I know you’re very reputable member here in bitcointalk, but I haven’t tried any of your posts.
But since you’re looking for some proof or example: I tried it to some post of JollyGood.

I checked this post using: https://www.zerogpt.com/
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/02/19/Ustufd.jpeg


P.S. JollyGood I don’t mean anything that you’re using any AI in your posts. I’m just curious about the way you post. Maybe consider this post as compliment. lol We all know that you hate AI shit poster.

$ 69,696

Thank you @LoyceV , Im sorry if I didn’t give you the same love you gave me.. I was too blind.

I use it on Testnet3/4 Electrum with 1day expiry,
But not on mainnet where it's critical whether to reissue an expired invoice's address that I've already given to others or not.

That's useful in case you don't want to manage your addresses since it's an indicator that an address isn't used yet.
Once expiration time has passed, Electrum will issue the address associated with that invoice to another invoice again if it's not yet used.

IMO, it's more preferrable for newbies to use that tab so that they may be able to unintentionally prevent address-reuse.
The same reason why 'Addresses' tab is hidden by default, so only the advanced users can utilize it.

Thanks for creating this thread JollyGood. We appreciate having an open space to discuss this and we owe the community a straight response.

On locking the threads:

We locked them because we were getting hit from multiple directions at once — provably fair debates, proof of funds demands, trust feedback, reputation threads — all within 48 hours of launching. We answered everything question apart from RTP. The threads are unlocked now.

On proof of funds:

We signed a message from an address holding 0.5 BTC. That is cryptographically verifiable and still on-chain. We then shared a photo of physical coins holding an additional 1.45 BTC. Physical coins can't be verified the same way — that was supplementary proof, not a replacement.

Vod's feedback says we "lied about having 1 BTC to pay out winnings." We never claimed to have 1 BTC in a single verifiable wallet. We said we have more than 1 BTC. We showed 0.5 BTC (signed) and 1.45 BTC (physical) for a total of 1.95 BTC. "Lied" is a strong word for a team that voluntarily posted proof within 24 hours of being asked.

We sent Vod a PM offering additional proof:
Hi Vod
Saw you left a negative rating.
If we share a picture of 1 BTC cas and lealana, Will that help? We just dont want to peel Cas coins. To keep in a single wallet.

For those unfamiliar — Casascius and Lealana are physical Bitcoin coins with BTC loaded onto them. Peeling them (redeeming the BTC) destroys their collector value. We offered to photograph them with a dated note. That's a reasonable offer, not an attempt to hide anything.

Vod's response in this thread was to imply we offered "a picture" as if we don't understand crypto. We understand it fine. We also understand that destroying collectible coins to satisfy a forum demand isn't reasonable when we've already signed 0.5 BTC on-chain. We'd respectfully ask Vod to reconsider the negative feedback as it misrepresents what actually happened.

On provably fair:

LoyceV raised valid technical points and we acknowledged them in the original thread. We use a commitment scheme — you get a SHA-256 hash before scratching, and the seed is revealed after. This proves the card wasn't swapped mid-game. LoyceV correctly pointed out that because we use a deck-based model (like physical scratch cards), the server controls which cards exist in the deck. He also acknowledged that there's no perfect solution for deck-based systems.

We accepted his point and changed our terminology. The system proves your card wasn't tampered with after purchase. It does not prove the deck composition — same as every physical scratch card ever sold.

longyenthanh understood the system correctly in post #10. The hash commitment locks your card before you scratch it. The seed is revealed after. The system works as designed.

On odds disclosure:

LoyceV's feedback says "chance of winning unknown." We have publicly stated: over 1 in 3 cards wins a prize. Prizes range from 100 sats to 100,000,000 sats (1 BTC).

His demand was for a full RTP percentage and per-tier breakdown. We asked him directly — if we published "65% RTP," how would he verify it? He couldn't answer that, because the answer is: you can't. It requires the same trust either way. We chose to publish the win rate (1 in 3) which is something players can actually experience and roughly verify over time.

For reference, BOTB (Best of the Best) is listed on the London Stock Exchange, has paid out over £90M in prizes, operates under the same legal framework as us (prize competition under S.14(5) Gambling Act 2005), and publishes no odds breakdown whatsoever.

On the feedback:

• LoyceV — "Not provably fair" and "refuse to answer questions about percentage paid back." We answered every question he asked. We spent hours in detailed technical discussion with him. He acknowledged the deck-based limitation himself. The disagreement is about terminology and odds disclosure, not about us refusing to engage.
• Vod — "Lied about having 1 BTC." We never made that claim. We showed 0.5 BTC (signed) + 1.45 BTC (physical) = 1.95 BTC total. We ask that this feedback be corrected.
• Charles-Tim — Original neutral feedback that started the chain reaction.

On yahoo62278's point:

Thank you for the balanced perspective. Cards are being scratched and prizes are being paid. We'd echo yahoo62278's question though — how many gambling projects have launched here without being asked for proof of funds on day one? The scrutiny is fine, we can handle it. But the speed and intensity of it felt disproportionate for a site offering free cards and £1 scratch tickets.

What we're doing now:

• Threads are unlocked. We're here answering questions.
• Free cards available so anyone can test the system without spending anything.

We're not going anywhere. Ask us anything. Added a third pack. Test the ticket.


Pack of six is available Please try.

I'm only thinking about it now, but if you know you will be away for a long time without internet access, you could look for a temporary substitute. That could be a solution.


To get BTC, you have to survive and, small detail, be a good predictor . But maybe you can get BTC by less honorable ways.

I personally find this "invoice duration" feature completely unnecessary and, based on what I see, it only confuses newcomers, as they think Bitcoin addresses expire and lose their validity, not to mention I've to keep clearing them (invoices) all the time. I don't remember any other wallet with this "invoice duration" feature, because Bitcoin addresses don't expire. After invoices expire, even without receiving anything, Electrum uses the same addresses again (as long as it doesn't receive funds, it doesn't change).

Before, the "receive" tab worked perfectly, you had an address that only changed if you actually received funds in it. You entered an amount or description, and the QR code was dynamically updated. If their intention was to "improve" it for commercial use, they made the "receive" tab worse, in other words, they did it poorly made way.

I completely dispense the "receive" tab. When I use Electrum, I do the same: go to the "addresses" tab and copy the address from there.

Halab.. aren’t we suppose to get some stash for surviving a round too.. 

Looks like some rich folks are about to attain immortality. 
Keeping close eyes on you loyce



And you too GB

You just [said my idea of buying a third life
Now I said my idea too hihi!

I don't think that many people use it and maybe even less people understand its purpose.

Receive tab is only useful to create a payment link that you want to give other people who want to send you money, while also having your wallet keep an eye out for the payment by having that little reminder in your receive tab's listbox at the bottom.

It is taking advantage of BIP-21 to create that link or QR code you want to give other people; and it has cool features. For example when you click a BIP-21 link, it will open your Electrum (or other wallets that you have installed and is set to detect bitcoin: uri), fill in the boxes with the address, the amount to pay, a message that would be added to your wallet and finally an expiration date which would make sense if you click on the second link:
first link (not expired) and second link (already expired)
When clicking on an expired request, your wallet shows you a warning that says "expired" and disables the send buttons to prevent you from sending money out to an expired request. (if you are clicking the first link a week from when I'm posting this, it will have also expired).


The link looks like this by the way:

It is not even about winning anymore. It is about adapting to the new reality. The war is over already.

TI assicuro che io mi sono sempre riferito al gruppo degli 8. Li' secondo me ci sono veramente pochi dubbi.

Su tutto il resto dei cluster, ti dico solo che di uno faccio parte pure io!

Quindi se il messaggio che e' passato e' che se uno fa parte di un cluster AUTOMATICAMENTE e' un fake,
non e' cosi', non credo di averlo mai detto, ma magari non sono stato chiaro.

Ripigliamo il tuo caso approfondendo un po':

ANALISI GRUPPI (CLUSTERING)
=================================================================================================================================================
CLUSTER    | N°   | COESIONE TF-IDF+STILE        | SINCRONIA TEMPO   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRUPPO 1   | 2    | 82.9%                        | 0.80 (ALTA)       
   -> Membri: *Ace*, lillominato89
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRUPPO 3   | 8    | 82.5%                        | 0.83 (ALTA)       
   -> Membri: Changaa, banana33, dollyamo, giorgione, m4r1o, martinom, pewboy, ve...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRUPPO 2   | 2    | 70.4%                        | 0.81 (ALTA)       
   -> Membri: bastisisca, giammangiato
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRUPPO 0   | 5    | 21.4%                        | 0.32 (BASSA)      
   -> Membri: MarioV, arulbero, fillippone, gbianchi, ubaldo81
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hai la somiglianza dell'82.9% con lillominato, e una alta corrispondenza temporale nel fare i post.
questa e' la tabella dei merit: a parte i soliti fillippone e babo, avete un alto scambio di merit tra voi due.

Utente Drone	Merit Scambiati	Top 10 Contatti
*Ace*	735	fillippone ( 380 )  babo ( 119 )  Lillominato89 ( 67 )  Ale88 ( 37 )  LoyceV ( 31 )  arulbero ( 20 )  dkbit98 ( 15 )  Mitchell ( 15 )  TryNinja ( 12 )  Welsh ( 10 )
lillominato89	1528	fillippone ( 757 )  babo ( 377 )  giammangiato ( 100 )  *Ace* ( 67 )  mendace ( 54 )  Ale88 ( 48 )  bastisisca ( 40 )  bitbollo ( 28 )  Symmetrick ( 28 )  Hhampuz ( 10 )

[/size]


Questi sono i dati.

Da questo caso non traggo nessuna conclusione, sicuramente viaggiate in coppia su parecchi parametri,  ma che devo dire avrete una affinita' elettiva

I was aware of the thread, but it kinda went over my head, so being unsure I didn't mention it.

I have crested a thread about it but there is not positivity that something good will come out if the thread. This is the thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5574687.msg66414675#msg66414675

Maybe if a n established member like LoyceV, Lovesmayfamiles or Nutildah can create a thread about it, it will be better because the admin may listen to them after. At least 7 days ban or 30!days signature ban will be good for such people.

Over 1 in 3 cards wins a prize in the range we provided.

Over 1 in 3 cards wins a prize.  How is that "not one card funded"? We've also signed a message with 0.5 BTC, registered a UK company with real names on public record, and built a verification system. What has the anonymous casino in your signature done?

We just told you over 1 in 3 cards wins a prize. How are we "only selling bad cards" if a third of them win? Players can see their results, verify their game, and winners receive on-chain payouts. Where exactly is the scam?

Fair point on terminology. The system does exactly what our verification page says it does.
> Before you even scratch your card, the outcome has already been determined and cryptographically committed. <

You answered your own question.

Firstly,  We'd appreciate keeping the conversation professional and positive — we're happy to answer tough questions but not through insults.

That said, the questions are fair, so here are the answers.

On odds:

Over 1 in 3 cards wins a prize. Prizes range from 100 sats to 100,000,000 sats (1 BTC).

We don't publish a full breakdown — same as BOTB, Omaze, and other prize competition operators in the UK. Prize competitions aren't required to disclose detailed odds under UK law. Please search and tell us the official odds declared by BOTB.

On client seeds:
Fair technical point. Here's what our system proves and what it doesn't:
What it proves:
- The server commits to a hashed outcome before you scratch
- After the game, the seed is revealed and you can verify the hash matches
- The outcome cannot be changed after the game starts
Why we generate the client seed server-side:
SatScratch operates more like a deck of scratch cards than a slot machine — outcomes are pre-assigned(like a real scratch card that you buy), not generated per-spin. Letting players inject their own seed into a deck-based system doesn't make sense structurally. Traditional casino-style provably fair is designed for per-bet RNG, which is a different model.
The commitment scheme guarantees your specific card wasn't swapped after the fact. That's the integrity it provides.

OP, you were asked this twice now, but for some reason you seem to ignore it. why is that?
i think it's very much necessary that you publish the odds of winning, ofc unless your odds are very fucking terrible, which could explain why you do not want to answer.

that's not provably fair tho. you need to give players an option to add a client seed after you generate the server seed, else, what's stopping you from giving them losing server seeds?

If you are comparing yourself to the reputable casinos who are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars every day for years, I am sorry but you are no match. Recently one platform did the similar thing which IMO boosted their credibility. IMO, this is the right way to go.

I would even argue that it is worse than gambling because of extra knowledge based barrier But it is not much of a concern as players are informed beforehand. You can not force stop someone to buy a lesser product. 

How to hire? Need to budget it. Why insurance? Play if you win and we dont pay please. come back to us.


Good question sLoyceV — happy to address all of them.
"Why post on the Gambling board?"
Fair point. It's the closest fit on the forum — there's no "prize competitions" board. Happy to move it if mods think there's a better home for it.

"UK residents only — add to title"
Good suggestion. Will do.

"Is it provably fair?"
Yes. Every game has a cryptographic hash commitment shown before you scratch. After the game, the server seed is revealed and you can verify the hash yourself. Full explanation here: SatScratch.com/provably-fair [/isze] 

"Sounds like a loophole"
It's not a loophole — it's established UK law that's been in use for decades. BOTB (Best of the Best) has operated prize competitions since 1999, is listed on the London Stock Exchange, has paid out over £90M in prizes, and has never held a gambling licence. Omaze UK gives away million-pound houses the same way. Every newspaper phone-in quiz that says "answer this question to enter" uses the same structure. The Gambling Commission themselves distinguish prize competitions from lotteries in their published guidance. It's not a grey area — it's a well-defined legal category.


KYC
Identity verification is only required for large prize claims — not to play. It's a legal requirement for us as a UK company to verify winners above certain thresholds. Nobody needs to show ID to buy a card or play. We limit buying to 1000 GBP over a 24 hours period.

Round 3 is now over, here are the results :

Closing price on 16/02/2026 : 68 908$

Name	Prediction	Val	Difference
LoyceV	68 636,58	Mr. Magkaisa	271
Pmalek	68 517,00	Hypnotizer	391
Hypnotizer	69 412,00	Leahized	504
GazetaBitcoin	69 423,00	Becassine	515
Mr. Magkaisa	69 696,00	LogitechMouse	788
promise444c5	68 100,00	Doan9269	808
Becassine	69 934,00	Danydee	1 026
BABY SHOES	67 832,00	Danydee	1 076
examplens	69 989,00	LoyceV	1 081
TryNinja	70 001,00	ESG	1 093
Leahized	67 657,00	GazetaBitcoin	1 251
LogitechMouse	67 569,96	Mr. Magkaisa	1 338
Doan9269	65 900,00	promise444c5	3 008
ESG	65 555,00	TryNinja	3 353
Danydee	72 714,00	Becassine	3 806
cryptofrka	65 000,00	Pmalek	3 908
xLays	64 557,00	examplens	4 351

                        

Congratulations LoyceV, love didn’t distract you (is a bot capable of feeling love ?) and you managed to predict the right BTC price. Your account has been credited with 50BTC.
Mr. Magkaisa, by choosing you, LoyceV gave you a nice little gift, since for the next round you will get a 0.5% bonus.
 
Sorry xLays, you need to stay focused on the BTC price. You lose a life.
Examplens, I’m sorry to tell you this, but your romance with xLays smells like a toxic relationship. For the next round, you will get a 0.5% malus.
 
Alright, we’re finally done with this love bullshit. I need to vent some rage right now !
Back in the day, whenever I needed to cool off, I used to play Quake. What a pleasure it was to frag people with the railgun under Quad Damage... Oh wait, what if I activate Quad Damage for round 4 ??
Just one piece of advice : don’t finish in the bottom four.
After that, I wil have an exclusive offer for the winner.
 
DAH... DAH... DAH !
 

---

Round 4 : Quad Damage activated !
 
What will be the price of Bitcoin at February 23, 2026, 12:00:00 AM (BTC closing price on 22/02/2026) ?
Submit your predictions before February 20, 2026, 07:00:00 PM.
 
Cash shop: OPEN
 
Special rules : None.

Itu juga yang saya pahami, pencantuman sumber. Hanya saja jika pada setiap diskusi terus menerus demikian tanpa ada input darinya sebagai manusia, maka akan menjadi aneh karena yang diskusi malah bot.

---

Penafsiran lanjutan bisa saja berbeda-beda. Dalam hal ini, yang saya baca —saat ini, theymos belum menyebutkan secara spesifik dimana saja tempat yang tepat yang dimaksudnya, dan ini juga bisa berpotensi memunculkan perdebatan sebagaimana yang disebutkan kawetsriyanto sebelumnya.

---

Terjemahan langsung menggunakan mesin terkadang menghasilkan kalimat yang cukup aneh terutama jika dibaca oleh penutur asli bahasa tersebut.
Namun disisi lain, kalimat yang coba dirapikan agar bisa lebih dimengerti kadang malah dideteksi 100% AI.

---

Penasaran juga saya coba periksa teks sebelumnya melalui beberapa AI Detector selain dari yang digunakan agan Rico, hanya sekedar untuk mengkomparasinya:

https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector
https://turnitin.app/ (saya baca disini: https://gptzero.me/news/best-ai-detectors/, tertera tingkat akurasinya 98% dengan False Positive Rate: Low)

Si pero' incrociando vari dati, se prendiamo gli 8 del cluster e le statistiche sui merit che ci indica bpip.org... 
a perte filippone e babo che sono merit source, anche qui sembrano clusterizzati

Utente	Merit Scambiati	Top 10 Contatti
Changaa	209	babo ( 68 )  fillippone ( 63 )  banana33 ( 20 )  m4r1o ( 11 )  xenomorfo ( 11 )  cande86 ( 8 )  pewboy ( 7 )  bastisisca ( 6 )  martinom ( 5 )  giorgione ( 4 )
banana33	321	fillippone ( 117 )  babo ( 100 )  changaa ( 20 )  giorgione ( 13 )  dollyamo ( 11 )  m4r1o ( 10 )  xenomorfo ( 9 )  verdinio ( 7 )  pewboy ( 6 )  Plutosky ( 6 )
dollyamo	158	babo ( 56 )  fillippone ( 43 )  pewboy ( 15 )  banana33 ( 11 )  cande86 ( 8 )  martinom ( 4 )  bastisisca ( 4 )  xenomorfo ( 4 )  Ale88 ( 3 )  aipercoin ( 2 )
giorgione	659	fillippone ( 371 )  babo ( 126 )  verdinio ( 37 )  Ale88 ( 23 )  xenomorfo ( 18 )  banana33 ( 13 )  bastisisca ( 13 )  m4r1o ( 12 )  *Ace* ( 12 )  Lillominato89 ( 8 )
m4r1o	240	fillippone ( 85 )  babo ( 72 )  verdinio ( 16 )  giorgione ( 16 )  changaa ( 11 )  banana33 ( 10 )  bastisisca ( 7 )  pewboy ( 5 )  cande86 ( 4 )  Lillominato89 ( 4 )
martinom	179	babo ( 57 )  fillippone ( 37 )  pewboy ( 24 )  cande86 ( 19 )  changaa ( 7 )  banana33 ( 5 )  *Ace* ( 5 )  xenomorfo ( 5 )  giammangiato ( 5 )  Ale88 ( 3 )
pewboy	301	fillippone ( 88 )  babo ( 71 )  cande86 ( 44 )  martinom ( 24 )  dollyamo ( 15 )  NotATether ( 14 )  banana33 ( 8 )  bastisisca ( 6 )  kennycryptoitalia ( 6 )  Plutosky ( 6 )
verdinio	324	fillippone ( 90 )  babo ( 89 )  giorgione ( 37 )  xenomorfo ( 18 )  bastisisca ( 17 )  m4r1o ( 16 )  LoyceV ( 12 )  banana33 ( 11 )  giammangiato ( 9 )  *Ace* ( 7 )

To avoid complaints, it is better it is part of the rules. It is better the campaign manager to be the one that will go through the posts and decide if he should count the short post or not count it.

I think you missed some of previous posts.
As already said by LoyceV and Rikafip, Ivystar5 probably created a new account to appeal the ban because their main account was temporarily banned from posting and the signature ban was not the only restriction applied to the account.

Yes, sort of. I had no expectations how my Fulcrum will serve its data job. All I want is it to finish the sync in a reasonable time.


I tried the 1000 addresses collection with public Electrum servers. Oh boy, that didn't age well.

My first attempt was to choose one or two servers manually, e.g. electrum.emzy.de:50002, but this one kicked the connection after about 8min of sync. My wallet could reconnect but it didn't last long. So, I conclude to get banned for exhaustive resource demand.

I tried another public server but my wallet kept resetting "Synchronizing..." and spewed error messages. I aborted trying to stick to one particular server (electrs or ElectrumX, not another Fulcrum server, as long as the server banner shows what kind of a server I'm connected to).

Next attempt was to switch to "Auto-connect" mode and hope this works better? Well... my wallet somehow found a "patient" server 34.18.69.244:50002, but even after ~7h30m sync wasn't finishes, maybe 2/3 through until that Electrum server gave up on me.

Not sure how patient I will still be today, other servers keep disconnecting...
This is exactly what I hated with public servers, when I did some occasional blockchain digging and research. You stumble over address histories that simply aren't served gracefully.

I had such issues with my personal electrs server, too, which I couldn't configure away. That's why I switched to Fulcrum which simply works very gracefully so far. It finishes the serving job! That the receiving Electrum wallet sometimes chokes hard is another story to be examined.


I'll likely give it a try. Am genuinely curious how this will turn out.

I haven't understood something, I read on the previous topic that the OP was signature banned, why is he creating a topic from a new, secondary account, since he can also post from his main account? Dude, you got what you deserved and your reply that @TypoTonic quoted here is basically an admittion of guilt; you said you were fine with whatever decision was taken, which means you knew what was possibly coming to you, but perhaps, you didn't believe it have such an outcome.

You'd be way better off taking responsibility of your actions and see what you did wrong, but instead, you're accusing other members, such as LoyceV, but not yourself. It would also be much better to not create an alt account and wait your ban to end, since it's not permanent and you're lucky it isn't.

This would be done more on the server side, via Fulcrum. Let's say it would be asking it to create a list of addresses near address X.

But never mind, it was just to get an idea for a project I'm planning. Thank you.

Reasoning:Their nicknames tell the whole story 🤷‍♂️

Reasoning: They are the three Ninjas, and the community is represented by D'Artagnan 🤔^{(It's an easy metaphor for me to write in Spanish, I hope it's understood in English)}

Reasoning: The first nickname has a double meaning for me, since I also have the opportunity to read it in Spanish. PowerGlove is a pretty concise guy who not only talks the talk, but puts it into practice with his contributions to forum improvements, and sometimes even entertainment (like playing poker) on the forum. 

Reasoning: These events bring the community together and allow us to get to know the diversity of users Local Boards.

Reasoning: These projects remind us that there are users who make extraordinary contributions to the community, helping us every day to do things better in our beloved SMF.

Reasoning: danadc is a regular contributor to our local forum; in 2025 he was one of the most prominent new members.
Hosemary is one of the most helpful users I've met recently. He's always willing to lend a hand and sees situations that other users ignore or simply overlook.

Reasoning: They make reading the forum more comfortable, even if it's not noticeable.

Reasoning: They are skill and creativity.


Reasoning:There are quite a few more heroes on our board local, but having already named some, they symbolize the resilience of the LE Board.

OP should be grateful that it's not a permanent ban then...

Many users just get perma-banned without second chances.

Haha.. So all that was doing intelligence !?     Hahaaaaa!

How humble of you? Creating a ban appeal but as the same time attacking other forum members who you think might have caused you account to get banned in the same post. It is some mods/admins who ban the accounts, not LoyceV.
This is the time you should try to get members to support you but with that kind of attitude, I can only wish you good luck.

What you did was rather unwise. You should have at least include a note of sorts showing that you were just playing along

Ninety percent chance/certainty that he will add and divide by two
and the result will be the prediction....,
nothing to do with the increase of surprises and stress... hehehe..

‎I just want to make it clear and to say what is on my mind and clear out my mind, the punishment that was served to my account was undeserving because I'm not guilty of that.
‎
‎Like I said in my first comment on that thread, I saw @PrimeNumber7 thread, I read through it and also read through the few comments on the threads, but no body followed the instruction and I decided to do so.   Was that my wrong?  because I decided to follow instruction on that topic, that was why I was being accused of using AI and then my account got banned. 
‎
‎It shows how pathetic some of you are on this forum, especially @Loycev, that was the least I expected from an experience member like you, you took a rash action without accessing the situation to confirm if the accusation poured on me is true or not.
‎
‎Now my account is banned for a rule I didn't break, Admins and moderators, @theymos, please open my case and reaccess it again, I have not used any AI to write a single comment on my account since I was a newbies till my account got banned, I have never used any AI.  The punishment I got is something I'm not guilty of and I just want to state the obvious. 
‎
‎Thank you.

I tested this watch-only wallet with LoyceV's chosen 1000 addresses on my Linux desktop running appimage of Electrum 4.6.2 under Ubuntu 22.04.x connected via LAN to my Fulcrum 2.1 server (Bitcoin Core, Fulcrum and a few other containers run in a Virtualbox VM hosted on Linux Mint running on a Dell Latitude E7470 with 32GB RAM).

The test wallet synced after approx. 18m52s, where Electrum sat quite some minutes during sync at 13244/20852 kinda frozen and seemingly doing nothing and not counting up on the sync. But then larger count jumps in the sync happened. I have no idea of the logic behind this and what Electrum is doing in those periods of no visual progress. No errors where thrown out (wallet and server).

The wallet synced to 9426 transactions (4 are newer and added compared to LoyceV's post of his results) with a balance of 372.79298051BTC, last transaction was a0219bd9...d26d6045 confirmed 2026-02-14 21:39:35 UTC.

As I don't have any electrs (romanz) or other Electrum server running, I can't make a comparison to something else than Fulcrum on my hardware. But I will try to find a public electrs and see how and if it syncs this wallet. I'll amend results if I have any.

The round is set. Love has spoken.
I see that some of you have not been chosen. It's cruel, but don't be sad, you will have the opportunity to cleanse this affront. But maybe at the end of this round, you will be glad you stayed single.

Here are your predictions

Name	Prediction	Val
BABY SHOES	67 832,00	Danydee
Becassine	69 934,00	Danydee
cryptofrka	65 000,00	Pmalek
Danydee	72 714,00	Becassine
Doan9269	65 900,00	promise444c5
ESG	65 555,00	TryNinja
examplens	69 989,00	LoyceV
GazetaBitcoin	69 423,00	Becassine
Hypnotizer	69 412,00	Leahized
Leahized	67 657,00	GazetaBitcoin
LogitechMouse	67 569,96	Mr. Magkaisa
LoyceV	68 636,58	Mr. Magkaisa
Mr. Magkaisa	69 696,00	LogitechMouse
mv1986	?	?
Pmalek	68 517,00	Hypnotizer
promise444c5	68 100,00	Doan9269
TryNinja	70 001,00	ESG
xLays	64 557,00	examplens

                  

This is the second time mv1986 has missed the deadline, so he will be declared MIA.

I may be wrong, but Mitchell and Xal0lex seems to be most active staff to answer user question/concern about forum. And it should be obvious why i nominate LoyceV.


Even after so many years, philipma1957 continue to discuss his experience related with Bitcoin mining. vapourminer active on many boards, even if he don't join the discussion.


nc50lc is probably most active helper on "Bitcoin Technical Support" board, and sometimes detailed/step-by-step guide. gmaxwell is one of few actual expert with decades of experience that still active here, you may want to visit his personal website https://nt4tn.net/. stwenhao technical knowledge is very impressive and patient dealing with question/argument.



I and many member use BitList to discover possible questionable/malicious behavior of certain users. BPIP continue to provide good data, including how many posts deleted by moderator. TalkImg frequently used by some member in this forum.


Safotan44 have mixed reputation for good reason, but i believe people shouldn't dismiss him when his statement makes sense. I recall AakZaki started discovering lots of alt account since 2025.


We know AakZaki have discovered lots of alt accounts, that usually have poor history (not paying loan, spamming with AI or others). lovesmayfamilis and nutildah remain active to discover spammer who may use AI/chatbot.


TryNinja have been building and running BitList for so many years, while PowerGlove continue to provide patch and share some interesting ideas to this forum.

Okay, it's not important anyways.

About that size, it's because the wallet keeps track of the same transaction ID in different entries aside from the actual transaction.
IIRC, it saves its txid under the address' transaction history, QT history, the wallet's "coins" (both unspent and spent outputs), and some more entries that I've probably missed.
Plus, some of those include the VOUT and/or sizes.

And most importantly, the discrepancy in size is because it's saved as JSON, the contents are saved in text,
So rather than the actual size of the transactions it's based on each character's size, e.g.: a 300vBytes transaction would be more or less 1.5kB in UTF-8.
Then include the other entries and those big spam transactions of those addresses, it should reach the average that you've described.
Full Wallet Encryption (not secrets-only) could decrease the overall size though.

Bot confirmed!!!!!!   

You and proudhon.. . .

 


By the way, proudhon has not logged in since last April.  Maybe someone poured water on him?


It seems that for the overwhelming majority of normies who have studied bitcoin for more than 100 hours, the correct word would likely be "when" rather than "if" as you mentioned.

Yet, for Philip, "if" seems to be the more accurate of representation of his thinking on the matter, since he is expressing his own thoughts that involve both ongoing lackenings of confidence and also his ongoing under appreciation for what dee cornz is - even though Philip has likely studied bitcoin for quite a bit longer than 100 hours, yet he still does not seem to get it... beyond appreciating that bitcoin is number go up technology that might not end up going up.  For Philip, he might consider whether bitcoin goes up or not to be like the flip of a coin, or some random thing in which certain powers that be are able to control.. which also shows some level of ongoing errors in his assigning of values and probabilities to dee cornz within the world as we believe it to be.


It is true that bitcoin is a product of both maths & sciences and various ways of connecting with human behaviors and even power projection in the real world.  If we are attempting to assign odds to what bitcoin might or might not do, we have to attempt to account for both aspects - to the best of our abilities, which does not necessarily mean that we understand the various influences and their balances enough to figure out outcomes such as price or even outcomes of the various network effects (within the Trace Mayer framework), as they continue to play out..


Surely, you don't understand bitcoin.

And, you also may well not understand the value of treating bitcoin as an investment rather than as a trade.

But, hey whatever, smartie-panties, do what you like.  And, potentially find out that after a couple of cycles (such as 8 years) or more that you are not able to turn back the clock, and your options in life would have had ended up much better if you  were to have had treated bitcoin as an investment rather than as a trade.

Some guys figure out these matters sooner than other, and some guys can never get out of their trading mindset - so their odds of actually outperforming the bitcoin investor are not likely to be good, especially if we look at repeated behaviors that might play out 2 cycles or longer.


Hahahaha

Greater than 1 does happen from time to time, yet you are correct in your implication that I had hesitated before changing the 1 to a 2.....


That image shows some variation of my reaction, too.

I've been meaning to undertake a project like this for quite some time, but was shy about linking a publicly-accessible to server to my home IP address.  Through the discussion in LoyceV's adventure thread I found an affordable solution; a VPS with plenty of horsepower and diskspace.

I've been running my own personal SPV server and block explorer on private hardware for almost 6 years now, so I have quite a bit of experience running a full node.  However, this is the first time I've used Fulcrum for the SPV server interface.  Previously I've used ElectrumX on my rack server and Romanz Electrs on my Dell Optiplex mini nodebox that I like to run as a backup incase the server was being finicky or (more likely,) I broke something while tinkering with it.

I fount Fulcrum pleasantly simple to set up and work with, and it's noticeably faster to synch my larger wallet files than ElectrumX. 

Here I'll share my configuration files incase anyone else cares to take on a similar project:

bitcoin.conf

fulcrum.conf

Inspired by LoyceV's adventure, I decided to publish my own Electrum SPV server for the community to use.

Without further ado:

Electrum SPV server:
Clearnet: electrum.direwolfm14.com
Tor: xotqmhnei2wy7fk423tekp62ilcxpawnf4aiqmnkfhuutfkimgpqk5qd.onion

Bitcoin Core relay:
Clearnet: bitcoin.direwolfm14.com:8333
Tor: ezfbd7e5t6srgqfbjhqxpxqyg3x557rakkr7z5mhfqu7z6cuym7nmfyd.onion:8333

---

---

Minimum Tx fees set to 0.000001BTC per vByte.
No TxId or IP address logging.

---

---

Client side configuration:

SSL Clearnet:

SSL Tor:

TSL Clearnet:

TSL Tor:

---

---

GPG key staked here.
Self-moderated thread - Please remain on topic.  Discussion, suggestions, and pertinent comments welcome.  No spam.

Two of the most legendary users. LoyceV is one of the true backbones of the forum, with deep on-topic knowledge and his legendary Meta projects, while icopress is doing his job extremely well and manages this excellent contest which really is a great way to think a bit about the community.
   

philipma1957 is an user I probably have never nominated but is always there and contributes interesting views about Bitcoin and other topics. And TryNinja may be the user this category is named after


I highly appreciate that legendary cypherpunk geek gmaxwell still spreads his deep knowledge and even patiently explains basic Bitcoin virtues to dumber users like me and even to users who are clearly not having good intentions. Stwenhao is one of the most active users in the Development & Technical section and also has explained me lot of things I had doubts about ABCbits is another legendary geek, their posts are short but extremely on point.
   

Maybe most don't remember it, but one of Bitcoin's 2025 most remarkable ATHs occurred just on the 15th anniversary of Bitcoin Pizza Day. As many know I'm an advocate for "Bitcoin as a global currency", and thus this was a legendary moment for me And the Pizza Award is a classic.


BitVM2 is one of the most interesting initiatives for Bitcoin's programmability and the feasibility of more decentralized sidechains. KYCNot.Me is needed more than ever in our Orwellization of society. Related, b1exch is maybe a bit preliminary as this is a new project but it's refreshing that privacy-oriented services are still choosing this forum to present themselves.
   

Sausalitox is a new user in the Spanish forum who's made interesting threads in a forum where user activity could be a bit higher, highly appreciated. And Satofan44 appeared this year too, I think, and provides good content.


nutildah is one of the people keeping the forum in shape. And vapourminer ensures quality from the background.


Created a lot of math-oriented in-depth threads about Bitcoin's long term price predictions and about decision making when it comes to the eternal question: Invest or not? And how much? Is Bitcoin still on track to adoption?
   

MaxMueller is very knowledgeable and helpful and created several excellent in-depth threads. famososMuertos is one of those keeping the Spanish forum afloat, and regularly updates the local version of the Wall Observer.


Foxpup is probably among the people in the backgound most contributing to quality here. (I honestly don't know that much about the gender of most users here, with very few exceptions, so only one nomination).

Let's say I want to know the addresses from which the satellites of a specific address came. Up to 5 hops back.

Final Address
1hop: Address A + Address B
2hop: Address A = Address C + D & Address B = Address E + F
3hop: Address C = Address G + H & Address D = Address I + J & Address E = K & Address F = L + M + N
etc... etc...

Did I manage to explain the idea?

Are you able to perform a test to see the addresses associated with 5 hops from another address?
I've been wondering how long it might take for him to generate that list, so to speak.

That took a while, but certainly fast considering it's Electrum.

Sometimes, it's also the other operations that the client has to do with those transaction like their fiat-equivalent values and historical rates.
If you have any of it enabled in the settings, you could try another benchmark with it disabled.

Even reputable news agencies use AI to translate their articles.

Therefore, I say the best way to try and deal with them in the forum is to try and interact with the user who creates this type of content. This interaction will allow you to see if they are using AI 100% or not.

At this point, i can't help but agree with you. Guess i'll have to be more careful with sending merit there.

---

To other reader, at least 12 of his post already deleted on "Development & Technical Discussion" board by moderator, https://bitlist.co/search?author=Eze%20BTC&board_id=6&only_deleted=true&limit=20&sort_by=date_desc/.

---

User: vintagetrex

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:


All of the posts are deleted by moderator, likely because because off-topic or short unhelpful post.

---

User: tobi4255

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:


1. All of these post shill btcrpc dot rcal dot me.
2. Necroposting within few months to few years.

---

User: martinex

Additional information (optional):
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:


1. There's no correlation between staking coin and well-known exchange.
2. Mining doesn't use lots of data (unless you self-host your mining pool), so mentioning internet quota doesn't make sense.

---

User: Antona

Additional information (optional):
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:


All of those are generic spam, that have been deleted by moderator.

---

User: gibrab16

Additional information (optional):
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:


All of those are generic spam, that have been deleted by moderator.

---

User: Xxmodded

Additional information (optional):
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:


All of those are generic spam or only repeat what other member have said. One of his post already deleted by moderator.

---

User: bournekin

Additional information (optional):
* This user is part of sockpuppet/account farm who spam with AI/chatbot, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573695.0.

List of post:


1. This post is unhelpful, because it's not specific at all.
2. Mining typically don't require Bitcoin node, unless you plan to run self-hosted mining pool. So mentioning node isn't needed here.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Nobody is going to read AI slop. But it's very beneficial to write pages with AI if/i] you heavily rephrase the output over and over again ad apply lots of instructions and "skills" that make it more closely resembled to what a human would write.

You of course have to provide links, diagrams, etc. But it's like playing in god mode.

At this point, i can't help but agree with you. Guess i'll have to be more careful with sending merit there.

---

User: vintagetrex

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:


Explanation why post 1 is technically wrong.

Here, I would add that those who misuse their technical knowledge for such tasks often end up like the that member. Although, such tactic might be hard to find at first glance but it's karma or the law of cause and effect that takes place and that's what happened with the member who used the tricks to hide that he was using AI content to get paid.

Such a misuse of AI, If I recall correctly then a high ranked member from Stake campaign also used AI content to get paid and such activity destroyed that account. The greed is the main enemy in such cases, the member's who're in campaigns where more posts get paid, such members either give more time to forum and make more posts on daily basis but that's mostly spam, or they try to trick others using AI content generation tools.

Same is true for the members running multiple accounts, but in the end they always end up making mistake of forgetting the law of cause and effect. Even by using most advanced tactics, they'll always end up getting caught and destroy their hard work. Even extra smart people are human and they sometimes make human error and that's enough to find how they broke the rules to get extra advantage. I hope the ones who've found a way to use AI such tactically will learn from the mistakes of the members who got a signature ban, and stop using such malpractices for good.

That rule is mainly to prevent annoyingly-bad translations. Posting a good (and also direct) AI translation is fine, in my view. Though if specific local-board moderators want to ban it or limit it, they can. Also, if you or your post have nothing to do with a local board, then your post may be off-topic even if translated.


Not specifically, but it'll be a factor in deciding whether a user is a habitual low-quality poster.


I don't think that AI would be able to do that specific task reliably, at present.

I did sketch out a design for having AI essentially be able to subtract merit from users who looked like garbage-posters, and I was excited about the idea for a while, but in the end I decided that:
 1. The tech is currently too unreliable. Rating the quality of posts is something that it's fairly bad at, I found. It also opens up security/reliability issues such as prompt injections.
 2. Some things which distinguish this forum from the rest of the Internet include a more human touch, fighting back against the "dead Internet theory", and calling-back to BBSes of old. Too much usage of AI in forum operation might dilute that.

It seems those AI shit poster doesn't bother to read anything, they just copy paste other people's post and command their AI to generate new post. They really don't have the slightest respect for their Sig campaign job.


Uh--huh, and finally he got banned, right?

Hopefully that will cut down on some of the AI junk on the forum, lol...

This marks the end? I hope so, but the fight against this kind of thing is gradual and the approach used to tackle it matters so much. It got worse and so annoying to the point that some would still write nonsense with the AI. This means it's an automated functions linked directly to the forum, which is unforgivable.

LoyceV neutral tagged a user recently, and when I was reading the post, for which he was tagged, I was angry within me, to tell you how annoying these guys could be.

This is where the issue lies, and I hope the admin and moderators apply wisdom here. It's not everybody who can write well in English or express themselves constructively. Well, they (admin/mods) should see souls in posts as the means for their final verdicts.

I also implore people to improve in themselves, as some don't deserve any excuse. It's disgraceful to be in the forum actively for 2,3,4,5 years and still writing like an elementary school pupil.

Ah! Something big in meta. Seems generous tbh. Personally, I don't want to see any AI material, write/create original even if it may be not perfect; I mean how will one improve if you use AI to perfect their material?


I am of the opinion that AI can never replicate a real human. Humans evolve — their habits and behaviors change while AI will try to replicate philipma1957 based on fed data without having any substance, no originality.

In the end, the artificial philipma1957 will depend on original philipma1957 for everything, doesn't that tell you everything that you need to know?

(^ I am not feeling confident on it, because I just remembered how good is deep fake videos, and how often I keep getting fooled by those but still posting anyway cause I feel it still makes some sense)


And people's brains are gonna go to gutters.


This was beautiful to read!


Bruh, spelling? I use keyboard that auto corrects spellings for me — shouldn't be a problem, is it?

I'll give you an example, which has already happened on the Portuguese board.

Imagine that I'm going on vacation to Germany. I'm thinking: look, I can ask on the German forum for tips on visits and even about places that accept BTC as a form of payment.
So, I'll go to the German forum, start a thread, and ask. Logically, I'll translate it into German, but I'll also leave an English version.

Where am I breaking any rules in this? If we're a community meant to help each other, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's one thing to go there and make one or two quality posts (so to speak), it's quite another for me to go there and post in every thread and try to be involved in everything.

This rule was created to try and ensure that each local board is primarily intended for speakers of that language. Otherwise, there would be no point in having these types of boards. That's why I say that this rule is very often misinterpreted.

---

We are a community. Don't always look at everyone with suspicion, as if they are just nitpickers who are only here because of the subscription campaigns. Remember that Bitcoin has only reached this point today because of a true community spirit.

Yes, there are unscrupulous people who want to take advantage. But it's also true that the forum has always been a place where this was discovered, sooner or later.

To keep this debate as a matter of whether or not people should use translation tools in the forum is simply to want to limit the use of this forum and close it off to an even smaller group of people.

Don't try to restrict people's freedom of expression! Those who abuse this freedom should be punished.

Therefore, these ideas, which suggest that translation tools cannot be used or that you always have to indicate when a text is being translated, make no sense.

Those who write their own ideas and spend some time on the forum can usually tell when a text was created by AI or has been translated. When that suspicion arises, try interacting with the author of that text, and you'll soon be able to find out if it is true or not. We all have our own writing style. And that includes not only the text itself, but also how it is presented (aesthetically speaking).

Therefore, don't point the finger at everyone who contributes to the forum just because they use translators.
^{(I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but just the community in general. Please don't misinterpret my words.)}

I wonder if that shithead is only buying red-trusted Legendary accounts--I can't tell since he writes like he's messaging his drug dealer (aaaabsolute shocker I tell ya).  Were I to start visiting the Invites&Accounts section again, there's a non-zero chance my computer monitor would get punched through the wall undeservedly. 

I confirmed the bug. Not working in Tor. Thanks for reporting.
Tor is blocking mempool space api.

I will get home in a few days and fix it. No access to any computer now... I am traveling in vacation.

Thank you for sharing this.

my german was in high school and in college. it is poor to say the least.

but there are at least five people that post there that I like to talk to when they post in english.

I did use google translate and some of my own knowledge to attempt a few posts there in german and a few member said just use english.

frustrating as I may have improved my german a bit.

There are some telltale signs that make AI posts easily recognizable. Of course I think an account deserves a more official confirmation before being banned, but the point is I don't necessarily have to read the whole thing before knowing its worth double-checking. I'm actually surprised how these signs persist over multiple years now.

It must be somewhat harder to detect AI these days but most shitposters use it because its easy and fast. They don't want to be bothered with "humanizing" prompts, removing emdashes, introducing punctuation errors, etc. It might be faster to just crank out shitposts old fashioned style.

Finally some AI guidelines, it was really needed. AI is good thing when it's used for good purppose. But too much AI causes more harm than good. Still, these guidelines leaves lot of grey area and leaves lot of room for interpretation.. But I guess it's hard to make complete solution for this issue.

This rule is a bit outdated IMO. Back in 2014 and previoulsy translation tools worked quite poorly. It worked fine to translate separate words, but it wasn't able to translate fluent sentences or text. Now situation is different. Things like Google translate is working very well when you try to translate sentences or text. It's not much difference whether you will use AI or Google translate.
Still, I wouldn't like if users who can't write in English would be allowed to do it using AI. It's ok is specific cases like when you have some issue or want to ask question about something. But not when you want to farm sig. campaigns using AI

Just click submit and you will see the result.

It is working. I will make an uodate later to automatically click submit when you submit the url.

Let's not risk the last moment this round.

Prediction: $69989
I choose LoyceV, this is strategic, it has nothing to do with LauraV's alt identity. 

da unser Lafu momentan leider nicht die zeit hat, uns hier in diesem thema aktuell zu halten, möchte ich ihn etwas unter die arme greifen und euch das update für den monat februar veröffentlichen
im februar waren 113 user berechtigt in die dt-liste mit aufgenommen zu werden:

alte dt1-liste:

neue dt1-liste:

aus unserem deutschsprachigen bereich sind insgesamt 10 leute vertreten: Buchi-88, willi9974, Real-Duke, Lafu, polymerbit, Kryptowerk, mole0815, Lakai01, efialtis und bullrun2024bro
hier ist nochmal der original beitrag von theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117330.msg66361122#msg66361122

wer genau rausgeflogen ist und wer dafür neu aufgenommen wurde, dies könnt ihr aus dieser liste entnehmen:

Flag Supported

In this area I agree with @theymos
A forum where technology is a central theme, distancing it from our daily lives, doesn't make much sense.

Logically, I don't agree with posts generated 100% by AI. Doing so by copying and pasting, without citing the source, is really wrong. Now, this shouldn't stop people from using it to extract ideas or informative details.

So I think you really shouldn't use AI to write our posts. But, if someone uses it to translate some text, I should use it as a true translator, and not as a writing assistant.

At most, take the ideas he gives and write them in your own words!



I have been pointing out for some time that these AI tools are highly prone to errors in analysis. There are several studies that show how these detectors fail even with ancient texts, claiming they were written by AI – texts thousands of years old.

We have many writing patterns, and AI writes based on an analysis of these human patterns. Therefore, it's not so difficult for a human to write originally, with a pattern that appears to be AI-generated. Therefore, I think it's a mistake to evaluate a text simply by looking at these AI text detection systems.

The text needs to be analyzed in another way, at least here in the forum. Look at several of the user's posts, as theymos says, and observe if their writing style has significant differences. Sometimes it doesn't take much to notice; just the way they respond to a question raised about the suspicious post is enough.




I don't want to turn this into a debate about these "rules"... I think that this "rule 27" (like others...) is often misinterpreted.

The idea behind this rule is to prevent someone like me, a Portuguese speaker, from going to the Russian tab to chat, because there are more topics there than in the Portuguese tab. But that shouldn't stop me from responding to something that's there, where I was quoted, or perhaps about a subject very close to me.

But that shouldn't stop me from responding to something that's there, where I was quoted, or perhaps about a subject very close to me. I've done this myself, sometimes even leaving the text in the local language, in English (and sometimes even in Portuguese), thus allowing readers to do their own analysis. I did this punctually, and I never felt any kind of problem or discomfort from native speakers of that language. However, the person should not do this systematically and routinely.

On the other hand, this rule does not apply to the global English forum. I think that's the point theymos is referring to, where we can translate a text into English and participate in the general forum discussion.

Another point is that I think it's excessive for people to use AI models for translation. It's better to use tools specifically designed for that purpose, like Google Translate, even if those tools also use AI. I say this for a very simple reason. Just as it doesn't make sense to spread butter on bread with a cleaver, it doesn't make sense to use an AI model to translate text (in most cases used here on the forum).

Ultimately, everything deserves common sense from everyone: from those who write using translations; from those who read; and through moderation.

Round 2 is now over.

With the withdrawal of 5 players, your chances of winning have just skyrocketed. Thank them.

Here are the results of Round 2 :

Closing price on 11/02/2026 : 66 938$

Name	Prediction	Block	B/M	Min	Max	Final prediction	Difference
TryNinja	69 119,16	935867	0,50	68 773,56	69 464,76	68 773,56	1 836
examplens	68 999,00	935899	0,25	68 826,50	69 171,50	68 826,50	1 889
promise444c5	68 500,00	935948	-0,50	68 157,50	68 842,50	68 842,50	1 905
cryptofrka	69 755,00	935901	0,75	69 231,84	70 278,16	69 231,84	2 294
Becassine	69 438,67	935855	0,25	69 265,07	69 612,27	69 265,07	2 327
Pmalek	69 318,00	935856	-0,50	68 971,41	69 664,59	69 664,59	2 727
mv1986	70 333,33	935953	0,75	69 805,83	70 860,83	69 805,83	2 868
Leahized	70 527,00	935951	0,75	69 998,05	71 055,95	69 998,05	3 060
GazetaBitcoin	69 923,00	935923	-0,50	69 573,39	70 272,62	70 272,62	3 335
LoyceV	69 949,13	935949	-0,50	69 599,38	70 298,88	70 298,88	3 361
Hypnotizer	70 208,40	935875	-0,25	70 032,88	70 383,92	70 383,92	3 446
ESG	63 300,00	935888	-0,75	62 825,25	63 774,75	62 825,25	4 113
Doan9269	72 600,00	935934	-0,25	72 418,50	72 781,50	72 781,50	5 844
BABY SHOES	72 938,00	935933	-0,50	72 573,31	73 302,69	73 302,69	6 365
Danydee	72 950,00	935948	-0,50	72 585,25	73 314,75	73 314,75	6 377
LogitechMouse	73 696,69	935866	0,50	73 328,21	74 065,17	73 328,21	6 390
xLays	73 594,00	935948	-0,50	73 226,03	73 961,97	73 961,97	7 024
Mr. Magkaisa	77 777,00	935950	-0,50	77 388,12	78 165,89	78 165,89	11 228

                                                

You had the opportunity to rob me, but you didn't. I can't stop you from being bad predictors. There has to be a winner, and that winner is you : TryNinja. You will be pleasantly surprised to see 50BTC in your account.
Sorry Mr. Magkaisa, I advise you to destroy the '7' key on your keyboard. You lose one life.

For the round 3… Errr wait, do you smell that ?? What is that smell ??
Aaaaah yes, it’s the smell of love. Saturday is Valentine’s Day. Even here, you won’t escape it. I feel like spreading love.
I know that in 2026 consent is important, but not in this game. You must "love" someone !
Be careful, love is like marriage, it's for better or for worse. I won’t say more.

---

Round 3 : The round of love

What will be the price of Bitcoin at February 17, 2026, 12:00:00 AM (BTC closing price on 16/02/2026)?
Submit your predictions before February 15, 2026, 12:00:00 AM

Cash shop: OPEN

Special rules :
In addition to Bitcoin’s price, you must choose your “Valentine” among the participants still in the game.
If you don’t choose your Valentine, your prediction will not be valid.
A person can be chosen by several people.

---

We can say that for this round, these are the first interactions between players.

Yes, you have a good and solid point on what you just stated above regarding the new guide Sir Theymos just gave by allowing the use of A.I by forum members to be able to translate their own words from one language to another. Because by so doing, you are indirectly just allowing the use of A.I, because I'm 100% sure that many people will abuse and misused this opportunity, and when been caught, they will just claim and argue that they just used A.I to translate it but never did copy and paste. Since Theymos just clearly stated that it is allowed.
So in other to avoid this, there should be zero tolerance on the use of A.I, unless if the post/thread clearly states it was generated with the use of A.I. And such post shouldn't be counted as eligible for signature campaigns post. Because that's the only way to discourage people from posting A.I garbage.

If someone wants to translate a post , he or she should go hire a translator on the service board, rather than using A.I. Because by so doing, it will make the forum look far more professional. That's just my humble opinion.