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

[DaveF]

How is cws2003 as a candidate for this topic? He created his own topic with unrealistic claims, and also posted it in another topic.

On a happy note the post he started about it is gone.
May be worth hitting him with some negative trust and a type 1 flag if you are motivated.

Since at the moment he is not selling anything, just spreading some FUD I don't know if it's worth it.

-Dave

[ABCbits]

How is cws2003 as a candidate for this topic? He created his own topic with unrealistic claims, and also posted it in another topic.

Good catch. I'm leaving neutral feedback now.


User: cws2003

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

Discovery
We are a security research team focused on Bitcoin’s underlying protocol and on-chain data structures. Recently, during a systematic analysis of transactions within orphan blocks, we made a startling discovery:

Transactions broadcasted but not confirmed may still be dangerous. Their exposed signature data can be extracted, reused, and reconstructed into valid mainnet transactions under specific conditions.

In other words, even if your transaction was never mined into the final chain, its cryptographic signature remains permanently exposed to the network. Once an attacker obtains this signature, they can reconstruct a valid transaction to move your funds — completely within protocol rules.

Reproduction & Results
We selected a historical transaction from an orphan block and recreated it using the exposed signature data. By referencing UTXOs that remained unspent, we broadcasted a new transaction to the Bitcoin mainnet. The results were alarming:

The transaction entered the mainnet mempool
It was mined and confirmed successfully
The BTC was transferred to a new address
The original address owner might never even know. No warnings. No errors. Just valid blockchain behavior.

Root Cause
Signature data, once broadcasted, is irreversible and permanently exposed
Unrotated change addresses are the primary vulnerability
Most wallets do not alert users about orphan block signature caching
Are You at Risk?
If you’ve ever:

Used lightweight or hot wallets
Had transactions fail due to mempool expiration or network delay
Received change repeatedly to the same address
Never rotated private keys or reused addresses
Then your UTXOs may already be exposed.

Our Recommendations
We do not sell tools or offer attack services — but this is a real-world warning.
Immediately check your wallet history for unconfirmed yet signed transactions.
Move all assets to new, unused addresses.
Wallet developers must implement orphan block signature alerts.
Exchanges and services should detect orphan signature collisions to prevent replay attacks.
This Is Not a Warning. This Is a Disclosure.
There are 1–5 orphan blocks produced on Bitcoin daily. We have already extracted over 290,000 addresses with replayable signatures. Targets include:

Multisig wallets
Exchange cold storage addresses
Whale addresses
These funds will not be “stolen.” They will be protocol-level transferred with valid rules. Blockchain doesn’t warn. It only executes.

We Are Opening the Data
We will soon publish a subset of affected addresses and signature structures for public auditing.

We are committed to sharing technical details with the open-source community to improve Bitcoin’s security ecosystem.

ST098.com

I'm not expert on cryptography. But there are odd things i found.
1. ST098 team report their finding on this forum. But i didn't find them report it on more important place such as https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin or https://delvingbitcoin.org/.
2. They never mention they've reported it on responsible manner.

RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE
To report security issues: [email protected] (not for support).

3. Siganture (along with public key) exposed whenever you create transaction or sign a message. So it's weird they only warn in case the TX added into orphan block or someone re-use their address. How about when your transaction got dropped due to very low TX fee rate?
4. AFAIK block orphan rate is much lower than 1-5 blocks/day. Some of the reason explained on https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/56674.
5. Signature got exposed after you share your TX/signed message, no matter what kind of wallet you use. So it's weird they only warn "Used lightweight or hot wallets" are at risk, while full node wallet (e.g. Bitcoin Core) isn't mentioned.

P.S. I will remove this neutral feedback if it's acknowledged by Bitcoin Core developer.

[LoyceV]

P.S. I will remove this neutral feedback if it's acknowledged by Bitcoin Core developer.

I don't think that's going to happen

I didn't feel like debunking all the BS he posted, but it's too bad my 4 sarcastic replies were deleted with the topic.

[ABCbits]

User: Ahsan Aly

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use chatbot/AI.
* This is his first post after 15 5 years.

List of post:

hello i was looking arround for a btc miner to make profit but i couldnt find any that make nice profit my budget is €500 does anyone have any tips or advices i can use? Or any specific models?

Here's a well-structured response you can post on Bitcointalk:  

---

Mining Bitcoin with a budget of €500 is quite challenging because most profitable ASIC miners are significantly more expensive, and electricity costs heavily impact profitability. However, here are a few options and suggestions for you:  

### **1. Consider Altcoin Mining**  
Since Bitcoin mining requires high-end ASICs like the Antminer S19 series (which are well above your budget), you might want to mine altcoins like Kaspa (KAS), Litecoin (LTC), or Dogecoin (DOGE) using lower-cost miners such as:  
- **Goldshell Mini-Doge** (for DOGE/LTC)  
- **iPollo V1 Mini** (for Kaspa)  

These miners have lower power consumption and might be more suitable for small budgets.  

### **2. Buy a Used Miner**  
If you’re set on Bitcoin mining, you can check for second-hand ASIC miners like:  
- **Antminer S9** (Older but very cheap; barely profitable unless electricity is extremely cheap)  
- **Whatsminer M20S** (May be found used, but check power costs)  

Websites like eBay, AliExpress, and crypto forums often have listings, but be cautious of scams.  

### **3. Cloud Mining / Mining Pools**  
With a small budget, cloud mining could be an option, but most services have high risks and potential scams. If you go this route, research well before investing.  

### **4. Invest in Bitcoin Instead**  
With €500, instead of mining, you could simply buy and hold Bitcoin. Mining is capital-intensive and not always profitable with a low budget, but buying and holding BTC might yield better returns over time.  

### **Final Advice**  
- Always calculate profitability using sites like **whattomine.com** before buying a miner.  
- Consider electricity costs—Bitcoin mining is only profitable with cheap electricity.  
- Be cautious of scams, especially in cloud mining and used miner purchases.  

 

1. iPollo V1 Mini is Ethash ASIC, while Kaspa coin use KHeavyHash.
2. Suggesting cloud mining is stupid, when it's either scam or not really profitable.
3. Cloud mining and mining pool are 2 different thing.
4. Whether mining Bitcoin or altcoin, usually it's only profitable with cheap electricity.

[LoyceV]

* I suspect this user use chatbot/AI.

He's not very good at hiding it:

Here's a well-structured response you can post on Bitcointalk:

* This is his first post after 15 years.

Make that 5

[nutildah]

* I suspect this user use chatbot/AI.

He's not very good at hiding it:

Here's a well-structured response you can post on Bitcointalk:

Looool. 

These are my favorite types of AI spammers. Gone are the days when we'll see posters referring to their "knowledge cutoff date" as today's GPT models incorporate much more recent data. I would say he is the first idiot to do this in a while but I'd be lying.

https://ninjastic.space/post/65176477
https://ninjastic.space/post/64293037

This is one of my all-time faves. This post was reported as AI spam, yet was never deleted:

If any of you reading this post, what's your thought on this? What should our alternative plan be if this occurs? Also, can we speculate what the aftermath should be for Bitcoin?

Sure, here's a more straightforward and youth-friendly version:

You know, there are a few ways to do Bitcoin transactions without using the internet. It's explained here: [Info] Transactions and Broadcasting Bitcoin without Internet.

But, let's face it, the internet plays a huge role and we're all pretty hooked on it. Our jobs are mostly online now, and even if the internet disappeared, we'd go back to the days of regular phone calls and texts for communication. It would be like stepping back in time, and that would mess with the economy big time. Everyone would feel the impact, and it sounds like a total nightmare.

Would everyone die without the internet? Definitely not. People used to live in a time without the internet (before it existed, of course), and it wasn't a big deal. It's just that some of our stuff would be messed up, and there would be chaos that we couldn't control.

"Do Bitcoin transactions without using the internet"... I mean you can sign transactions using pen & paper but the internet must play a role at some point. At least it wasn't in the Dev & Tech section.

[ABCbits]

User: olivarescoco

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

List of post:

See, the nonce in Bitcoin is basically a number that miners keep changing to try to make the block comply with the network's rules. Think of the nonce range as searching for a specific combination on a lock, and that range goes from 0 to about 4 billion—pretty wide! When they run out of that range without finding anything valid, miners can change something else called the ExtraNonce, which expands the search possibilities. Ultimately, it's a process of trial and error. You don't calculate the nonce directly; you just keep trying until you find the number that works.

1. Off-topic answer. The thread have title "K Nonce", where it talks about nonce/K value when signing transaction, but this reply talks about nonce of Bitcoin mining.
2. Nonce and extra-nonce aren't the only thing that can be changed in order to mine valid block.

If you need to test your implementation on the Signet network, you can start by setting up your own Bitcoin Core node. It's reliable because you can control everything yourself. You just need to configure the configuration file and enable Signet. Now, if you prefer something faster, you can look into services like Blockstream. They're well-known and give you access to useful APIs, although you'd have to confirm whether they specifically support Signet.
To use the getblocktemplate and submitblock methods in Signet, you need to configure your Bitcoin Core node to connect to the network. With getblocktemplate, you're basically asking the node to give you all the information needed to create a new block. There are parameters like including rules to support SegWit, which is important for modern transactions. Then, with submitblock, you're sending that block you already created back to the node for it to accept and pass on to the network. The thing to keep in mind in Signet is that blocks have to be signed correctly, so you need to configure the parameters related to private keys and the special Signet challenge correctly for everything to work.

1. Bitcoin signet network isn't something that you have full control.
2. Suggesting to run Bitcoin Core and look for service which support signet isn't exactly helpful, since the thread explicitly ask about 3rd party service that support it.
3. Basic explanation about getblocktemplate and submitblock isn't exactly helpful either, since someone who implement mining software certainly know about it.

[ABCbits]

User: Sat In Shit Im Not A Moto

Additional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use chatbot/AI to generate very long text.
* Moderator have deleted his other posts. See https://ninjastic.space/search?author=Sat%20In%20Shit%20Im%20Not%20A%20Moto for his other spam post.

List of post:

Hi. I have been debating even posting anywhere,
This is the first time in about 9 years addressing the public.
I think that the public deserves to hear from me as there has been alot of questions through time such as who I am? What happened to me? What was my vision and the outcome of the end goal I was reaching for? Why haven't I accessed my accounts? Why did I leave so many coins in the account? Why did I create over 25 - 50 accounts and load them with coins after I launched,  what were they for and supposed to do? Did I work alone or was it a team? Why hide my identity?

I'm sure there are so many people that have so many questions for me but first I need to apologize to someone publicly as possible and officially for they were told to do something and would prove to be without their notice a backup scenerio for me just in case I lost all access and files and got pushed out.. Craig Wright I am Satoshi, yes you and me knew each other online during the 2016 and 2017 development stage and yes I am the one who told you to take ownership of satoshi for me if you could, then pass it off the the other friend of ours online which then he would give it to me. This was done so you could verify that I was the real Satoshi and which I trusted you and I think his name was Frank and his wife was Francis I believe... he was to startup the fintech section and when ready if things went good and correct he would end up being being employed as a partner with me as the Co owner. But obviously regardless of the green checkmark signage failure and even smokebuddy being developed...even with almost all my designs and patants....the world took everything from me and I lost everything including a divorce, this was the same time when tests of alot of software and other things happened to start without me being in control of what I had designed. As I lost contact with everyone I tried to contact anyone I could find affiliated with the companies launched but all was taken over and no access to anything was available....but I remember you and telling you that you wouldn't have to be slandered because I would show up for you explaining to the people what has happened and why you were doing what you did...because it was either out of my control or you were trying to emergency take control even though you didn't know me but only online and I don't think you knew my real name... that's how you could know that I would be me if I reached out to you. I believe you may of been one of which makes 4 of us that knew I created a fake name to hold the place of the owner of COIN as Brian Armstrong  as it was either Brian Smith or Armstrong that was the name of the Computer Guy At my company I worked for before he got replaced. I Worked at Lely North America and a guy named Ryan took his place. I Chose this name as a bread crumb to link it back to why I would do something like that as if only I had to be known would I put my name there after x amount of time and so I could put people in place that were deserving of management and counsel as I was the only founder and owner and developer it was my choice I could take back but also have held in place as I also emailed the Security Trade Commission asking them to do so and make it under COIN as I filled out as much paperwork as i could to make it official for either them or my fintech monkeymail whatever url I put up with a login for him and his password section was his wife name and then maybe I added in rooftop or something as a join for password....but ya he was to setup the stocks if they didn't already be setup... or the 2009 exchange documents didn't get processed  either way. No one else have I been able to contact except Gavin one and that lasted only a minute or two...and the hidden number I posted on the bitcoin website which was to be the guy I used to email roleplay wrestling ladder matches with a group in 2009ish but added in later on. Other than that I tried calling the SEC, and everyone from any of the companies that should of been ran by Ai but somehow had real people and edits to my code where it shouldnt...and so anyways.... just know I am sorry but the world didn't want satoshi back.... it took everything and no matter what I said or to who...I sounded like a crazy person...yes I still have a problem with meth so that probably didn't help but oh well. Anyways.... TO those who wonder...I wasn't complete at all.... not even a little bit to what the crypto or coinbase was going to be...  and yes... vapes are around....I don't know where my designs went but many named correctly and the names represent my friends I knew online along with everything else I named almost for stuff here and there.. and yes I'm a disabled vet and no I'm not rich as I didn't receive anything from any patents or designs or anything, nor did I take any crypto or abuse anything... But those who do have access and the files and all that stuff... their making sure I can't come back....it would take too long and I don't have the heart anymore as it is pretty broken for how things turned out. A ITS sad mostly because like metamask and such.... I never even got to finish it or put things together yet... crypto wasn't even close to what I envisioned.  So with all that said. .. I think I've typed long enough.... Craig Wright MY name is Robert Lee Sutton age 40 and I live in Iowa. YOU can ... please people have respect and understand that I just have a few things to answer for people as the world deserves it. But realize...it wasn't supposed to be this way.
~Humble and Kind
  Robert Lee Sutton
Born 1984, age 40 if that answers some people's question

1. Off-topic thread, according to description of the board.

Technical discussion about Satoshi's Bitcoin client and the Bitcoin network in general. No third-party sites/clients, bug reports that do not require much discussion (use github), or support requests.

2. From very quick skimming, it appears he claim himself as Satoshi Nakamoto.

I'd be asking the more important question, what happened to the original code satoshi had and why was it edited, was crypto ready past test phase? Was only one or two crypto ready for public investment ? Or was things changed so people could abuse the system by pushing him and his overwatcher people away... and how did I have planned to test new processes of code, how did i have admin ability to give myself any coin amount for 0 usd...maybe that's why I would find it unethical to figure out a way then or later to be able to take any amount of crypto and never use it unless maybe just maybe.... I found it good enough to have an address to where people could donate to an account or a PayPal account and that's all the money I would recieve... cause that's what a non scam  would have to look like and for the world to trust the developer.... or else I could of just generated coins whenever and wouldn't make sense why I'd have the buy me a coffee or donate address..... But never got access again to any of those accounts but I'm sure someone did...but only I was the person who was to have access as those were my tips from public... ya never saw a penny from any of the accounts either crypto account which never to been used except as donation holder and also paypaypal account and think even in different forms but still sent to the paypal address... eh that was 2009ish and tried to put up new one in 2016 because seems I lost all ability and access and no one cared to find the owner of it.... wasn't hard... he'll I wrote paypal support even asking them in 2009ish if they were going to be allowing later or getting into alternative payments for buying items online... like they pay here page.... instead of debit or credit card to pay someone... they could put down a crypto coin then transfers into use or just becomes  on acc trade to trade one for this or that... oooh the good old days....beginning dev timeframe trying to promote the new system by seeing what online banks would be willing to do or have in mind... helped develop the thought of the basics... like  the fish games in Iowa game statios ... the idea was that the same... you spend 1 dollar and trade it in for an amount of objects ...those objects and now digital currency but are worth the use  you exchanged it for... now it isn't gambling with usd or currency...but a person uses those amount of shots from the item which throws at a item on screen to take chance on making more or not getting more...items...which get placed or equal to the amount of shots a user has... if a player is done they exchange their shots left which is then on a piece of paper or digitally sent to a machine... it would then be up to the store owner or owner of the machine to put value to the amount the user has, store credit, or cash if that's what they deem it is worth as then they take as I've seen usually a q0 to 20 percent from the amount  so not only are they building value but likely a player buys items from the store, at percent out or even worth store credit... the store will still make money based on they already operate on a percent gain from what they buy their items at on the dollar... so if they give cash they still make that percent which is basically items that doesn't leave the store but on their dollar and more such time more players end up giving more percent over all as a collection of group than the player would walk out with if having a big  use transfer..which also gets smaller because more is taken the more a person deems as the base amount vs put in vs out vs fees vs amount players vs chances. I should know... I remember doing a few algorithm updates and such from the original online version and made it unique and able to be an actual table game...i sent the idea and the algorithm of how a player if they had all players do a certain degree measurement and amount of betting  correct per player area...it ended up where one player would always be able to get increase faster than the other play we rs because they stayed in the medium and just coasted themselves basically overtime...so it would always cause the one player to get raised over time amount while others stayed basically... that was original design I beat and posted self reminder hunts in the original instructions hidden for physical game... but then I sent in a few updated algorithms  which was the best way to randomize but also keep people guessing tactics as tactics change each session or each hit or few hits...this or that...  make it fair . Anyways that was just the fish game...TO win don't play lol, and if a person was to win...they were to spend it online at a certain store as that's where official trade for items was to be officially accepted as used to item to paper to crypto currency  amount from paper to items online store... one of first fun ways for idea that happened.... though I never seen a penny  of any of the games that got out there for commission or tips... but someone is making alot on alot of different stuff like that that was put together.... like a casino that took tokens as exchange... because the casinos denied my fair casino online platform when I requested a license to online buisness casino license in 2009... and I didn't find it fair how I wanted to do thing fair and uncheatable casino and got told no and then all the other ones that were allowed... cause money probably as I barely had any and was just a regular person to them... see a person tried to do things right and just always seems that they get pushed down... so I had an idea in 2016 to defeat and bypass them... not betting with money... but tokens... I was opening one that I accepted use and gave tokens...then was gonna allow exchange for the digital objects  with an amount gathered.... TO be exchanged for what I felt and they felt we could agree on     rule is a person cannot use United States Currency For betting and blah blah... well I ask... wouldn't it be the same if I had a banana and I wanted to see if anyone found it a fair deal to give me 5 dollars for 1 banana.... then that person is free to go somewhere and place that banana on a table where if a person says flip coin if heads I'll give you two bananas if tails then I take it and eat it. It just happens to be the same person in the scenerio instead of finding someone to flip coin... buy my banana and then let's flip for who eats it or gets another one... no use of currency past the first transaction which doesn't require a bet to be made... ...    and that's the loophole because there is nothing stating a person can't make an item and have it be worth... even if it is a item that doesn't exist but only as a digital graphic that could be represented as something else ... so now we are talking graphics or even a pixel  or a design... does it have worth to its artist that made it... even if borrowing the artwork later and ...I think people can understand what I mean.
~Humble and Kind
Robert Lee Sutton

1. Mostly off-topic, since this reply is created on board asking about change on Bitcoin protocol.
2. There's no backdoor on Bitcoin protocol to give anyone Bitcoin without performing mining.

[ABCbits]

User: elsoleado

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

If you combine it with solar panels, if you have many years of life left, no debt, and don't mind the noise, you might be able to find a Bitcoin block in 10-20 years, or if you're really unlucky, 31 years.
Of course, you'd have to buy 100 NerdQaxe++ – 4.8 TH/s – 76 Watts, each costing $500 ($5,000 total), not to mention that the solar panels would cost you approximately $10,000 in total (I mean, so you have a net profit).

Now let's test your luck:

1. Solochance.com shows probability based on current data. So the actual estimated time would be far longer than 31 years, considering difficulty growth and more efficient ASIC in the future.
2. Cost of 100 NerdQaxe++ is about $50.000, where solo miner usually not willing spend that much of money. Besides, buying few bulky ASIC (such as S21) would be better choice since it have better efficiency (in terms of J/TH and $/TH).

It will depend entirely on your budget and noise tolerance.
You have three options:
1) Mining with electric power and mining equipment newer than the Antminer S9.
2) Mining with renewable energy (such as solar panels) and older miners (S9, for example).
3) Mining with renewable energy and modern miners.

1) Let's assume you have a huge budget and buy an Antminer S21 XP Hyd (to avoid air conditioning costs for cooling), with a power output of 473Th/s, a consumption of 5676W, and a cost of approximately $16,000 including shipping and taxes. Assuming you live in the US and the cost of electricity is $0.15/kWh, your daily profit would be $2.79. An ROI of at least 3 million years.

2) With an Antminer S9, which costs around $200 on the current market. 14Th/s, 1300 watts, and a hell of a lot of noise. Add to that the fact that you won't find it new, so you'll have to buy it secondhand (average lifespan: 2 years). As for the solar panels, they'd cost around $1,600. $0.69 of profit per day, a tenth of a human's average lifespan just to recover (7 years).

3) Same example as 1, but add $6,700 for the solar panels and all that. You'd get a daily profit of $23.24. $16,000 %2B $6,700 = $22,700, giving you a total of 976 days to recover your investment (a little over 2.5 years, the rest as profit). This is taking into account that you live in a place with a lot of solar radiation.

Currently, it's difficult and expensive to mine Bitcoin. If you still want to mine, here are some tips:
- You can store everything you mine until the price goes up and then sell it. That helps.
- Perform maintenance on the miners once a month if you live in a dusty area, or every three months if you live in a clean environment (needless to say, with the mining equipment turned off).
- Always have a fire extinguisher on hand and don't place cardboard under the miners (I speak from experience).
- Don't even think about solo mining; always look for a pool.
- Always look for mining pools with merged mining, so you can get some extra.
- Try to mine in an isolated location, as the noise from the miners is very loud and can disturb neighbors (even those 5 houses away).

If, despite all this, you're still interested in mining, I can only wish you luck.

Source:
https://www.bitmain.com/
https://whattomine.com/asic
https://www.gogreensolar.com/

1. Just like above post, this one doesn't consider difficulty growth and more efficient ASIC.
2. For example that use solar energy, it doesn't consider total sunny day per year and season that have less sunny day. For example, https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php shows state in US have clear days between 58 to 193 days.






User: konfuzius5278

Additional information (optional):
* His trust page says "This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.".

List of post:

As we now see, the opposit is the case

The "adoption" of the network not really growing even the press says something different, we have 3 sat per vbyte.

When the coinbase reward drops nearly to zero in 16 years, such times will really be a problem, exspecially when a working L2 is implemented.

Lightning is just a kids game with ridiculous UTXO due to incoming liquidity and forced closed channels.

1. Off-topic reply, since the topic is about UTXO growth.
2. User @Cricktor explain why it's nonsense and technically wrong.

When the coinbase reward drops nearly to zero in 16 years, such times will really be a problem, exspecially when a working L2 is implemented.

What are you talking about? In 16 years the coinbase block subsidy is 1/16^th of today's, that's far from zero. It may still become a problem but that depends on other parameters.

Lightning isn't perfect but it's working pretty well from my own experience over some years of use. I don't know if and what experience you had with Lightning. In all the years I've been running a Lightning node I've rarely experienced forced closed channels. I never had to initiate a force close myself and can't really recall a force close from my channel partners (if they happened it wasn't a big problem for me; AFAIR the side who executes a force close pays the on-chain channel settling transaction, if I'm not the one I've no transaction fee losses due to a force close).

Lightning is just a kids game with ridiculous UTXO due to incoming liquidity and forced closed channels.

Kindly explain this bs sentence. I don't think you know what you're blabbering about.

User: potatotom

Additional information (optional):
* This is his first post in last 3 months.

List of post:

Lightning is a workable solution and we're using it all the time and it works well. Yes the force close and channel fee issue needs to be addressed (imho watchtowers should be able to process channel closures as well ... see below)

And the protocol should be changed to have force close to a maximum of agreed fee, not the agreed fee per se.

There's a few things to be tweaked to get rid of those issues (the watchtower channel closure would be a big boon in reducing potential funds loss due to both inaccessible nodes.)

I don't think it would be too difficult to co-sign a close transaction from both nodes that are weeks in the future and distribute them to watchtowers. Then watchtowers should be closing channels if they don't see sign of life for x weeks / months and should be able to also determine on-chain fees at the same time. You will lose a channel to a rogue node at most, but will never open a node with them anyway again so the loss is minimal.

It could be elective too so perhaps both parties need to agree to this.

Other than this, Lightning is spectacular. Who else gives you <1s settlement worldwide basically unlimited volume and you are STILL 100% SELF CUSTODIAL.

1. Off-topic reply, since the topic is about UTXO growth.
2. Watchtower is meant to prevent scam by broadcasting earlier state of LN channel. It can't stop force closure of LN channel.
3. "<1s settlement worldwide" is misleading, since actual settlement happened when involed LN channel is closed. Besides, it may take 1s or more for the receiver to see transfer on LN.

[nutildah]

OK, this guy is out of control. Some of his posts look like he knows what he's talking about but many of them are just text-spun & "humanized" versions of the posts they are quoting.

BADERO

Let's start with the most recent one, which is just a reconstructed version of the post he is replying to:

I'm afraid this PR is a lot worse than what it appears at first. It is not just removing the OP_RETURN limit (which is bad enough on its own since bitcoin is not a cloud storage!), but also it is removing the option user had to set/change that limit as well. In other words if this PR is merged and if you run the next version of bitcoin core you will no longer be able to choose which OP_RETURN size you want to relay (that choice should be yours to make), and instead you will be forced to use what the default setting is!

In fact things like this are the reasons why I've argued for the benefits of having a strong alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol to be used instead of core... At some point when the core devs keep refusing to fix exploits like what allows the Ordinals Attack to take place and then limit users' ability to set their own standard rules, the benefits of having an alternative implementation outweighs the disadvantages of it...

To be honest, this PR is worse than it first appears  it eliminates not only the OP_RETURN size limit, which is already dubious because Bitcoin isn't designed to be a cloud storage service, but also the node operators' ability to set that limit themselves. That is significant until now, the -datacarriersize option allowed users to specify the type of data they wanted to relay. You will have no choice but to accept whatever default Core decides if this PR is merged. A decentralised system shouldn't operate that way
This directly connects to the bigger issue Core developers have demonstrated a lack of willingness to handle spam like attacks (such as Ordinals) and now they are also limiting the options available to node operators to defend against such misuse. For this reason, I've been arguing for some time that we need significant alternative Bitcoin implementations, not just as a backup plan but also as a practical check on Core's centralised decision making.

The post is pretty much just a text-spun version of pooya87's post with a "humanizer" involved, which messes with the punctuation and capitalization. It is not exactly plagiarism, and it doesn't seem to be AI-generated either. Nevertheless, it should be deleted as spam as its not saying anything new.

#2 - Here is a post that is AI-generated but uses a "humanizer" to make it worse, lol:

It’suncommon and possibly worrisome if two ECDSA signatures produce identical u1 and u2 values during verification even though their r values differ since u1 = z / s mod n and u2 = r / s mod n in ECDSA, both u1 and u2 must match for the s values and the ratios z/s and r/s to produce the same result in both signatures you mentioned that the r values differ, which suggests that either the signatures were generated incorrectly or with forced equivalence, or the same s was used (which is uncommon and dangerous if it comes from reused nonces k)  this behaviour is abnormal for standard ECDSA signing and may indicate improper implementation or reused randomness it may be intentional if you are intentionally simulating or creating signatures (for example, by granting access to only the public key)however, if this happened during actual signing it is worthwhile to audit your signing procedure for security vulnerabilities

When the grammar is fixed:

It’s uncommon and possibly worrisome if two ECDSA signatures produce identical u1 and u2 values during verification, even though their r values differ. Since u1 = z / s mod n and u2 = r / s mod n in ECDSA, both u1 and u2 must match for the s values, and the ratios z/s and r/s to produce the same result. In both signatures you mentioned that the r values differ, which suggests that either the signatures were generated incorrectly or with forced equivalence, or the same s was used (which is uncommon and dangerous if it comes from reused nonces k), This behaviour is abnormal for standard ECDSA signing and may indicate improper implementation or reused randomness. It may be intentional if you are intentionally simulating or creating signatures (for example, by granting access to only the public key). However, if this happened during actual signing, it is worthwhile to audit your signing procedure for security vulnerabilities.

Copyleaks: 100% AI-generated
GPTZero: 79% AI-generated
Sapling: 100% Fake

#3 - This one is so bad that he repeats the same run-on sentence twice:

Exactly you’re right Bitcoin Core  can automatically determine and distribute the optimal number of CPU threads based on the system's available cores when par=0 is set by default setting a negative value, such as par=-1, instructs Core to (use all cores except one leave one free for other system tasks) This is more intelligent since it maintains the device's responsiveness, particularly if it is executing the node while performing other tasks in summary you're right unless you have a very specific performance tuning goal, it's usually not necessary to manually set par=N for the majority of users, the automatic behaviour (default par=0) is sufficiently optimised
In summary you're right unless you have a very specific performance tuning goal it's usually not necessary to manually set par=N for the majority of users the automatic behaviour (default par=0) is sufficiently optimised

He has a lot of other posts like this. I don't think he actually knows anything about Bitcoin but has mastered the art of pretending to not use AI, lol.

[BADERO]

OK, this guy is out of control. Some of his posts look like he knows what he's talking about but many of them are just text-spun & "humanized" versions of the posts they are quoting.

BADERO

Let's start with the most recent one, which is just a reconstructed version of the post he is replying to:

I'm afraid this PR is a lot worse than what it appears at first. It is not just removing the OP_RETURN limit (which is bad enough on its own since bitcoin is not a cloud storage!), but also it is removing the option user had to set/change that limit as well. In other words if this PR is merged and if you run the next version of bitcoin core you will no longer be able to choose which OP_RETURN size you want to relay (that choice should be yours to make), and instead you will be forced to use what the default setting is!

In fact things like this are the reasons why I've argued for the benefits of having a strong alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol to be used instead of core... At some point when the core devs keep refusing to fix exploits like what allows the Ordinals Attack to take place and then limit users' ability to set their own standard rules, the benefits of having an alternative implementation outweighs the disadvantages of it...

To be honest, this PR is worse than it first appears  it eliminates not only the OP_RETURN size limit, which is already dubious because Bitcoin isn't designed to be a cloud storage service, but also the node operators' ability to set that limit themselves. That is significant until now, the -datacarriersize option allowed users to specify the type of data they wanted to relay. You will have no choice but to accept whatever default Core decides if this PR is merged. A decentralised system shouldn't operate that way
This directly connects to the bigger issue Core developers have demonstrated a lack of willingness to handle spam like attacks (such as Ordinals) and now they are also limiting the options available to node operators to defend against such misuse. For this reason, I've been arguing for some time that we need significant alternative Bitcoin implementations, not just as a backup plan but also as a practical check on Core's centralised decision making.

The post is pretty much just a text-spun version of pooya87's post with a "humanizer" involved, which messes with the punctuation and capitalization. It is not exactly plagiarism, and it doesn't seem to be AI-generated either. Nevertheless, it should be deleted as spam as its not saying anything new.

#2 - Here is a post that is AI-generated but uses a "humanizer" to make it worse, lol:

It’suncommon and possibly worrisome if two ECDSA signatures produce identical u1 and u2 values during verification even though their r values differ since u1 = z / s mod n and u2 = r / s mod n in ECDSA, both u1 and u2 must match for the s values and the ratios z/s and r/s to produce the same result in both signatures you mentioned that the r values differ, which suggests that either the signatures were generated incorrectly or with forced equivalence, or the same s was used (which is uncommon and dangerous if it comes from reused nonces k)  this behaviour is abnormal for standard ECDSA signing and may indicate improper implementation or reused randomness it may be intentional if you are intentionally simulating or creating signatures (for example, by granting access to only the public key)however, if this happened during actual signing it is worthwhile to audit your signing procedure for security vulnerabilities

When the grammar is fixed:

It’s uncommon and possibly worrisome if two ECDSA signatures produce identical u1 and u2 values during verification, even though their r values differ. Since u1 = z / s mod n and u2 = r / s mod n in ECDSA, both u1 and u2 must match for the s values, and the ratios z/s and r/s to produce the same result. In both signatures you mentioned that the r values differ, which suggests that either the signatures were generated incorrectly or with forced equivalence, or the same s was used (which is uncommon and dangerous if it comes from reused nonces k), This behaviour is abnormal for standard ECDSA signing and may indicate improper implementation or reused randomness. It may be intentional if you are intentionally simulating or creating signatures (for example, by granting access to only the public key). However, if this happened during actual signing, it is worthwhile to audit your signing procedure for security vulnerabilities.

Copyleaks: 100% AI-generated
GPTZero: 79% AI-generated
Sapling: 100% Fake

#3 - This one is so bad that he repeats the same run-on sentence twice:

Exactly you’re right Bitcoin Core  can automatically determine and distribute the optimal number of CPU threads based on the system's available cores when par=0 is set by default setting a negative value, such as par=-1, instructs Core to (use all cores except one leave one free for other system tasks) This is more intelligent since it maintains the device's responsiveness, particularly if it is executing the node while performing other tasks in summary you're right unless you have a very specific performance tuning goal, it's usually not necessary to manually set par=N for the majority of users, the automatic behaviour (default par=0) is sufficiently optimised
In summary you're right unless you have a very specific performance tuning goal it's usually not necessary to manually set par=N for the majority of users the automatic behaviour (default par=0) is sufficiently optimised

He has a lot of other posts like this. I don't think he actually knows anything about Bitcoin but has mastered the art of pretending to not use AI, lol.

Most of my posts are in the Arabic section if you check all the posts there, you’ll see that many of them are generated by AI, because the AI checker doesn’t work well with Arabic. And regarding punctuation, it helps make the context of my comments clearer. I don’t know why you singled me out, but you can see that I often include screenshots along with my posts
All I do is try to help people with the little knowledge I have!!!

[LoyceV]

BADERO

He's been on my Ignore list for a while. Even though he earned 55 Merits, at least his English posts aren't worth reading.

[Alone055]

BADERO

He's been on my Ignore list for a while. Even though he earned 55 Merits, at least his English posts aren't worth reading.

Wait, did he just give you a merit for saying you have him on ignore, and his English posts aren't worth reading? I bet his AI translated your post differently, and he thought you were supporting him for some reason.


P.S.: Sorry for the off-topic post, @ABCbits, but I couldn't hold back.

[nutildah]

Most of my posts are in the Arabic section if you check all the posts there, you’ll see that many of them are generated by AI, because the AI checker doesn’t work well with Arabic.

Umm... OK. Still, you shouldn't use AI to generate your posts at all, anywhere.

And regarding punctuation, it helps make the context of my comments clearer.

It does not make your comments clearer, it makes them less clear because you are using a "humanizer" to make the AI-generated posts worse!

I don’t know why you singled me out, but you can see that I often include screenshots along with my posts
All I do is try to help people with the little knowledge I have!!!

I singled you out because your posts are terrible. You are not actually contributing anything meaningful to any conversation. Stop trying to "help" people and start trying to gain more knowledge.

[ABCbits]

OK, this guy is out of control. Some of his posts look like he knows what he's talking about but many of them are just text-spun & "humanized" versions of the posts they are quoting.

BADERO

--snip--

Thanks for mentioning this user. Upon detailed reading, this user fit this thread.

User: BADERO

Additional information (optional):
* Many of his post have many poor usage punctuation, capitalization and grammar, which makes it not easy to understand.

List of post:

I'm afraid this PR is a lot worse than what it appears at first. It is not just removing the OP_RETURN limit (which is bad enough on its own since bitcoin is not a cloud storage!), but also it is removing the option user had to set/change that limit as well. In other words if this PR is merged and if you run the next version of bitcoin core you will no longer be able to choose which OP_RETURN size you want to relay (that choice should be yours to make), and instead you will be forced to use what the default setting is!

In fact things like this are the reasons why I've argued for the benefits of having a strong alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol to be used instead of core... At some point when the core devs keep refusing to fix exploits like what allows the Ordinals Attack to take place and then limit users' ability to set their own standard rules, the benefits of having an alternative implementation outweighs the disadvantages of it...

To be honest, this PR is worse than it first appears  it eliminates not only the OP_RETURN size limit, which is already dubious because Bitcoin isn't designed to be a cloud storage service, but also the node operators' ability to set that limit themselves. That is significant until now, the -datacarriersize option allowed users to specify the type of data they wanted to relay. You will have no choice but to accept whatever default Core decides if this PR is merged. A decentralised system shouldn't operate that way
This directly connects to the bigger issue Core developers have demonstrated a lack of willingness to handle spam like attacks (such as Ordinals) and now they are also limiting the options available to node operators to defend against such misuse. For this reason, I've been arguing for some time that we need significant alternative Bitcoin implementations, not just as a backup plan but also as a practical check on Core's centralised decision making.

1. For most parts, his post only rephrase @pooya87 post.
2. -datacarriersize isn't used to speficy type of data that want to be relayed. It's used to set maximum size of arbitrary data that want to be relayed.

The -datacarriersize Bitcoin Core configuration option allows you to set the maximum number of bytes in null data outputs that you will relay or mine.

When you encrypt it, it creates new private keys.

Unless I misunderstood you, are sure this is the case?
I just tried to create a new wallet and then dumped the keys. Then I encrypted it and dumped the keys again. I see the same private keys.

The current private keys in a Bitcoin Core wallet are not created when it is encrypted instead, they are encrypted and secured by a passphrase bitcoin Core does not remove, replace, or regenerate the key material when you encrypt the wallet it only secures the already existing key material. This expected behaviour is confirmed by your test, which involves dumping the keys before and after encryption and noting that they are identical. The original keys remain unaltered only subsequent keys created after encryptio for example, when creating new addresses are encrypted with the passphrase.

1. When you encrypt wallet on Bitcoin Core, it definitely create new set HD seed where new HD seed used to generate new private keys.

** IMPORTANT **
For security reasons, the encryption process will generate a new HD seed, resulting
in the creation of a fresh set of active descriptors. Therefore, it is crucial to
securely back up the newly generated wallet file using the backupwallet RPC.

It's probably pointless to launch the attack, unless they want to proceed with a 'griefing attack, that screw up network operation. The 51% attack would help improvise enough testnet to generate a great number of blocks in a little time - James Lopp created 165000 blocks in a week using this attack and slowed down the network. The good part of it is that it hurts the functionality of testnet marketplaces, and the delay it causes the workflow of developers who are running their applications on the testnet, is certainly the bad side of the attack, although the action has no benefits for the attacker, it really pisses off developers.

Although it is essentially useless from a financial standpoint, a 51% attack on the Bitcoin testnet, such as the one that Innopolis Tech could carry out with its 51.76% hash rate, can be a useful griefing attack. An attack like this enables the entity to mine blocks quickly this technique was once used by Jameson Lopp to create 165,000 blocks in a week interfering with regular network operations time sensitive processes like time locks and Lightning based apps are disrupted the blockchain is overloaded the chain size is bloated, and mempool instability results by slowing down workflows postponing testing and impairing the functionality of testnet marketplaces it seriously hinders developers who depend on the testnet even though it offers no real advantage to the attacker  it's an inexpensive method of annoying and upsetting the Bitcoin development community without putting the mainnet at risk

1. For some parts, this post is rephrase of @Accardo post.
2. While on theory testnet coin supposed to have no value/price, several exchange (AltQuick is most popular ones) makes 51% attack have a bit of financial standpoint.

I successfully completed the update in the early hours of this morning, and it’s working fine. At some point, I was wondering what extra benefits this latest version (v29.0) offers, until I noticed that the "progress increase per hour" shows a better percentage improvement compared to the previous version. Though, I strongly believe that my device specifications aren't high enough, and the process doesn't seem entirely efficient or smooth. I would like to know what additional benefits the latest version offers. Does it work more efficiently with the allocated dbcache, or it does something different?.

If your RAM permits, you should increase the size of the dbcache setting to further speed up your device with v29.0 if you have at least 4GB of RAM you should ideally set dbcache=2048 (2 GB) in your configuration file if not, it's safer to set it to about 512 MB this significantly reduces slow disc reads by allowing more of the blockchain data to remain in memory to save resources reduce resourceintensive features like indexing and background apps while syncing ,to speed up processing if you have multiple CPU cores, use par=2 or par=3 to enable parallel validation threads, if your client permits it. syncing and validation on an SSD are significantly faster than on a disc  even though dbcache helps lower disc pressure

1. User @Cricktor explain why changing default value of par isn't good idea/

... to speed up processing if you have multiple CPU cores, use par=2 or par=3 to enable parallel validation threads, if your client permits it.

I don't think it's necessary to fiddle with this option. The default is par=0 which means Bitcoin Core allocates automatically the number of threads/cores it needs. Depending on what other tasks your node device might have, a negative value for par tells Core to leave that number of cores free for other processes than Core's.

# Set the number of script verification threads. (1 to CPU_CORES, 0 = automatic, less than 0 = leave that many cores free).
par=0

A reasonable value for dbcache without inducing memory pressure to the system has likely a better effect on performance than trying to tweak the par option.

Disclaimer: I've only played with dbcache, never touched par, so you should take my comments as an educated guess only.

2. dbcache used to store UTXO, not blockchain data.

-dbcache=<n> - the UTXO database cache size, this defaults to 450. The unit is MiB (1024).

Give ACINQ support the specifics of the problem, such as the fact that it began following a Lightning transaction just in case, you can also look through any notebooks, password organizers, or pictures where you may have previously stored the seed

And in the meantime  you can download an emulator on your PC to check whether the problem comes from your device or your account after the transaction (I recommend using BlueStacks 5

Phoenix wallet is non-custodial wallet for Android, so there's no thing such as account.

[Catenaccio]

User: Trêvoid

If the blockchain shows the BTC was received at an address, the funds are there, and only the address owner can access them. If the address is not yours, the transaction cannot be reversed.

"If the address is not yours, the transaction can not be reversed". He did not understand about Bitcoin blockchain and transactions on this blockchain are all irreversible.

There is no chance of if you own an address, private key, you can reverse your Bitcoin transaction after it was confirmed by miners.

[LoyceV]

There is no chance of if you own an address, private key, you can reverse your Bitcoin transaction after it was confirmed by miners.

I can do whatever I want with any Bitcoin I own, including returning them to the address they came from. That's what "reverse" means in this context.

[ABCbits]

User: Ethan_Crypto

Additional information (optional):
* This user received many accusation regarding AI/chatbot-generated spam text.

List of post:

It is very possible to access the wallet, all you need to do is using the mathematical formular Permutation. This gives you all the possible arrangement that is possible from this twelve words. It could be a lengthy process but if you take your time to try one after the other, you will definitely know the right arrangement. Goodluck

For context, this reply is created on thread which state there are 30-50 words on 12 words recovery. That makes it's far from possible to brute force it, even with today's GPU.


Source: https://ninjastic.space/post/65414837

1. BitVM, Silent Payments and Ark aren't part of Bitcoin network.
2. Bitcoin already have programmability, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script.
3. I suspect this thread created since his previous thread on same board got merited. Take note i'm not blaming the one who sent him merit.

[nutildah]

User: Ethan_Crypto

Additional information (optional):
* This user received many accusation regarding AI/chatbot-generated spam text.

This guy should definitely be banned. Just because he alters a few words from the GPT output here and there, it doesn't mean that his posts should stand. I reported one of his other threads in Dev & Tech Discussion and it was deleted. 100% of this guy's topics are AI-generated, or at the very least AI-assisted. Its a weird conundrum when they open an AI-generated topic & it gains traction, and sadly merits. Honestly I think these threads should be deleted so it will discourage people from posting in such nonsense threads in the future, but the mods don't always delete them.

[ABCbits]

User: Ethan_Crypto

Additional information (optional):
* This user received many accusation regarding AI/chatbot-generated spam text.

This guy should definitely be banned. Just because he alters a few words from the GPT output here and there, it doesn't mean that his posts should stand. I reported one of his other threads in Dev & Tech Discussion and it was deleted. 100% of this guy's topics are AI-generated, or at the very least AI-assisted. Its a weird conundrum when they open an AI-generated topic & it gains traction, and sadly merits. Honestly I think these threads should be deleted so it will discourage people from posting in such nonsense threads in the future, but the mods don't always delete them.

I agree. Unfortunately it's one of some cases where AI/chatbot spammer took long time, lots of report and multiple feedback before it got permanently banned/nuked. It reminds me of this case, where it took 3.5 months after received it's first feedback. Let's see how long until this account got permanently banned/nuked.

This user already have 4 neutral feedback and now he decide to spam technical board.

User: Silver005
--snip--