AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[lovesmayfamilis]

It's a shame to see nutildah and JJG arguing like this. JJG spends many hours reading the forum, more than anyone else, I think. There have been many times when I've noticed that he's given me a merit, I go to the thread in question and see that he's read everything, giving merit to the posts he thinks deserve it. Easily, of all the merits he gives, some will have gone to shitposters. It has happened to all of us, and to him, being a source of merits, even more so. If the argument had been developed constructively, perhaps nutildah could have acknowledged the good work that JJG does, instead of focusing only on the bad. And JJG could try to be more careful not to give merit to shitposters in the future.

Conscientious reading is certainly good, but you don't have to be blind to realize that good intentions in some threads lead to abuse of trust. There are numerous threads where people exploit the opportunity to deceive and boost their ratings. Those who directly facilitate this (in this case, the sources of merit) can see how quickly interest in buy-and-sell threads will dry up once their flow of merit is cut off. I think it would be very disappointing to see many users in these threads fail to follow the principles they so actively preach. This can be confirmed by checking their wallets with exchange transactions.

[LoyceV]

It's a shame to see nutildah and JJG arguing like this.

I'm just leaving this here:

if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that. You don't need to stress about it or defend yourself constantly.

(click for full context)

[logfiles]

What you think of this user @Graph001 their post seems written more with the help of Ai.

Most of their post are on long threads and whoring merit.

You've hit on something really important there. DCA only works if you can actually stick to it and that requires financial breathing room. It's tough when people are living paycheck to paycheck they might have the best intentions but life happens and suddenly that investment plan gets put on hold. I think that's why so many people struggle with consistency, not because they lack discipline, but because their cash flow just doesn't support it. And I really like your point about aggressive investing only when you have that extra cushion. It's the people who are patient and build gradually without forcing it who tend to come out ahead. They're not stressed about their positions and they're not panic selling when markets dip because they know they're in it for the long haul and they can afford to hold through the noise. That peace of mind is worth a lot.

The biggest advantage of real long term investors is that they're not desperate. They built a stable foundation first emergency fund, controlled expenses, consistent income and only then start investing because stability matters more than speed. That removes so much of the emotional pressure that makes people make bad decisions. When you're buying from a place of stability rather than desperation you can actually ride out the volatility and benefit from it.

I looked through his post history, mostly the first page, and all I can say is that his posts have AI written all over them even without using the AI detection tools. He is trying as much as possible to get merits from certain threads.

If you get any time, please analyse a couple of his posts and put the results in this thread for reference.

[Satofan44]

It's a shame to see nutildah and JJG arguing like this. JJG spends many hours reading the forum, more than anyone else, I think. There have been many times when I've noticed that he's given me a merit, I go to the thread in question and see that he's read everything, giving merit to the posts he thinks deserve it. Easily, of all the merits he gives, some will have gone to shitposters. It has happened to all of us, and to him, being a source of merits, even more so. If the argument had been developed constructively, perhaps nutildah could have acknowledged the good work that JJG does, instead of focusing only on the bad. And JJG could try to be more careful not to give merit to shitposters in the future.

But unfortunately, things seem to have escalated.

The escalation is unfortunate, but both parties are right to some extent. What JJG is doing is great. Imagine reading all those junk posts in hopes of finding legitimate users to merit, I do not have the iron-man patience needed do that because 99% of those posts are pure and generic trash. On the other hand nutildah is also right. One of the reasons I never tread into the Speculation section and those mega threads is that most of the posts there are the stupidest and most generic bullshit possible. Most people are replying to each other, even to their own accounts and farming colleagues with the same pattern of posts.

What JJG is doing is honorable and he should continue to do it, but at the same time he could adjust his meriting strategy. IMHO in a section that is as bad as that one it would be better to reward original or unusual posts with more merit and ignore the generic posts completely. It is always better to give out fewer merit in total than to distribute it all among mediocre third world spammers. And if by any chance theymos said something else regarding this in the past, ignore him as he's frequently wrong on many things. 

[JayJuanGee]

Aren't you the smartest thingie-ma-jiggie ever..? Also with a bonus godly expectation that everyone else can be as astute, introspective and tuned-in as you.  

This is what you always do: instead of engaging in the slightest bit of introspection, you do this. Well let me reverse the hyperbole in the opposite direction: You've single-handedly created an army of beggars who are flooding the forum with AI nonsense and shitty, say-nothing posts. They will learn more about how to manipulate the system and people like you than they will learn about Bitcoin, forever hobbled by your reinforcement of the idea that being a conniving little suckup is more important than being honest or gaining actual knowledge. So long as they kiss your ass, you're perfectly fine with it.

I am pretty sure that I have sufficiently addressed your stated concerns on numerous occasions, just in ways that you prefer not to hear, since you would rather ongongly substitute your judgement and presume that others (including yours truly) can be more like uie-pooie in terms of whatever time, energies, skills and/or other resources that they might have at their disposal.. I suppose another matter is interest..

People differ in their interests, too, which also relates back to how they might be ready, wiling and/or able to use their time and energies based on what resources that they have available..  You presume that you know how a person (such as this here cat) might better (or more effectively) spend his time, energy and resources in connection to this forum and/or smerit sending.

Maybe you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, including that it could be the case that you are not as know it all as you make yourself out to be in regards to your characterizations of the smerit activities involving me.. .whether that is my sending of smerits, the level of my due diligence (or not) and/or the various efforts that are made involving manipulating me and/or the manipulating of other forum source merit members in getting them to send smerits.

But unfortunately, things seem to have escalated.

Nutildah is largely just ongoingly bringing up the same subject for around a couple of years.  

I have attempted to respond to variations of these matters previously, and you know that he created a whole thread on the topic, so it is not really a new topic.

Accordingly, I am not sure if matters are escalating any greater than previously, even though maybe Nutildah is becoming more emboldened in regards to his beliefs that he has been able to build up more evidence (in regards to the use of bots) to argue his accusations and presuming that he actually knows some kinds of solutions and that supposedly I am not sufficiently complying with his various proposals and made up guidelines that he wants other to believe exist in the forum.. . when such requirements do not exist, except for Nutildah's repeating them into a kind of existence.

Perhaps Nutildah wants to whine until he gets his way or that he gets others agreeing with him or perhaps maybe sometimes he achieves some level of success by beating guys like me into submission.. to the extent that submitting to Nutildah's request is going to either make the forum a better place or that it be in the interest of the forum members who are agreeing to comply with whatever it is that Nutildah is asserting to be some kind of a supposed requirement and/or obligation that he believes that they have... blah blah blah...

There might be an outstanding question regarding the benefits of Nutildah attempting to beat forum members into some kind of submission to allegedly make this place better? or does he contribute to unnecessary drama and ongoing misguidance in terms of who and/or what he is proclaiming to be "the problem?"  or does Nutildah's proposed solution have more costs than benefits?  including that his proposed solutions may well not be as easy to implement as he conceives them to be and the speculated benefits that he imagines might not be as obvious as he outlines them to be, either.

Edit:  Another related point that I have several times suggested to Nutildah is to figure out the extent to which merit source members might be changed and/or changes in their quantity of source merits.  

Of course, I had also suggested that Nutildah could become a merit czar as he seems to want to "help" the forum in that direction, and something like a merit czar seems to be required to change the forum's merit policies/practices in the direction that Nutildah seems to be proposing, since either for good or bad, theymos has a much more hands-off approach to smerits that almost exclusively leaves merit sending up to the discretion of the merit sources absence some evidence of quid pro quo kinds of practices and/or other smerit practices that might be contrary to forum rules  (such rules are not outlined, which just means that it's within theymos's discretion to remove smerit sources and/or change their quantity of source merits for any reason and/or no reason at any time.....

It seems to me that there would be costs to changing forum smerit practices as they currently exist, yet changes could be made that require work that theymos seems to be unwilling to do.. which implies some kind of a need for some kinds of a merit czar.  

In several senses, Nutildah seems to be trying to blame merit source members for failing to follow rules that do not exist.. whether you think that I am being too flippant about the whole idea of smerit sending obligations or you believe that I do not care, that is your interpretation, even though I doubt that it is either in my interest to publicly state some kinds of self-impose restrictions or obligations for greater due diligence or whatever you guys (other than Nutildah) are expecting to be a better state of affairs.  I also have my doubts that it is in the interest of other merit source members to agree to group standards merely based on Nutildah's ongoing whining about it (and his getting other forum members worked up in their thoughts that source members are the problem and/or require to have objective standards, when we have largely been voluntarily carrying out such merit sending duties, whether some of us asked for the position and others did not). Sure, some of us might have our own merit sending standards, yet it may well not be in our interest to state the extent to which we may have our own standards or to describe what those standards might be, and theymos still has the power to remove or to curtail our source merits to the extent that it seems that our source smerit sending standards (if any) go beyond parameters that theymos considers to be acceptable.^**

**This rant got to be a bit longer than I was expecting.

And if by any chance theymos said something else regarding this in the past, ignore him as he's frequently wrong on many things.  

When in doubt, ignore theymos.

hahahahaha

That's a good one.

[nutildah]

Saw this guy shitposting in one of my threads earlier today:

rakebit

I think its fine if a casino (or any product) representative wants to use AI in their ANN post, but doing it in other threads for the purpose of advertising your casino isn't cool, IMO. These posts are a bit on the short side so the detectors give highly varying results. Let's see how the mods feel about it.


#1

To be the best at gambling, you need more than luck,  you need consistency, discipline, and data-driven decisions. Luck might win a round, but skill keeps you profitable long-term. Tracking stats, bankroll limits, and emotional control all matter more than a “hot streak.”
Do you follow any set strategy or adjust based on the game type?

Quillbot: 100% of text is likely AI
GPTZero: 100% AI generated
Copyleaks: (too short)


#2

Member cards in casinos can be useful if you play often — they help you track points, get cashback, and access small perks. But they also record your habits, so privacy-minded players may prefer staying anonymous.
It depends on what you value more, rewards or privacy.
Do you usually go for loyalty cards when you play in person?

Quillbot: 100% of text is likely AI
GPTZero: 100% AI generated
ZeroGPT: 38% AI GPT


#3

To be the best at gambling, you need more than luck,  you need consistency, discipline, and data-driven decisions. Luck might win a round, but skill keeps you profitable long-term. Tracking stats, bankroll limits, and emotional control all matter more than a “hot streak.”
Do you follow any set strategy or adjust based on the game type?

Quillbot: 100% of text is likely AI
GPTZero: 100% AI generated
ZeroGPT: 36% AI GPT

The majority of the user's posts are like this.

It's a shame to see nutildah and JJG arguing like this.

You must be new here... What comes next is what I always do: put him back on ignore & forget about it. I said everything I have to say about the subject, until next time. Which is probably like 6 months or so.

[JayJuanGee]

It's a shame to see nutildah and JJG arguing like this.

You must be new here... What comes next is what I always do: put him back on ignore & forget about it. I said everything I have to say about the subject, until next time. Which is probably like 6 months or so.

That is because you are a unserious drama queen dweeb who engages in ongoing practices to stir up shit to raise issues that you know cannot easily be resolved and so you cast aspersions on others (mostly me in this case, to the extent that you might have brow beat some other source merit members into agreeing to some level of compliance with your nonsense) while you continue to prance about like a self-righteous know it all.

[LoyceV]

What's the verdict on Newbie Sam2?
This is his second "tutorial" post on the tech board today:

Many new Bitcoin users encounter the issue of transactions remaining “stuck” for extended periods. The good news is that most of these delays can be prevented with a few careful practices. Here’s a structured guide:

1️⃣ Verify the Network Fee Before Sending
Transactions with insufficient fees may remain unconfirmed for hours. Always check current network fees using reliable sources such as mempool.space or your wallet’s dynamic fee feature to ensure timely confirmation.

2️⃣ Utilize Replace-By-Fee (RBF) if Supported
Some wallets allow users to increase the transaction fee after sending. This feature can help accelerate confirmation for transactions that are otherwise delayed.

3️⃣ Avoid Sending During Periods of Network Congestion
During high-traffic events—such as Bitcoin halving or major market announcements—network fees can spike significantly. If possible, postpone transactions or use RBF-enabled wallets to adjust fees accordingly.

4️⃣ Double-Check Recipient Addresses and Amounts
Even a small error in the recipient address or transaction amount can result in failed or lost transactions. Always verify the details carefully before confirming.

5️⃣ Monitor Your Transaction
Use blockchain explorers or wallet notifications to track confirmations. If a transaction appears delayed, remain patient—sometimes it simply requires additional confirmation blocks.

Advanced Tip:
For transactions that remain unconfirmed for an extended period, consider using a Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP) transaction to accelerate confirmation.

Key Takeaway:
Patience, proper fee management, and careful transaction verification are essential to smooth Bitcoin transfers.

[lovesmayfamilis]

What's the verdict on Newbie Sam2?

I sent a report. Two AI posts.

[PowerGlove]

That is because you are a unserious drama queen dweeb who engages in ongoing practices to stir up shit to raise issues that you know cannot easily be resolved and so you cast aspersions on others (mostly me in this case, to the extent that you might have brow beat some other source merit members into agreeing to some level of compliance with your nonsense) while you continue to prance about like a self-righteous know it all.

I think that's unfair JJG...

Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing, or a personality thing, but I've never thought of nutildah in the way that you've described above (and I've kept track of this dispute for ~two years).

I think he's just genuinely annoyed by how the forum has many "soft spots" that account farmers seem to rely on. As in, he has no real interest in being a "merit czar" or in trying to control anyone (which is the angle that you always seem to focus on), and it's more the case that he's trying to caution against the long-term effects of certain merit-sending habits that he's noticed. I think it especially annoys him when there are working merit-acquisition strategies that rely on ingratiation. (Lol, that link leads to what just might be the "best" Bitcointalk ranking-up cheat sheet that I've ever seen.)

I still think that the ideas I left in this topic are worth very careful consideration. A lot of this stuff would become less of an issue if the merit earned by formulaically hitting up all of the forum's "soft spots" (as in, carving pumpkins, and making pizzas, and baking pies, and sucking up to merit sources, and so on) was automatically "undone" by the routine shitposting that most accounts seem to engage in after they've achieved their desired rank. For example, it would be less abusable that NotATether is willing to give accounts 14 merits for running (or pretending to run) a node for 14 days, because 140 posts later (ignoring my refinements to the whole "carry" idea, and assuming some things for the sake of example) those 14 merits would no longer have any rank-wise effect (and if someone participated with the additional goal of being able to send 7 merits to an alt account, then in 70 posts by that account that merit would be "undone", and so on). It would be as if the forum is saying, "It's fine if some amount of your merit is earned in ways that have nothing to do with you writing posts that are worth reading, but, if you're going to post a lot and you also care about keeping or growing your rank, then you'll need to step out of the kiddies pool at some point and actually start making interesting/meaningful/compelling/earnest contributions semi-regularly." (And I really struggle to appreciate the opposing view, which, in my mind at least, goes something like, "No. It's completely fine for people to achieve their rank non-organically and then join a signature campaign and crank out thousands of unappreciated posts. If you throw a wrench into the works of that machinery, you'll ruin Bitcointalk.")

When in doubt, ignore theymos.

Haha. I mean, you kid, but, if I were theymos, I'd honestly be annoyed by people quoting me all the time and (effectively) using my previous thinking to encourage others not to re-evaluate things and arrive at independent conclusions expressed in original ways. Much better than being agreed with is to be understood (and an indication that an idea has properly taken root and can survive on its own value is when expressions of that idea start popping up and being defended without reference to any person).


This is neither here nor there, but, while I'm writing to you I may as well point out something that's been bugging me. Your personal text reads: 'Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"'. That sounds odd to my ear. To me, a non-custodial wallet is one that gives total custody/control of the private key(s) to the user (whereas one that either has taken or is able to take custody of a user's BTC would be a "custodial" wallet). So, at least according to my interpretation of your personal text, you should be saying yes to "non-custodial". (I mean, I'm guessing that your rationale has something to do with resisting the terminology, but I'm not sure at the wisdom of potentially confusing newbies into thinking that a "non-custodial" wallet is something to be avoided.)

Electrum is a free non-custodial cryptocurrency wallet for Bitcoin and Lightning Network. (...)

[Ultegra134]

This user replied to the Greek Super League thread and immediately something was off. Did a quick check and he regularly posts gibberish around the forum using AI. He's also a Copper member.

User: rakebit

Post 1.

Greek football is always unpredictable — passion runs high, but consistency is rare across clubs. Betting-wise, local derbies can flip odds fast, especially with late matchday lineups. Tracking team form and home advantage is key here.
Do you follow Super League matches live or rely on stats before betting?

Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI

Post 2.

Good topic, people often mix these two. Games of chance depend mostly on randomness (like slots or roulette), while skill-based ones let knowledge and practice make a difference (like poker or sports betting). Still, even skill games carry risk if emotion overrides logic.

Which type do you think gives players more long-term control?

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 75% AI

Post 3.

Security cameras don’t just protect the house, they also change how players act. Many gamblers stay calmer and avoid risky moves when they know they’re being watched. It can actually help reduce cheating but might increase anxiety for some players.

Do you think cameras make people play safer or more nervous?

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI

Post 4.

Graphic warnings can help some players think twice, but for regular gamblers they usually lose effect over time. Balance is better, awareness without guilt often leads to more responsible play. It depends on how they’re shown and how often they appear.

Do you think softer reminders would work better than shocking images?

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI

[JayJuanGee]

That is because you are a unserious drama queen dweeb who engages in ongoing practices to stir up shit to raise issues that you know cannot easily be resolved and so you cast aspersions on others (mostly me in this case, to the extent that you might have brow beat some other source merit members into agreeing to some level of compliance with your nonsense) while you continue to prance about like a self-righteous know it all.

I think that's unfair JJG...

Sure, your milage may vary, yet I have concluded that I am being more than fair to the drama queen dweeb, aka nutildah... at least in regards to the way that he has been ongoingly proclaiming (or at least strongly suggesting) that I have not been engaging in enough due diligence (or whatever he might be prescribing in terms of how he diagnoses that merit sources like me are the problem)..   It seems to me that he does not come even close to having enough information to be coming to those conclusions absence his seeming ongoing purposeful choices to spin matters in disingenuine ways to suggest that it should obvious how merit sources should be spending their source smerits or engaging in due diligence, etc etc etc.. which are not rule nor current standards of the forum.  

By the way, you know that a few years back, Nutildah had created a whole thread on the topic of merit sending in regards to the WO thread and so we argued quite a few of these points already in that thread as well as within another parody thread on the topic by bob, too.. which largely admitted that Nutildah's thread was mostly concerned about me and my merit sending in that thread and perhaps other places on the forum, but also meant to brow beat other merit source members in order to get them to agree to be "more responsible" in regards to how they were sending their smerits.. and perhaps, I was amongst the most vocal of members (believe it or not?) to just proclaim that Nutildah had no jurisdiction in the case, even though surely my arguments went beyond that.. for that persistent, stubborn and somewhat lovable (at least his mom probably loves him?) twat.. also known (self-proclaimed at that) as Uncle Nutty.. .hahahahaha

Maybe it's a reading comprehension thing, or a personality thing, but I've never thought of nutildah in the way that you've described above (and I've kept track of this dispute for ~two years).

Sure. I don't have any problem conceding that Nutildah seems to have some good characteristics, and likely he has contributed positively to the forum in a variety of ways, yet his good contributions do not take away from his various devolving into the pettiness of a out-of-touch control freakishness, who seems to be conniving the merit system into something other than what it actually is.

So, yeah, all fine and dandy that you have been watching that dweeb twat (potentially his good behavior angles) for 2-ish years, and maybe you don't even recall several years ago when he went whining off and rage quit because admins did not agree with his pumping some scam bullshit related to ICOs or JPEGs or whatever (or maybe he was merely whining because his thread got moved?), I cannot recall the exact details, but Nutildah was ongoingly whining about it like a little princesa baby for a decent amount of time,. but then later (perhaps less than a year of whining and mostly abstinence) he decided to come back and tolerate us lesser beings.

I think he's just genuinely annoyed by how the forum has many "soft spots" that account farmers seem to rely on.

I am not necessarily denying that there is NOT legitimacy to his concerns about account farmers and several of their tactics to generate income with the use of fake accounts.

As in, he has no real interest in being a "merit czar" or in trying to control anyone (which is the angle that you always seem to focus on),

Do you think that I have some obligation to rebutt him in some kind of a substantive way to win the battle?  I have no such obligation to get the argument exactly right when the ramifications of what he is proclaiming is that I have some obligations that I do not have... I do not have to report how or why I am sending smerits and I do not have to explain the extent to which I may or may not be engaging in any due diligence prior to sending smerits, as he seems to ongoingly imply such obligations exists with me and/or with other merit sources.

Do you also believe that there is a reporting obligation for merit sources or that I need to explain myself?

I think that currently, as the forum rules stand, anyone concerned about the merit sending of source members, they have a burden to show that accused merit source member is either purposeful in violating some quid pro quo rule, or grossly negligent in the ways that they are sending smerits that may be amounting to something like quid pro quo..  and perhaps they might even have to show that there is some quid pro quo going on or some other forum rule is being broken in the ways that they are sending their source merits.  

I should not even have to argue these points.. yet Nutildah, and perhaps several of his sympathizers who have been attracted to his ideas about smerit sending standards that do not exist have been lulled into the idea that there are forum smerit sending standards for source members that currently do not exist.  

So perhaps part of his problem (and perhaps yours too?), is that you would like some reporting or some proclamation from me that I will try harder to be a better forum member or a better merit source member or blah blah blah.. and I am not going to say those things to make guys who are expecting such to get their way to suggest that there is some additional standards (such as reporting standards or declarations that I am a good guy, blah blah blah) that actually do not exist.

Sure maybe I am being a bit repetitive and perhaps I am being a bit contradictory sometimes in terms of sometimes agreeing to characterize some of the efforts that I might have had made historically in some cases to identify some non-humans or whatever might be some of the qualifications that I might consider that the posters need to have for me to decide to send them or to not send them an smerit or two for whatever post that I had determined to be worthy of an smerit or two.

and it's more the case that he's trying to caution against the long-term effects of certain merit-sending habits that he's noticed.

He can proclaim that there is a merit sending standard for source members that goes beyond quid pro quo, but there is not.

He can proclaim that "sucker-uppers" get more smerits from some source members like me, and so fucking what?  I am supposed to declare that I am going to try harder to not be sucked up to?  or what?  What does he (or you?) expect me to declare?

By the way, I will suggest that I am not purposefully sending smerits to "sucker-uppers," even if there might appear to be a pattern in which "sucker-uppers" are receiving more rewards than the non sucker-uppers, and maybe I end up sending some smerits, from time to time to members I agree with rather than ones that I don't agree with.  Again?  So what? You and Nutildah and perhaps some others believe that I have some duty to screen out the sucker-uppers moar better?

It seems to me that sometimes I will send smerits to members I don't agree with if they made their points well and/or they brought up some angle that I find interesting or merit worthy.. or maybe they supported their position well.. yet at the same time, sure, I will admit that I tend to be more sympathetic to posts that I believe are making good points that I agree with rather than the ones that are making points that I find disagreeable to my own views.

I am not claiming to being immured to suck ups, even though I am not going to admit to meriting them merely for sucking up to me, which Nutildah implies to be happening whether I am conscious of it or not .. and still from my perspective that is a big so fucking what point.  I don't have to justify the extent to which I am engaging in the kinds of steps that he (or you?) would like to see me perform prior to sending any smerits.

Does Nutildah (or you?) want me to argue that my sending of smerits is not a form of quid pro quo or that I am not otherwise in breach of some other forum rules or perhaps that I am not in breach of the preferences of theymos?   I don't have any such reporting obligation or need to argue my innocence, and sure, if there might be evidence or reasonable inference (or other reasons) then maybe he (or you, or some other forum member) should report me to admins... so that my merit source can be considered for removal and/or reduction or rotated to some other members who would do it better, or whatever other actions (punishments) might be deemed to be fitting to the situation or my unwillingness to cooperate and to proclaim that I will try to follow some rules that I consider to not exist... but hey, maybe I am blind?  Perhaps?

I am not proclaiming to know the solution in regards to the various identified problems (to the extent to which there might be possibilities that the problems are separate from my own sending of smerits on a mostly every day basis), yet at the same time, I am not going to proclaim that I will try harder or to assert that maybe I had gotten "sucked up" to too much by this account or that account or that some fakety forum members (who are not really people or who are farm account) had gotten me to send them a bunch of smerits and to give them credibility that they otherwise would have had not been able to get (so easy-peasy) in one case versus another case that Nutildah (or you or some other "concerned" forum member) might want to point out to show how I am "ruining the whole forum" with through my own efforts (and setting a bad example too.. hahahahaha.. yeah.. no one should be like me.. I am ruining the forum).

Yeah, I recognize that there are a lot of shitty accounts that are posting shitty information, and sometimes I end up sending some of those accounts smerits, yet I doubt that I am purposefully sending smerits to bots, fake people or whatever, yet surely sometimes I will notice that I had sent smerits to an account that seems to not be "merit-worthy" from my perspective, and then if I come to such conclusion then I may well stop sending smerits to certain accounts based on my suspicions about them not being merit worthy, and yeah, I might not even remember that I had some account on my "not merit worthy" list (to the extent I have any such list or that I am obligated to keep any such list) and so I might forget about which accounts I had on my list or my non-list, or I might accidentally send smerits to certain accounts that I might not have had sent smerits under other circumstances.  Would you suggest that there is some actual standard that I need to follow or that I am obligated to report what I do or what I don't do prior to sending any smerits?

I am not saying that I need to change anything that I do in regards to me smerit source sending practices, even though I have my own circumstances and sometimes my circumstances change, even though I do spend quite a bit of time reading various forum posts - mostly on a daily basis and writing various posts from time to time, too, as you likely may have noticed such a piece of evidence.

I think it especially annoys him when there are working merit-acquisition strategies that rely on ingratiation. (Lol, that link leads to what just might be the "best" Bitcointalk ranking-up cheat sheet that I've ever seen.)

Sure.  Fair enough.  These kinds of annoying suck up behaviors exist on the forum, and it is likely that they would not be merit worthy, yet those kinds of behaviors may well get by anyone who might be spending a lot of time on the forum who is sending smerits, and they could have conscious or sub-conscious affects.  They might not get by anyone who only sends 1 smerit per day.  Since the beginning of the merit system, on average I have sent about 20 smerits per day, and surely in recent times (like the last 1-2 years), I have been sending on average in the ballpark between 25-30 smerits per day.. so yeah, quite a few smerits going out and an overwhelming majority of them are 1 smerit, since I don't tend to have too many posts that I have been sending more than 1 smerit per post, even though I am not saying that I will always behave the way that I have behaved historically, so I might choose to start to send more smerits per post.. perhaps? perhaps?  I have largely chosen my own practice over the years.. almost 8 years (in January), no?

I still think that the ideas I left in this topic are worth very careful consideration.

I will try to take a look at that thread of yours later... Just glancing over it, it looks like it has a lot of good points, and of course, Ihave noticed that you tend to back up your points fairly well in your posts, so many of us can learn from your topics, your style and your posts... .. even though so far in my response to you in this instant post, it is appearing that I don't agree with a lot of your points, so far .. hahahahaha.. maybe you will win me over with your persuasive skills to proclaim how Nutildah is doing the work of a "saint," but so far I am having my doubts.  

A lot of this stuff would become less of an issue if the merit earned by formulaically hitting up all of the forum's "soft spots" (as in, carving pumpkins, and making pizzas, and baking pies, and sucking up to merit sources, and so on) was automatically "undone" by the routine shitposting that most accounts seem to engage in after they've achieved their desired rank.

Yep.. I have tended to send quite a few smerits to the various threads that involve submissions of "art", even though for sure, some of the submissions that are contained in those "thematic" threads are objectively not very good..

For example, it would be less abusable that NotATether is willing to give accounts 14 merits for running (or pretending to run) a node for 14 days, because 140 posts later (ignoring my refinements to the whole "carry" idea, and assuming some things for the sake of example) those 14 merits would no longer have any rank-wise effect (and if someone participated with the additional goal of being able to send 7 merits to an alt account, then in 70 posts by that account that merit would be "undone", and so on).

That sounds complicated.  Perhaps even overly complicated? in terms of potentially creating other unintended consequences.

It would be as if the forum is saying, "It's fine if some amount of your merit is earned in ways that have nothing to do with you writing posts that are worth reading, but, if you're going to post a lot and you also care about keeping or growing your rank, then you'll need to step out of the kiddies pool at some point and actually start making interesting/meaningful/compelling/earnest contributions semi-regularly."

The underlying idea is not bad, which seems to be the rewarding of meaningful and/or substantive posts, yet I doubt that theymos wants to get bogged down in the business of centralizing the determination of what is substantive and/or meaningful content.. so perhaps in that sense we are still left with substantive and/or meaningful content being determined by the crowds of merit sources and the contagion of whoever the merit sources had sent smerits (the ripple effects), which has a lot of messiness in it and some shitty posters (and perhaps shitty people and/or shitty bots) might make it through to the other end of the whole process and appear to be people when they are really some fake-ass shitty bot or account farm that had merely figured out an algorithmic way to get recognition and merit or otherwise determined as human, when it is not..

(And I really struggle to appreciate the opposing view, which, in my mind at least, goes something like, "No. It's completely fine for people to achieve their rank non-organically and then join a signature campaign and crank out thousands of unappreciated posts. If you throw a wrench into the works of that machinery, you'll ruin Bitcointalk.")

We likely realize that signature campaign managers have some responsibilities in the screening out of account farms, too, but yeah, they might be fooled within the same criteria that they may or may not have in place within their managing of their signature campaign.  

It seems to me that these overall forum policies and practices are not necessarily something in my area of interest, even though sure, my own forum participation can be affected (from time to time) by these kinds of matters and surely sometimes I do end up chiming in and/or participating in threads (or posts or threads of ideas within other threads) that touch upon such meta and/or administrative topics.

In other word, I try to spend more of my time participating in bitcoin-related forum topics rather than forum administration and/or meta topics - my own personal preference, even though I get dragged into and sometimes even might become part of the topic of some potential administrative and/or meta matters.

When in doubt, ignore theymos.

Haha. I mean, you kid, but, if I were theymos, I'd honestly be annoyed by people quoting me all the time and (effectively) using my previous thinking to encourage others not to re-evaluate things and arrive at independent conclusions expressed in original ways.

It could be annoying for theymos to be witnessing himself quoted so much, since I think that sometimes he might end up being read too literally and he may well not want to necessarily be pinned down in certain ways.. but yeah, he likely realizes that he cannot really escape being quoted in a variety of ways. I have quoted him and even channeled him a fair number of times, whether he appreciates it or not.. hahahahaha

By the way, some of his words are the best sources of authority in regards to the forum's policy and/or stance on various topics, so he does tend to be a pretty damned good source, to the extent any of us might be trying to figure out the general forum's tendencies or rules on any given topic, whether concerning policies around merit source member merit sending practices or other forum rules, to the extent that there are any rules or any preferences in regards to rules that may or may not exist.. Who else you going to cite in terms of final authority in terms of something may or may not be done in regards to some concern that members might have regarding some system that is in place, whether referring to the merit system or otherwise?

Much better than being agreed with is to be understood (and an indication that an idea has properly taken root and can survive on its own value is when expressions of that idea start popping up and being defended without reference to any person).

There may be attempts for the forum to be decentralized, yet it still exists in a centralized world.. so balances likely are made and sometimes have to be made in order to attempt to account for our real world, even if there might be aspirations for hands off.

This is neither here nor there, but, while I'm writing to you I may as well point out something that's been bugging me. Your personal text reads: 'Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"'. That sounds odd to my ear. To me, a non-custodial wallet is one that gives total custody/control of the private key(s) to the user (whereas one that either has taken or is able to take custody of a user's BTC would be a "custodial" wallet). So, at least according to my interpretation of your personal text, you should be saying yes to "non-custodial". (I mean, I'm guessing that your rationale has something to do with resisting the terminology, but I'm not sure at the wisdom of potentially confusing newbies into thinking that a "non-custodial" wallet is something to be avoided.)

Sure.  You are correct that my signature is a bit confusing.. since I am mostly protesting the rhetoric - and at the same time, I understand that it could end up being misread... For years, I had also been thinking about whether I should change it.. to be less ambiguous.

Electrum is a free non-custodial cryptocurrency wallet for Bitcoin and Lightning Network. (...)

[Dark.Look]

User: atookz

When someone begins to brag about losses, psychologically, gambling is no longer just about winning or losing financially but has become part of their identity and emotions. When someone talks about defeat with pride, it can be a defense mechanism, a way to normalize the negative experience so that it feels lighter or seems more valuable in the eyes of others. However, if this behavior occurs repeatedly and is accompanied by a decreased sensitivity to financial risk, it could be an early sign of addiction. It's no longer about enjoying the game, but about the psychological need to maintain a sense of adrenaline, self-justification, and social recognition.

Therefore, if someone brags about losses, they are likely in the early stages of addiction, where the feeling of loss no longer acts as a deterrent but instead becomes a sense of pride that ignores the risks. Such conversations should be a sign of reflection, as pride in losses is often the first hint of an addiction that can slowly take hold.

gptzero: 98%
sapling: 100%
copyleaks: 100%
quillbot: 85%
stealthwriter: 83%
originality: 100%

The issue of gambling is often a sensitive topic, especially in societies that uphold moral and religious values. Many people consider gambling wrong because it can ruin lives, destroy families, and lead to bankruptcy. The problem lies not in the act of gambling, but in the attitude and responsibility of the individual who engages in it. If done with awareness, limits, and self-control, gambling can be considered simply a form of entertainment.

Actually, changing people's perspectives on gambling requires an educational and empathetic approach. It's important to emphasize that responsible gambling is different from gambling addiction. However, cultural and religious contexts must also be respected. In societies that view gambling as contrary to moral values, the best approach is not to condone gambling but to explain that every form of entertainment carries risks. Therefore, it's better not to force people to accept gambling, but rather to open a balanced dialogue where people can understand that the main problem isn't the activity itself, but rather how people control themselves when engaging in it.

originality: 100%
sapling: 100%
gptzero: 100%
copyleaks: 100%
quillbot: 77%

One of Bitcoin's appeals is its decentralized nature, which makes it difficult for central authorities to control it. This allows individuals to have greater freedom in managing and transferring their assets. The stories of countries like Argentina, Venezuela, and Nigeria illustrate how Bitcoin can be a lifeline for many facing difficult economic and political conditions. Its ability to protect wealth from inflation and provide financial access without relying on traditional banks are undeniable advantages. Its potential to provide financial freedom is truly enormous, especially in countries with unstable and repressive financial systems. Bitcoin is not just about investment, it is also about the principles of freedom and independence. I agree that this technology opens up opportunities for people to regain control of their finances, although some challenges and risks remain.

originality: 100%
sapling: 100%
gptzero: 76%
copyleaks: 100%

I think it all depends on the type of game. In games like roulette or slots, luck is clearly the most important factor because the outcome remains random and cannot be consistently predicted. But in games like sports betting, strategy plays a significant role because decisions based on analysis, understanding the game, and understanding the psychology of your opponents can make a long-term difference. However, it's still not 100% strategy, as luck still plays a role. Sometimes, even good decisions can still lose simply because of bad timing.

I don't think it's a matter of choosing between luck and strategy, but rather understanding when we're playing in a situation where one or the other is more dominant. The most important thing is knowing when to stop, whether you're winning or losing.

copyleaks: 100%
sapling: 100%

I agree that we need to be more cautious because while AI offers advantages in analysis, it doesn't guarantee profits. We need to understand that AI, including ChatGPT, is not a tool for predicting the market with perfect accuracy, especially for day trading, which relies on fluctuations.

Using AI in day trading may assist us in data analysis, but it must also be used with caution, correction, and sound understanding. Understanding limitations is just as important as capitalizing on advantages.

gptzero: 77% mixed
copyleaks: 100%
sapling: 100%
stealthwriter: 75%

[lovesmayfamilis]

User: atookz

Great find. I also checked his messages, and many of them were identified as AI. I'd like to invite @atookz to this thread for an explanation, and also ask why he's breaking the ban, since his transactions show he's transferring funds to a wallet whose owners have been banned from the forum three times, from three accounts. It's probably not worth fantasizing that this wallet doesn't belong to him today.

https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=bc1qayypcp4n95449uc7v4jvnztdey7dulxtu0tm68

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3b16a5276bf22acd2b79e5d016e35d6242ca7cb42796aaddef377a0346795953



https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=1KJGwYDeeS85ugxvPS7maPSqEMDWZLQQUs

https://bpip.org/Profile?id=715455
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=659734
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=687199

This measure appears to be aimed at providing freedom and clarity for crypto users so they can thrive without excessive regulatory pressure. On the one hand, reducing regulation can indeed create an open climate for innovation, attract investment, and encourage the advancement of blockchain technology globally. However, on the other hand, the concerns of Democratic senators cannot be ignored. Weakening dedicated crypto law enforcement teams could potentially increase the misuse of digital assets for money laundering, illicit funding, or other criminal activities. Overly lax regulations could be exploited by irresponsible parties, harming users and undermining the integrity of crypto.

Ultimately, the ideal policy is not about increasing or eliminating regulations, but rather balancing freedom of innovation with legal protection. Clear, transparent, and non-restrictive regulations will be more effective in building a secure and trusted crypto ecosystem. I hope the government will not focus solely on regulations but also ensure the existence of intelligent and adaptive oversight mechanisms for the development of digital technology.

Copyleaks AI Content Detected
gptzero  72% AI generated

I personally believe that quitting after a major loss is the wisest choice. Under pressure, emotions often override common sense. Many people continue playing not because they're confident of winning, but because they refuse to accept the harsh reality of defeat. But that's where the real test lies, can we control ourselves and recognize our limits? A major loss isn't the end of the world, winning or losing is a natural part of gaming, but rather an opportunity to learn and evaluate our decisions. Quitting doesn't mean giving up, but rather a form of courage to protect ourselves from further losses.

Copyleaks AI Content Detected
gptzero  100% AI generated

Basketball is a fast-paced game with dynamic momentum. In a matter of minutes, a team that was previously behind can turn the tables. This happens because factors such as game tempo, player fatigue, coaching strategy, and individual performance can change at any moment. Therefore, a better strategy is to observe game patterns directly, such as when the favored team loses energy, when key players rest, or when the opposing team finds their attacking rhythm. Betting odds often change rapidly at these moments, and that's where opportunities arise. However, capitalizing on momentum doesn't mean betting impulsively. Instead, it requires tactical understanding, historical data, and reading the real-time situation. The best advantage in basketball betting isn't in pre-match predictions, but in the ability to seize the right moment as the game begins.

Copyleaks AI Content Detected
gptzero  100% AI generated

[Ultegra134]

Another day, another newbie. Posts reported and user tagged.

User: Keevoid

Post 1.

I have used KYC exchanges too, to be honest. Sometimes it’s just the faster or more convenient option, especially when you’re trying to catch a market move or cash out quickly. But it does make you realise how hard it actually is to stay completely decentralised in today’s crypto space, especially when the system itself often nudges users toward centralised solutions, from exchanges to wallets, even down to data-tracking tools. Still, I think what really matters is the awareness, knowing why decentralisation is important and trying to move closer to that ideal whenever possible. It’s not always practical to go full peer-to-peer, but the more we understand the trade-offs, the better choices we can make. After all, Bitcoin wasn’t created for convenience; it was created for freedom. And sometimes, that freedom means taking the harder, slower route just to stay true to the principles that started it all.

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 71% AI

Post 2.

I have actually explored copy trading a bit and it’s quite an interesting concept. On one hand, it opens the door for beginners to benefit from the experience of seasoned traders without having to watch charts all day, but at the same time, it can create a false sense of security, I mean even top traders make mistakes, and the market can turn against anyone.
I’ve noticed is that it works best when you still take time to understand the logic behind each trade, not just blindly copy moves. I treat it as a learning tool rather than a guaranteed way to profit. The biggest pitfall, honestly I think it's over-reliance, when people forget that risk management and timing still matter, even if you are following an expert

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI

Post 3.

My friend, the global financial system is never fair. Developing countries are constantly told to tighten their belts, reduce spending, and follow “fiscal discipline,” while developed nations raise debt ceilings and print money freely, with no real consequence.Those with stronger economies can bend the rules and still maintain credibility, while others get punished for doing half as much.
That double standard is what makes decentralized systems like Bitcoin stand out. It takes away the politics, the privilege, and the manipulation that define traditional finance. One BTC is worth the same whether you’re in Egypt or New York. It forces a kind of honesty that global finance often avoids. Maybe that’s what makes it so disruptive, it exposes how uneven the playing field has always been.

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 86% AI

Post 4.

That’s actually a fascinating concept, merging proof-of-work with decentralized machine learning could reshape how both computation and incentives work. If neurons themselves could perform verifiable work while contributing to a shared model, it would blur the line between AI training and crypto mining. The challenge, though, would be coordination, ensuring the network stays efficient, secure, and resistant to manipulation. But if that part can be figured out, it could open a new frontier where machine learning isn’t just decentralized in storage or data, but in computation and reward as well.

GPTZero: 100% AI
Stealthwriter: 100% AI

[alani123]

It seems like a few people with a gripe against certain casinos have started employing AI to try and damage the casinos' reputation.

I can't see any other reason in doing this other than trying to extort the casinos if they can't accept their losses or just want something out of it. Perhaps some casinos might consider it's better to throw some cash at the way of the person who complains to make them go away.

In any case, I'm reporting that thread hoping mods take it down. I wouldn't like bitcointalk's reputation board to become a hotbed for AI-powered slot extortion.

The rise of crypto casinos has transformed the online gambling landscape, bringing high-speed payments, global reach, and new forms of risk. Among this new generation of gambling platforms, **Shuffle.com** has emerged as one of the most visible, yet also controversial, operators. Since its founding in early 2023, Shuffle.com has been the subject of hundreds of user complaints, professional reviews, and public investigations, especially regarding fund confiscation, blocked withdrawals, inconsistent KYC enforcement, possible RTP (Return to Player) manipulation, and, most recently, a major data breach in October 2025. This report undertakes an exhaustive, analytical assessment of the **total dollar value of user funds defrauded by Shuffle.com**, drawing on verifiable complaint data from Trustpilot, Casino Guru, Reddit, Bitcointalk, and additional forums, and assesses the impact across time periods, geographic regions, and by the type of user complaint. Additionally, the consequences and potential financial risks of the October 2025 data breach are evaluated.

GPTZero: 98% AI generated
zerogpt.com: 100% AI GPT

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Another newbie making a triumphant entrance to the forum.

lowandbigsupply

Scarcity has always shaped how humans assign value. From precious metals to limited-edition art, we instinctively link rarity with worth. Even when two items are functionally identical, the one that appears harder to get often commands a higher price.

Behavioral economists have long studied this bias. When resources are limited, people perceive them as more desirable — not necessarily because of utility, but because scarcity triggers competition. This phenomenon is closely related to what psychologists call the “scarcity heuristic”: the idea that rarity implies quality or importance.

In financial markets, this plays out in both traditional and digital forms. Investors have historically flocked to assets that are capped or finite — gold, Bitcoin, even rare collectibles. The logic is simple: what can’t be infinitely reproduced must eventually rise in value as demand grows.

Yet scarcity is not always real scarcity. A limited token supply or “hard cap” can be created at will through code or policy. What truly matters is perceived scarcity — the collective belief that something is, or will remain, rare. Markets run on psychology more than math.

Meanwhile, abundance tells a different story. Large supplies can create accessibility and liquidity. For some, this feels more democratic — more room for everyone to participate. Abundance attracts the many; scarcity attracts the few.

Both models coexist because both appeal to different instincts.
– Scarcity speaks to exclusivity and long-term preservation. 
– Abundance speaks to inclusivity and short-term opportunity. 
Together, they define the emotional spectrum of every market — from collectibles to cryptocurrencies.

A Real-World Observation

A small ongoing experiment on Ethereum — low.supply and big.supply — explores how markets react when two identical tokens differ only by total supply. 
It’s a transparent way to watch the same human bias play out in real time, this time on-chain rather than in theory.


Question for discussion: 
Is scarcity a source of value — or just a shared illusion that keeps markets moving?

Copyleals: 100% AI.
GPTZero: 100% AI.
Quillbot: 31% AI.

I've looked at his post history and I see that he only has one other post, an ANN that is also made with AI. For now, I'm not going to tag him, but I'm going to report the quote here.

[memehunter]

This user replied to the Greek Super League thread and immediately something was off. Did a quick check and he regularly posts gibberish around the forum using AI. He's also a Copper member.

User: rakebit

I fully agree with the gibberish part but don't you think post length is little too low to be scanned through AI detectors?

@Dark.Look, great efforts!
@atookz my temporary feedback is only limited to paid signatures. If you want to wear unpaid ones let me know (ofc, if you care).

[Ultegra134]

I fully agree with the gibberish part but don't you think post length is little too low to be scanned through AI detectors?

Not really. Yes, some detectors are unable to spot AI usage in small posts, under 200 characters (Copyleaks requires 350), which is why I've used the "lengthier" ones I could find. Also, it's visible from the way of writing that it's AI, and the detectors successfully confirmed my suspicions.

Let's check another one.

Post 1.

Risk management and patience form the backbone of consistent trading. No matter how perfect a setup looks, overconfidence often leads to unnecessary losses, and sometimes, that overconfidence is just greed in disguise. It’s something I learned early on: the line between being confident and being greedy is thinner than most people realize. That’s where proper risk management steps in; it acts as a filter, keeping emotions in check and forcing discipline when excitement tries to take over.

Anyways sorry about the loss, hope you learnt from it.

GPTZero: 76% AI
Stealthwriter: 80% AI

It's prevalent that the last sentence isn't AI, at first we're seeing a perfect text, with spot-on punctuation marks, but on the last sentence? bad grammar and missing commas.

I understand your point and I wouldn't claim it's AI if I was receiving mixed results, but in this case, 9/10 posts are detected.

[lovesmayfamilis]

This user replied to the Greek Super League thread and immediately something was off. Did a quick check and he regularly posts gibberish around the forum using AI. He's also a Copper member.

User: rakebit

I fully agree with the gibberish part but don't you think post length is little too low to be scanned through AI detectors?

You can combine several short posts into one and then check them with detectors. I'm confident the results will be accurate, even though the overall meaning may be lost. As I understand it, this isn't always important for AI detectors. At least Copyleaks and QuillBot always detect the presence of AI.