Topic: Users who spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board - page 2. (Read 1688 times)

User: Kamasylvia

Additional information (optional):
* This user also suspected using AI, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63976679.

List of post:


Concept of perishable UTXO actually let miner take UTXO (above certain age) for themselves. So saying "their UTXOs could become unspendable" is simply wrong.


For reference, this post written using Indonesian language.
1. Usually there's almost no correlation between mempool activity on mainnet and testnet. See https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#1y and https://mempool.space/testnet/graphs/mempool#1y.
2. Both mainnet and testnet have same 10 minutes block time. So saying testnet might be faster to confirm a transaction is wrong.
3. There's no need to pay attention to mainnet for determining fee for creating TX fee.


1. AntMiner is name of a company. They create all kinds of ASIC, not only SHA-256 ASIC.
2. WhatsMiners is brand name from company MicroBT. They also  create all kinds of ASIC, not only SHA-256 ASIC.
2. Looking at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reviewguide-whatsminer-m20s-680-ths-3260-w-bitcoin-sha-256-asic-miner-5155468 and https://www.asicminervalue.com/miners/microbt/whatsminer-m20s, there's no mention that WhatsMiner M20S support either X11 or scrypt.


1. Opcodes on Bitcoin does more than allowing different data sizes or verification. Other reader may check https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script to verify my statement.
2. Actually only node with outdated software or using software which intentionally doesn't implement certain stuff unable to properly validate unsupported/unknown opcodes.



1. TX fee on sidechain usually is extremely low, so using LN bring little benefit in terms of TX fee.
2. Whether you open LN channel from Bitcoin mainnet or sidechain, you get same benefit (microtransaction and fast confirmation).

---

User: marcosadelacruz

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:


For reference, this reply was created under BRC-20 thread.
1. BRC-20 isn't smart contract.
2. BRC-20 doesn't offer feature to add turing-complete script either.
3. BRC-20 (which rely on Ordinal) isn't part of Bitcoin protocol. So it can't be exploited to cause Bitcoin network failure or add vulnerability to Bitcoin network.

That's great idea. I'll think about the format and edit this thread later.


That was quick, i appreciate your action.

Thanks @ABCbits, just to summarise I have done the following:

(1) I deleted my post in the thread in relation to tails, as it was incorrect.
(2) My post in the bitcoin inheritance thread was already deleted by a moderator.
(3) I have updated my post in relation to the attack scenarios to include the new insights you shared:

It just gave the appearance of it.

An account was registered and made no posts for 8+ years and then 50 posts in 2 weeks.

That usually screams an account was compromised or changed hands.

-Dave

That's a great and helpful topic, definitely undervalued in my opinion.
When asking technical questions, I really expect to get answers backd by knowledge, not backed by assumptions or AI.

To make it easier, maybe you can add some code to your OP, where it's easier for everyone to report, similar like:


And add below the form that it would ne nice to correct all false/fake informations.

Thanks, appreciate your response, I will make sure later on to go back and edit those posts I made with more detailed and correct information, and will keep your feedback in mind for future posts as well. Overall I think what you are doing here is positive, ensuring that high quality posts are maintained on the forum. Particular your previous comments on this thread calling out users who are using AI generated comments, there is no place for that and probably being done by people with the intention of trying to get a high ranked account so they can later scam on it. My intention is purely to contribute to the forum and reconnect here from when I lurked so many years ago, but I'll make sure I am more specific in more comments (e.g. actually mention 2 of 3 spend condition lol).

First of all, i appreciate you provide detailed response in this thread.

Now i understand better what you're trying to say regarding multi-sig wallet. While it's true there are few assumption on my behalf, i doubt other reader would know you're actually talking about 2-of-3 spend condition when you didn't even mention number 2 (two).


I see. I usually term "block organization", but term "fork" is also valid term to describe 51% attack which create new chain (with most accumulated hashrate/work). And FYI, while such attack require 51% hashrate to ensure success, someone might try it with less hashrate on transaction with only few confirmation. You can use this calculator https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/ to estimate the success rate.


I didn't use Tails back on 2016 or 2017, so i'll take your words. Anyway, it'd be great if you edit your posts to state that your previous statement is outdated.


I don't think you're using hacked account either, so IMO there's no need to provide any proof.


Thanks for the explanation. And FYI having multiple account actually is allowed by this forum. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657, point number 18.

I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

---

I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.

I also notice difference between registration date and first post. But i doubt anyone would bother hack old account without any activity.


Thanks.

This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave

User: SickDayIn


1. This is partially off-topic response since it's 1st reply on a thread with title "Comparing Inheritance Services".
2. His suggestion to create 3 multi-signature wallet with 3-of-3 spend condition (since he said "all require 3 keys") is dangerous since you'll lose access to the Bitcoin even if one of the key is lost.


1. You don't need 51% hashrate to perform a fork. In addition, you don't need any hashrate if the fork also replace PoW with something else.
2. BCH perform fork even though it has far smaller hashrate than BTC. It's also true for BSV when it forked itself from BCH.
3. AntPool is mining pool, not miner. Besides, AntPool and few other mining pool already offer accelerator service. That means they'll harm their own service by letting someone else use their miner's hashrate.

---

Below reply wasn't created on technical board, but still give inaccurate technical information.


1. Tails offer persistent storage feature, https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html. So it's okay to store data on USB which contain Tails.
2. Tails provide upgrade feature without overwrite, https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/.

Although it took a while the mods finally got annoyed enough to ban someone years ago from the technical board https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/note-franky1-is-banned-from-the-this-subforum-5192937
And they still let him spread his troll crap in other sections. I un-ignored him the other day for some reason and after actually engaging with him I added him back to my ignore list.

If they won't actually kick someone like that off the forum these other users are sadly going to be here a while until they cross some other line.

-Dave

I think he's big mad because his accounts keep getting banned... He should learn instead its better to just not break the rules.

It is easy to connect the accounts between a trail of merits; here's how I found a new one:

https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?from=Youngkhngdiddy&to=Gormicsta



Manlikefrank1


 


 

Also his very first post was plagiarized:


Original:

https://www.investopedia.com/spot-bitcoin-etfs-8358373

It's not surprising. Anyway, his post on this thread was deleted by moderator. You and other reader can check it on https://ninjastic.space/post/63930017.

His remaining 4 posts are mostly AI generated as well, but the 1st two have enough hand-written gibberish in them to make them fail the AI test.

Post #1:


Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 99.5% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake


Post #2


Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 100% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% fake

User: BTTUSERNAME


1. Long and generic reply.
2. Zero knowledge proof basically a method to verify the data without knowing the data itself. I don't know why it's mentioned as method to secure wallet.
3. Encryption is part of cryptography.
4. Bitcoin wallet usually already use strong encryption cryptography (usually AES-256), assuming the user doesn't use weak password.


1. Fake block doesn't make sense here. If it's fake, it would be rejected by node and thus won't be propagated across Bitcoin network.
2. Performing 51% attack on Bitcoin is very expensive and generally seen as not probable attack. So average people don't have to consider this attack vector seriously.
3. If 51% attack actuall happen, which Bitcoin wallet someone use doesn't matter here.
4. 51% attack still require the attacker to create valid transaction and block, so term "false history of transaction" doesn't make sense here.
5. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".


1. Saying Bitcoin Core works under assumption blockchain is secure is wrong. Bitcoin Core verify all block/TX while also can detect block reorganization.
2. Unless user send Bitcoin or expect to receive Bitcoin when 51% attack happen, there's no need to check balance or newly created transaction.
3. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".


1. The only somewhat helpful information is waiting for blockchain.com's reply.
2. I did quick search for term "BTC balance flash", but didn't find any relevant result. Although based on his explanation, it's probably his friend got fooled by watch only wallet.

AI fighting to survive. Now wait until it becomes self-aware and goes full Skynet.

I think you refer to https://ninjastic.space/user/The-One-Above-All, although it doesn't seem he used to post on technical board. Anyway, if you need to look for certain user, you might want to use https://bpip.org/ search feature or list of banned username on http://loyce.club/.


Or enforce this again with higher standard.


Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16904309

What's especially dumb is he was fighting for his right to AI spam all the way to the last minute:


This is what his posts look like w/o ChatGPT... Ay yayay. Sad to say it but a decent % of users shouldn't be posting on this forum at all. I just can't believe how incredibly low the bar is for getting accepted into a sig campaign here (granted the aforementioned offender was not yet in a campaign). Campaign managers should really set higher standards so we don't have to read the barrage of nonsense that comes from their campaigners, and so those that aren't interested in writing anything remotely interesting don't even bother trying.

I'm trying to find this guy as surely someone posted about him here already but no dice yet, will keep looking but..Anyone remember that one user who had that bald headed weird looking guy as his forum avatar who used to be the king of doing this, maybe 5-6 years back..I mean it was all day, every day..I can't remember his name but he was maybe up there with "The one above all" (which I'm also forgetting his orig forum name, as I think TOAA was his 3rd-5th alt or so..hard to keep up).  Those two were so deranged I almost miss them, and miss Tman going at them, who was equally loony just in a diff way, though a former friend (when he was thought to be trustworthily ..smh).