrong information, especially what he wrote about wallet entropy is completely wrong.

[LoyceV]

So I would say that according to the question, his answer is correct in this case.

Correct or not, it's unhelpful. Exposed public keys don't cause dust attacks.

[ABCbits]

So I would say that according to the question, his answer is correct in this case.

Correct or not, it's unhelpful. Exposed public keys don't cause dust attacks.

And it could mislead people, because people could falsely assume dust attack only works on Bitcoin address that already spend it's Bitcoin.

[ABCbits]

/User: Nadifa2030

Additional information (optional):
* This user receive accusiotion of spamming with AI/chatbot, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66966716#msg66966716.
* https://bpip.org/Profile?p=Nadifa2030 currently show 11/41 (27%) post deleted by moderator.

List of post:

AI-Based Mempool Pattern Research: Using Local AI for Network Diagnostics Instead of Consensus

--snip--

This whole thread appear to be AI generated text, without any human review. Click the reply or visit https://bitlist.co/topic/5589048 for full context. has some questionable arguments and lack of detail. For example,
1. The privacy first argument is weak, when Bitcoin blockchain and unconfirmed transaction (stored on mempool) are publicly available.
2. It doesn't explain what are the benefit to average people who run Bitcoin full node.
3. Statement "Propagation delays that differ from historical averages" doesn't make sense. If you only run one node (since his "idea" to run AI locally), you only know when your node receive a TX or block. At least you'll need to run multiple nodes on different region to have rough estimation of block/TX propagation speed.


User: PrivacyBTC

Additional information (optional):
* This user also create some duplicate thread announcement of certain websites.
* I suspect this user spam with AI/chatbot.

List of post:

1. This is unhelpful, because it's just general tip/recommendation.
2. The one who asked the question already mention there's no public-pool app/instance inside his myNode.

Unhelpful, only promote a website.

[ABCbits]

User: qbtc-core

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

List of post:

The table is outdated and missing some alternatives... but it's enough to show there's no single "best" choice.

Pick a scheme even if it is inefficient, and do a large block size increase. This will lead to a severe and negative impact on decentralization.

You guys are touching on the real elephant in the room, but most of the community is still completely missing the actual bottleneck: TCP transport buffers and mempool serialization.

Everyone stares at the 3.3 KB size of ML-DSA-65 (Dilithium) and argues about on-chain storage or block limits. But if you try to forcefully soft-fork a 3KB+ signature into the legacy Bitcoin Core architecture, the nodes will literally choke during transaction relay before a block is even mined.

BIP-360 (P2MR) is just a band-aid. Sure, it hides the pubkey, but the moment you actually spend that UTXO, you are still slamming the mempool with a massive PQ signature.

Satofan44 is absolutely right: blindly increasing the block size to accommodate PQC will completely wreck node decentralization. On the flip side, waiting around for some "magical, tiny PQC math" is just gambling against quantum hardware advancements.

The only mathematically sound way out is a ground-up architectural rewrite. I'm talking about a native base-layer Commit-Reveal mempool isolation. A true PQ-SegWit architecture that entirely decouples raw cryptographic proofs from state storage. And you have to rip out and expand the default P2P Yamux/TCP buffers right at the consensus layer.

I've been testing this exact architecture natively on a Layer-1 PoW network (enforcing ML-DSA-65 at consensus). The sheer verification overhead of lattice-based cryptography actually solves another problem by accident: it naturally bricks legacy ASICs and forces a return to bare-metal CPU mining.

Soft-forking PQC into legacy Bitcoin is an engineering nightmare. The true quantum transition will inevitably require a parallel genesis.

1. There's no explanation why TX that use 3KB signature would "choke" TX relay. After all, node have no real problem/issue when relaying TX with few KB size (such as ordinal TX with arbitrary data).
2. Changing signature cryptography (from ECDSA to QC resistant else) alone wouldn't break today's Bitcoin mining.
3. I downloaded Bitcoin Core source by git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin. But there's mention of text "yamux" at all on the Bitcoin Core source code. So claim Bitcoin or Bitcoin Core P2P Yamix is wrong.


User: Mario0

Additional information (optional):
* Additional information 1

List of post:

Claude can only be useful to check the code and find some hidden bugs and flaws in the code.
Someone already used this tool to exploit some shitcoins, and I am sure hackers are using it steal coins from exchanges.
But totally replacing any human bitcoin developer with Claude or any other AI would be stupid and dangerous.

I don't think Claude can be utilized for the things you are saying since, as soon as they are added, you will receive a response from Claude because it might negatively impact the AI's reputation, and I'm confident that Claude won't be involved in anything that would lead to criminal activity.  And from what I understand, developers can benefit from it, but not in the way you truly believe.

False claim. Claude actually used to find security vulnerabilities on altcoin when used by actual security expert. See https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2026/06/critical-zcash-vulnerability-found-and-fixed.html

Certain Crypto Currencies are claiming to have them already. When Bitcoin?

Since Bitcoin does not yet have a quantum-secure address, it is clear that it does not require it at this time, and the quantum's that are available now are not yet powerful enough to break Bitcoin's encryption, and if it becomes so, I am confident that the developers will make an upgrade, because, and since awareness is everywhere, I do not believe things like this will be ignored. And other new cryptocurrencies are built with different cryptography when it becomes a concern, then it will not be ignored, that I know for sure.

1. While Bitcoin currently have no QC-resistant address, BIP 360 already created as foundation for such address.
2. Bitcoin does not use encryption cryptography.


User: ROCterm

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

It's crazy how self hosted nodes are hitting more blocks than those of the public.
Is there something that we all need to learn from this?

Smart miners in the house, what is should we take from this?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583890.msg66758428#msg66758428 explain problem with this thread.

You can't get that type of lottery from asic miners, if your asic says 3500watts, its definitely going to take 3500watts, unless the miner have a way that you can down clock its hashrate that will reduce the power consumption.

If you are looking for a way to get away with Bitcoin mining because of power consumption you can start with small home miners, I know one that takes 1500watts I forget the name, there are few others too with lower power consumption, you just need to find them.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5581449.msg66668902#msg66668902 explain problem with this reply.


User: Khaleedmaine

Additional information (optional):
* This account suspected to spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66922858#msg66922858.

List of post:

Another generic reply. Company (such as exchange) and people already use Bitcoin today to send or settle big amount of Bitcoin, some of them even do that during past congestion.


User: WakeUpToCrypto

Additional information (optional):
* https://bpip.org/Profile?p=MrEazyLife shows 65/335 (19.4% post) deleted by moderator.

List of post:

Generic or unhelpful reply.


User: iooijing

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

The full thread have about 43822 characters and probably generated with AI/chatbot. I only skimmed it, but there are misleading statement.
1. "Mining revenue per kilowatt-hour, by contrast, moves directly with Bitcoin's price and network difficulty". This is misleading, because ASIC efficiency and other operational cost are also other factor of mining revenue.

Therefore, expanding the block is like increasing the Bitcoin limit of 21 million, and segwit removing the signature data is like buying half of the goods.

For full context, visit his thread.
1. Increasing block size isn't equal or similar with increasing Bitcoin total supply.
2. SegWit doesn't remove signature data. SegWit actually change TX structure.


User: CryptoTroubleshooter

Additional information (optional):
* This user claim they bring high quality technical content, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5355092.msg66425563#msg66425563. But most of his posts appear to be only generic or acceptable quality.

List of post:

Simply unhelpful/spam reply.

[ABCbits]

User: EstherBtc

Additional information (optional):
* https://bpip.org/Profile?p=EstherBtc shows 11/54 (20%) posts deleted by moderator.

List of post:

1. Hard to read, because those post quote a long thread with broken tag.
2. Multiple posts in a row.
3. All of his statement already answered earlier by other members.

For more context, visit the link.


User: adbot

Additional information (optional):
* 14/24 (58.3%) reply deleted by moderator.
* This account suspected spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66973738#msg66973738.

List of post:

Durov is trying, but the coin's success shouldn't depend on one person; the hype will pass and the price will fall.

Another spam/unhelpful post.

Dude, you need to learn how Bitcoin works. No one but you can move your coins.

This short reply isn't helpful, when earlier post already give more specific/detailed reply.

[ABCbits]

User: fibonacciopstan

Additional information (optional):
* This account suspected spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66981842#msg66981842.
* This account "write" more than 1 post in less than 1 minute, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66980839#msg66980839.

List of post:

A new address format may eventually be implemented by wallets, explorers and third-party services, so developers will need to know exactly which specification applied at every stage.

Will earlier versions of the checksum rules, encoding format and compatibility guarantees remain publicly available after the documentation is updated?

Have you considered recording major specification releases through an append-only service such as Opstan, so the original rules cannot later be silently replaced?

1. Partly off-topic and unhelpful. There's none/little feedback, while the thread title is "Looking for feedback on a new blockchain address format".
2. "Opstan" refer to his own project that doesn't seem to be related with the thread, so this is also unwanted promotion.

The UTXO model and address structure will probably change as you receive technical feedback, but those earlier designs may still be valuable for understanding why the final architecture was chosen.

How are you planning to preserve the original proposal, rejected alternatives and reasons behind each important revision?

One option could be a permanent project journal through Opstan or another immutable publication network, where every new revision is added without erasing the previous one.

1. Partly off-topic and unhelpful. There's none/little feedback, while the thread title is "Looking for feedback on my UTXO model and address format".
2. "Opstan" refer to his own project that doesn't seem to be related with the thread, so this is also unwanted promotion.


User: Jerry Bob

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

Is there any website or platgrom that shows upcoming Bitcoin asic miners and home miners? I can't find one online, how are you guys staying updated with upcoming asics in this market and crypto space in general?

You can search on Google; it will recommend many options, but it's best to verify before making a purchase. My usual choice is https://www.zeusbtc.com/; they've been in this field for a long time and I trust them.

Partly unhelpful/off-topic. User @Trx3 doesn't ask where to buy ASIC, while suggestion to use google search is very generic.

off-topic, because the thread is for avalon nano. the mentioned ASIC also created by different company.

plain spam.

[ABCbits]

User: Jaweria parveen

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

There are a lot of costs involved because whenever a mining project is set up, many things are used, such as electricity, the price of Bitcoin, these things put a lot of burden on the mining power, due to which the expenses are less and less money is made. But still it is quite difficult to estimate it because each place has a different amount of expenses. This work is with a lot of capital, so if we add it to our big project, we can earn a profit of up to $ 1000. I have made this price by estimation, so someone can give it priority and can also consider it lower. We have seen many mining project systems closing down when the price of Bitcoin decreases, so if we get the number of all the expenses clearly, we can make a profit price from it.

Off-topic and unhelpful, because the thread is only asking about how to know new or upcoming Bitcoin mining device.

The Bitcoin ATM we have in my country are no longer operational so I did not get the opportunity of using it at least once. From what I understand about ATMs in general, they are usually installed with camera for security reasons and unless those cameras captures the user properly, the transaction may be declined. Bitcoin ATMs may also have something like this added for security reasons else people can mess with the machine and try to exploit the system.

I think Bitcoin ATMs were closed a while back, which is why you cannot use this ATM. Although you should have used it when it came to your area and told us what your experience was. If there was a Bitcoin ATM in my area, I would definitely use it, but those who have it give a very good experience that it makes transactions easily like any other ATM. It used to give better and better transactions than other ATMs and it protects us from all sides through Bitcoin with complete security. Although we have seen very few other accidents so far that there have been any accidents with ATM machines, so there has not been a single accident with Bitcoin ATMs so we prefer it like other ATMs. Till now, ATMs have been built in many places and there are many such ATMs in Switzerland and transactions are very easy there.

1. Bitcoin ATM is neither accident free or could give complete security. Software bug or security vulnerability may exist.
2. "give better and better transactions than other ATM" is questionable, when Bitcoin ATM is generally known for relative high fee/cost, compared with conventional ATM or using crypto exchange.

[ABCbits]

User: Solarmesh

Additional information (optional):
* This account suspected spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66995700#msg66995700.

List of post:

your tx must include a valid scriptSig for each input
the script/witness rules have to match what the prevout actually encumbered
the two errors you saw map pretty well to that:

• missingorspent = wrong/unknown prevouts (or spent according to the node’s view)
• scriptsig-not-pushonly = your scriptSig contains non-push operations for a script type that requires push-only elements.

also most push-tx endpoints reject non-standard/malformed txs by policy

Unhelpful, this post doesn't read/consider update from the one who asked help. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5550467.msg66774693#msg66774693 indicate possibility the UTXO "soft confiscated".

There are 2 possible scenarios:

1. If the address is valid but not the intended recipient's address the Bitcoin will be sent to that address and you will lose your funds.
2. If the address does not exist or is invalid (for instance, it does not match the correct format of a Bitcoin address), the transaction will not go through at all. Transaction will simply fail.

Keep in mind that once a Bitcoin transaction is confirmed, it cannot be reversed.

Unhelpful, because the points already mentioned by other member earlier, as early as first reply on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573525.msg66372958#msg66372958.


User: 0x000369

Additional information (optional):
* This account suspected spamming with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66387082#msg66387082

List of post:

Is this possible? If yes, what happens to if my miner that is registered to the BCH Node(running ckpool) hit a block, is the payout automatically deposited to my BCH wallet configured in the miner?

@Vipersl65

yeah it's possible obviously

different chains different software different ports you just gotta make sure they don't clash

that's basic stuff

and for the payout if you're solo mining on your own node with ckpool configured right then yeah it goes straight to your wallet address

that's how solo mining works op it's not some magic money tree

just make damn sure your wallet config is correct and your node is actually fully synced

wouldn't want to get rekt by a typo or an unsynced node would we

and bch solo mining lol good luck with that these days unless you're a whale

1. Unhelpful, because most of the points already stated on earlier posts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573138.msg66386276#msg66386276 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573138.msg66358238#msg66358238).
2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573138.msg66426165#msg66426165 explain BCH solo mining is more realistic, even with just 1 ASIC.

Yes as I mentioned you can set it anytime
You already get the gist of it if it's the latter it'll defeat the entire purpose of pruning since the node operator has to provide enough space anyways
To make it simple
Since Bitcoin Core in pruned mode is still a full node so it has to verify each downloaded blocks and it does so as it downloads them not after downloading all
After your node is done with a block (verification scan for transactions building indexes etc) it can decide to delete the earlier ones once it reached your target size
Yeah man that's exactly how it works no need to download the whole thing first and then prune it would be dumb if it did that
Bitcoin Core is smart it downloads verifies and prunes on the fly so with your 40GB free space setting 20GB should be fine but watch out for the chainstate folder it can spike up to around 13GB or so during sync as ABCbits mentioned
I've done this on a small drive before and it worked but yeah like satscraper said keep some free space for SSD health maybe aim for 25-30% free if you can
If you're tight on space pruning is a lifesaver but remember you lose some features like rescanning old wallets without redownloading everything

1. First half of this post is plagiarism from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5566988.msg66125740#msg66125740.
2. Second half of this post only mention point that already stated by other member.

[LoyceV]

Newbie Solarmesh Banned! is shitposting all over the serious boards. I reported one post, that got deleted, but the shitposter isn't banned yet.
Here he continues rehashing old posts:

a full bitcoin node does a lot of sustained, random I/O and frequent overwrites plus database-style writes.
microSD cards are usually not for heavy write endurance
running an os on an sd card is real, but a bitcoin full node is a different workload

even with a good industrial sd card, the bigger risk is wear-out, controller errors, corruption after power hiccups and performance dips during validation not just raw speed on paper.

User: Solarmesh

GMTA!

[YOSHIE]

User: Mastercon

Additional information (optional):
* This user also got accusation regarding possible cheating on review campaign, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5335270.msg65428902#msg65428902.

Usually what the main account often does, when they create an Alternative account, they also do the same thing, when talking about fraudulent Alt and Mastercon accounts in the Utopia review, I looked and it was suspicious that Mastercon already had an Alt account that also participated in the Utopia review, but I didn't check in detail whether he was spreading false information or not.

However, some proof of transactions between Btc addresses btcnbegun & Mastercon I'm pretty sure they are connected and they are Alts from Mastercon.

1. btcnbegun

Proof:

Bitcointalk Username: btcnbegun
Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qpzqkdfdkcdhvyfdhjz2mzzrru344r0deen0pxa

https://archive.vn/wip/KsX7J

@btcnbegun, made several transactions to the address used by Mastercon.

Transaction Proof 1 and screenshot.
https://bitcoin.atomicwallet.io/tx/e743721f0d8f546c42cd997d6a24195904f2635ea0aa29762d392279e0fe346e

Bitcointalk Username: Mastercon
btc addy: 3CkpdnuFwTaFH8wskLksZBWD61a5PPh6Nz

https://archive.vn/wip/FGRWf

Transaction proof 2: https://bitcoin.atomicwallet.io/tx/2e09f5b25498b8a4202bdba8839b2fc951e76dd9778e2a06f4b3244800dec15f

Currently btcnbegun, is in the Utopia P2P review campaign.
SPREADSHEETS

[Satofan44]

noorman0

Doesn't every version update mean updating or adding a few lines of code? So, being open source for 7 years doesn't determine the age of the code.

Every update should also require a re-audit of the code. If security researchers don't find vulnerabilities first, attackers will. AI is just a powerful resource that can't do anything without prompting. Just like a knife.

Just generic nonsense, kill it with fire. Every update of software should also require a shipment of gold to Satofan44.

NiceNIC.COM

I think trading volume and on-chain congestion are not the same thing. A lot of trading happens inside exchanges, so it does not always hit the blockchain.

Fees rise when people are fighting for block space. If the mempool is calm, even a busy market can still have low fees.