What you think of this posting style?

[memehunter]

User: Cryptocrit

This user is posting 100% copy-paste from some crypto news platform with absolutely zero input from his/her own side. Although he is mentioning the source, IMO, this is spamming. You can check his post history, which is 100% consistent with such posts. I am including one recent example;

Litecoin (LTC) is currently priced at $104.18, with a 24-hour trading volume of $937 million. Over the past 24 hours, its value has slightly increased by 0.26%, but in the past seven days, it has dropped significantly by 12.85%. The total market value of Litecoin is approximately $7.95 billion, with 76 million LTC in circulation. This decline reflects a broader market trend where sellers have gained control, pushing prices lower.

Litecoin fell below a critical support level of $100 today, signaling strong bearish pressure. The price drop has intensified over the past few days, leading to a loss of 22.40% of its value. As trading volume increased to 7.35 million, it further confirmed that selling activity remains dominant. Unless buyers regain control, Litecoin’s price could continue to decline, with the next major support level identified at $85.

Technical indicators show that Litecoin is currently oversold. The Bollinger Bands suggest increased market volatility, with LTC trading near the lower band at $100.38. This usually indicates that the price might be too low and could rebound soon. However, this does not guarantee an immediate recovery, as bearish sentiment remains strong.

https://www.cryptocrit.xyz/2025/03/crypto-price-prediction-litecoin-ltc.html

Now I can see from where this type of posting behaviour stems,
User:  BitBakerr1

Look at the post below, which got 7 merits for exactly this type of post. Looking at the account's post history, it is evident that he knew from the start which threads are giving merits in abundance.

Cryptocurrency exchange Bybit experienced what may be the largest security breach in the history of digital currencies, with a reported $1.46 billion in Ethereum (ETH) being withdrawn from its hot wallets. The CEO of Bybit, Ben Zhou, confirmed the hack via social media, stating that a hacker had taken control of a specific ETH cold wallet and transferred all its contents to an unidentified address.

The breach was first suspected when on-chain data revealed a massive transfer of 401,346 ETH, valued at approximately $1.13 billion, from Bybit’s hot wallet to an unknown wallet. This transfer not only raised alarms about a potential hack but also affected Ethereum’s market price, with the cryptocurrency dropping over 4% as the stolen funds began to be liquidated.

Zhou assured users that despite the breach, all other cold wallets remained secure and that withdrawals were operating normally. According to details provided by Zhou, the hack was executed by deceiving the wallet signers with a fake user interface that displayed the correct address, leading them to unknowingly approve a change to the smart contract logic. This gave the attacker full control over the wallet, enabling the theft of all ETH contained within it.

The method used in the Bybit hack closely resembles the techniques employed in previous significant breaches, such as the WazirX and Radiant Capital hacks of 2024. Security experts have compared the Bybit incident to these past events, highlighting the similarities in the attackers’ approach.

The immediate aftermath of the hack saw nearly $200 million worth of Lido Staked Ether (stETH) sold within the first half-hour, further impacting Ethereum’s market value. As the investigation into the hack continues, further updates are expected to be made available. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities present in the realm of cryptocurrency exchanges and the importance of robust security measures.

Source.
https://ng.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/bybit-suffers-major-hack-with-over-146-billion-in-ethereum-stolen-93CH-1775418

Now, what are your opinions on this type of posting?   

[ABCbits]

Now, what are your opinions on this type of posting?  

For user @Cryptocrit, he actually perform SEO spam (rather than regular spam) since he never write reply and all of his post contain links to cryptocrit dot xyz. IMO he should be nuked altogether with @CoinTürk and @chmod755 who do same things for many years on Press board.

Edit: some reference thread as additional information,

• Proposal: Rename the "Press" board to "Spammer of the Month" board
• Press Board - Limit Number Threads Per User Per Day.

[Churchillvv]

User: Cryptocrit

https://www.cryptocrit.xyz/2025/03/crypto-price-prediction-litecoin-ltc.html

From what I can see with the username of the OP it seems he or she is probably the crypto news site owner or just a replica of the website, however the op seems not to waste time in trying to contribute his own thoughts towards news that he post which is somewhat not good yet at the same time is not prohibited as long as he mentions the source.

Hence I'm a bit undecided of whether such posting style is so bad or not but in a mere sense copy and paste is absolutely unacceptable.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It sounds to me from previous cases that this is not tolerated on the forum. That once you can copy and paste from a site citing the source OK IMO. But doing it many times without adding anything sounds to me that it is not tolerated and surely he and the others deserve to be nuked as ABCbits says.

But from what Churchillvv says I remember a case that at least claimed he was the author or owner of the articles from another site.

We shall see.

[memehunter]

The forum will not count it as plagiarism because he included the link of his source of information but such posts are worth no merits.

But every post of his is 100% AI-generated. Just because he is including a source link (which, as per him, is his own platform) allows him to spam? I did not tag him yet as I need more clarity on the situation from wise and reputed members like you. If you think this type of behavior should be allowed without at least a neutral tag, I disagree with respect.      

[Charles-Tim]

But from what Churchillvv says I remember a case that at least claimed he was the author or owner of the articles from another site.

I guess you are referring to someone that did not include the link but referring to himself as the source while the post was not deleted. I think I remember something like this probably in 2020 or 2021.

The user is having the name of the site. Maybe he is the owner of the site. If he is the owner, there is nothing wrong in what he did as long as he can bring proof. But I need to ask memehunter a question.

But every post of his is 100% AI-generated. Just because he is including a source link (which, as per him, is his own platform) allows him to spam? I did not tag him yet as I need more clarity on the situation from wise and reputed members like you. If you think this type of behavior should be allowed without at least a neutral tag, I disagree with respect.       

You mean the website itself is using AI to post contents from other sites directly? That should be frown upon.

I do not give tag because of spam or plagiarism. I give tag because of something related to trust, reputation, money and scam. But we all have different opinions on this forum. Although, for those using AI, I think they are worth neutral tag for campaign managers to know who they are.

[Helena Yu]

It will fall to low value and this forum not accept low value post.

I still remember someone ever report this kind posting where the @OP only copied the whole text and citing the post without add anything in Press board. The moderators will either delete or lock the thread.

1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e]

[Free Market Capitalist]

But every post of his is 100% AI-generated. Just because he is including a source link (which, as per him, is his own platform) allows him to spam? I did not tag him yet as I need more clarity on the situation from wise and reputed members like you. If you think this type of behavior should be allowed without at least a neutral tag, I disagree with respect.      

Do you mean the second one? Or both? You didn't mention that (AI generation) on the OP.

The fact is that BitBakerr1's linked article says at the end:

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.

I wonder what Igebotz has to say about this, as he merited BitBakerr1. I don't see why simply copying and pasting that article deserves merit.

[memehunter]

You mean the website itself is using AI to post contents from other sites directly? That should be frown upon.

Yes, the website in question is posting AI-generated texts. I am not sure whether it is from other websites, as Ai is quite capable of generating new text.

Do you mean the second one? Or both? You didn't mention that (AI generation) on the OP.

Both are AI generated. I did not mention it in the OP (I should have), as it can be argued as an indirect use of AI as the poster is hiding behind the source link, and I need more clarity.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Both are AI generated. I did not mention it in the OP (I should have), as it can be argued as an indirect use of AI as the poster is hiding behind the source link, and I need more clarity.

I think that in this respect you have too negative a bias about AI. Here the questionable thing about their behavior is that they have simply copied and pasted from another website, albeit citing the source. Whether the source article is created with AI or not is not relevant here.

[igebotz]

I wonder what Igebotz has to say about this, as he merited BitBakerr1. I don't see why simply copying and pasting that article deserves merit.

Nothing. The article was helpful to me - got some information I was lacking about the whole Bybit hack. Good?

[LoyceV]

User: Cryptocrit

He's nuked now.

[memehunter]

Whether the source article is created with AI or not is not relevant here.

Really! I don't think so, especially when it is self-referencing. I mean, I can post whatever and reference my own website; is that OK with you?

I think that in this respect you have too negative a bias about AI

All humans have an innate psychological tendency to give more importance to negative occurrences, but I do not think you were implying that. I do not think I have written anything with any prejudices (you can correct me if I am wrong). In the first case, all posts were deleted, and in the second case, you yourself questioned the merits that the post deserved. My position towards AI has been explained so many times before, so I really do not get what compelled you to make a personal comment about my judgment.     

[lovesmayfamilis]

Yesterday you reported the about BitBakerr1 as an AI spammer in the corresponding thread, but later you doubted that there was a link and completely deleted your entire post. However, everything is much simpler. Such posts, where the author does not contribute a single thought, must be directly reported to the moderators as zero posts. Unfortunately, the users themselves, seeing such topics, begin to respond to them, and the consequences of reports are not always successful. Moderators rarely delete such topics if they have several replies; in extreme cases, the topic will be blocked.

[memehunter]

Yesterday you reported the about BitBakerr1 as an AI spammer in the corresponding thread, but later you doubted that there was a link and completely deleted your entire post. However, everything is much simpler. Such posts, where the author does not contribute a single thought, must be directly reported to the moderators as zero posts. Unfortunately, the users themselves, seeing such topics, begin to respond to them, and the consequences of reports are not always successful. Moderators rarely delete such topics if they have several replies; in extreme cases, the topic will be blocked.

I realized what he was doing does not fit in the AI thread. That was the whole point of making this separate thread.

[lovesmayfamilis]

An example of the moderators' reaction to posts that were simply copied without adding a single word of their own and posted only in search of merit, since this thread has examples of receiving the latter. Checking whether the posts were created by AI or not simply does not matter; there is a source, and the moderators are satisfied with it. There is the fact of copying and nothing more. However, all the posts are in place .


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5522234.msg65074394#msg65074394

[Agbe]

The username himself (Cryptocrit) has deleted all the posts in his profile. And only this behaviour of deleting the Posts indicated that he was deliberately using AI to post in the forum.


And here is his deleted posts in Ninjastic.space

[Pablo-wood]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5522234.msg65074394#msg65074394

There is a big difference in the two instances. The first is a direct copy and paste case with no effort to contribute to his/her opening thread. But the link provided isn't a complete copy and paste you can see efforts were made to add a few lines of words, Aside that the main idea of the thread is to cite instances and cases of Bitcoin reserve across the US.

In this instance the moderator is not expected to react because this is the format In which the thread was presented. Or are we saying we shouldn't get information from the internet anymore or we should just work directly from what we have in our minds?. Won't there be limited information to share?. I am really confused to what is required from the forum users.

[LoyceV]

The username himself (Cryptocrit) has deleted all the posts in his profile.

That's what happens when an account gets Nuked. I doubt he deleted anything.

[SamReomo]

That's what happens when an account gets Nuked. I doubt he deleted anything.

So that guy's account got nuked and that's actually good for him and for the forum. I still think that how such a user posted so many posts of that nature and didn't got noticed earlier.