You're not wrong — that's the same point LoyceV made and we've acknowledged it. Right now the deck composition is trust-based.

Two jackpots hitting in close succession is statistically near-impossible at our current volume. But your point is valid in principle so, if someone hits the jackpot today, we will peel some coins cover it.
Additionally, we're adding 0.5 BTC to the signed address by Wednesday, bringing it to 1 BTC verifiable on-chain. The physical coins remain as additional reserve. Obviously, we'll scale the reserve as volume grows.

I have not been here up to a year, so I might not be sure to nominate users in all the categories, I will only nominate those I'm sure of and leave the rest.


Satoshi really did a good job go create Bitcoin.

‎JayJuanGee I like his writing style, will love to read his book if he had any.
‎
‎ Very knowledgeable in the forum.

‎ Very good event of the year

‎ Best platform in the forum.

‎

‎

‎ I've worked with Hhampuz and icopres, they are best campaign managers in the forum right now.

‎Igebotz, doing a good job on the Nigerian local board.

It's crazy they started banning ads on TV in UK, and I think they are going to start asking for verification to use VPN in near future, for ''child protection''
They are probably going to start with adult website and than expand to social networks and everything else... they are not hiding it anymore.

Sorry, I should've included that word ^{[my bad]} and I do agree with the fact that governments tend to use every single excuse they can make to increase surveillance, but I think Mullvad could've conveyed their message even without those controversial words.
^{- FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if they deliberately did it to get more publicity out of it.}

Forum timezone is set to UTC over here.

They do and despite being a big fan of them, I have to agree with Clearcast on this one... I'm not sure what they were thinking when they opted to include "paedophiles, rapists, murderers" in the ad script ^{[I understand why this might give the wrong idea to some and I would've rejected the same ad/commercial as well]}.

I understand your point, and I believe he will not see it as an attack and I still believe after he prove himself in this your thread people won’t bother asking same question you asked except someone who didn’t see this your thread.
But I believe his still the same person, if an account is hacked, the hacker will quickly change the password of the account to prevent the real owner from logging in to the account again, and then proceed to change the Email, and in the case no password or email was changed and for that reason I strongly believe the account is not hacked except the owner sold it which i doubt he did, to clear the Air he should prove his ownership again. But just like I said, I believe his the same person.

I never wanted to reply to this but I'd like to say my piece on it, I'm not talking about what I'm here for, that objective is clear, and I've read a lot and learned a lot from people in the forum, things like, security, best investment practices, Bitcoin uniqueness, what Bitcoin community (Bitcointalk) really think about Bitcoin, some tech aspects of Bitcoin, e.t.c alot I've learned.

What I'm talking about is how to interact in the community without having labels like "shitposter" in my profile, or is it that I should just read, and not interact, grow, and participate in forum activities and incentives, if that's it I don't think it makes any sense honestly.

He proved it in 2018 and question stopped there. Same will happen this time.
The other side might be how did memehunter with so much less years here dared to open a thread about me? In that case I can only act as per what I feel right and I did that with the explanation. This is not an attack in any manner.

you keep saying that, but comparing your game to the national lottery scratch cards is honestly kinda stupid.

to do that, people need to play first, which i doubt is going to happen with your current setup.

it's not that hard when you use AI to do that for you.

not strange when the website is AI coded.
you can tell just from the UI, they all look the same.

is the free card real? does it have the same 1 in 3 odds? can you win 1BTC from it?
or is it like a demo thing?

also have you ever seen a scratch card that pays less than the cost of the card?

Op, why haven't you replied since you created the ban appeal. You allowed your emotions to control you. You started off wrongly here.
You were supposed to be calm and very logical. Your opportunity to explain to everyone that you were wrongly accused, you don't start your own appeal by creating drama and calling out LoyceV.

From the real world scenario, appeal means you already lost a judgement and seeking for a second chance. You were supposed to avoid anything that will create drama in this thread. You should be begging for a second chance with reasons. In the appeal thread, reasons win and not emotions.

I wish you good luck.

Satoshi's legacy have changed the world and the reason we are having this award.

Icopress have hosted this award for six years, thanks for the good job you are doing in the forum.

‎JayJuanGee stand out in his writing skills and knowledge of Bitcoin.
‎
‎
These are two highly knowledgeable members of the forum whose contribution cannot be overemphasized.

‎‎These are the most memorable events of the forum.

‎
A very good platform that list a lot of Bitcoin platforms such as exchanges, mixers and others.

‎

‎‎
‎
These are two exceptional managers that have their unique way of delivering the highest quality. When it comes to managing successful projects of the forum, they proud step forward.

‎He have been doing a great job moderating the Nigerian local board.
‎
‎SmartGold01 is one of the notable women in the Nigerian board who have been a big motivation to other females to join the forum and learn about Bitcoin
Foxpup is a notable female figure in the forum who have assemble some of the finest brains when it comes to Bitcoin.

Fair point. We'll reduce the minimum withdrawal threshold.

Will do. Thanks.

Apologies — didn't know about this rule. One post from now on. Thanks for flagging it.

We understand that. Every major criticism in this thread has pushed us to improve something. We appreciate it as long as it is fair.

Sounds good. Will think something over the weekend.
 
On the proof of funds point(because we are being pushed on this a lot) — by Wed next week, we will move additional 0.5 BTC more into the same address we previously signed and post the updated balance publicly.
That gives the community a full 1 BTC in a single cryptographically verifiable wallet.

Here are your predictions for round 4 :

Name	Prediction	B/M
BABY SHOES	66 362,00
Becassine	67 093,14
cryptofrka	71 250,00
Danydee	68 210,00
Doan9269	66 379,00
ESG	65 888,55
examplens	69 446,00	0,5 malus
GazetaBitcoin	67 323,00
Hypnotizer	N/A
Leahized	67 367,00
LogitechMouse	69 696,69
LoyceV	67 852,05
Mr. Magkaisa	66 666,66	0,5 bonus
Pmalek	66 417,00
promise444c5	68 900,00
TryNinja	N/A
xLays	67 676,00

                  

Two people did not participate (Hypnotizer and TryNinja). Sorry, but you will lose one life.

Likewise I doubt an Ai or machine would a post of such quality.
There's nothing writable that a human can't write
Nor did Ai magically created their own words.
Not everyone are  good with English grammar

A supposed human issei sagawa said this
“The moment I saw the meat, I tore a chunk off with my fingers and threw it into my mouth. It was truly a historical moment for me.”
Disclaimer: Disturbing.

100% agree. I wrote to inspace asking him to shed some more light on this negative tag. Truth be told, I haven't detected any lies on SatScratch's part regarding physical coins. (His tag: "Obvious lies about BTC CAS and Lealana coins")

As you wrote, Vod has the right not to recognize a photo of physical coins as collateral, so 0.5 BTC is only half the collateral. I can understand his negative trust.
For my part, I give SatScratch credit for their efforts.

LoyceV - I completely agree. Everything is clearly stated.


I also encourage SatScratch to work on creating a Provably Fair system, as I see potential in this project.

I saw they were adding a Dice game – it would certainly be much easier to implement a Provably Fair system there if they didn't repeat the principle of buying a ticket and then drawing the number (as with scratch card). We will see.

As an admin, bros @theymos should be one of the most trusted people on this forum. He is indeed & should be trusted because he currently holds control over this forum, we all agree on that point, right?





But when I checked BPIP for his profile, I saw his status as DT2. As far as I know, the DT2 level is below DT1. After that I checked bros @LoyceV profile, I saw his status as DT1. There must be something I don't know about this system, so let's get straight to the point, is there a technical guideline for determining whether a user is eligible for DT1 & DT2 status?

That made me feel like being the wealthy elite

---

I (we) can only hope that the "power" of a life of a life is greater than the one of a malus...?

---

And here is my prediction for this round: 67323$.

@SatScratch please take the time to read the Unofficial Rules of the forum. You are breaking rule 32 by posting back to back. Quote and answer everyone in 1 post please.

I'd also like to address the feedbacks on your profile while we are at it. I don't agree that red trust is deserved from inspace, that should probably be a neutral trust. The Vod feedback is 50/50 as you didn't prove you have 1btc exactly. You signed a message for .5btc and showed pics of something we cannot verify, so that could go either way for feedback. LoyceV feedback is correct as you cannot deny his points.

My advice is you work on the game and find a provably fair way to run it, it's the only way you're gonna get a fair shake here as the community likes to look out for the community. Whether we agree or disagree on certain politics, most users giving you a hard time have the best interest of the people in mind. That is always going to be a constant.

Fair point. We've acknowledged this and we're working on a better system.

You're right that the current market is UK only. We're working on expanding to other jurisdictions. The 10% affiliate commission comes from our margin, not from the prize pool — it doesn't affect the RTP that players receive.

Will do. Thanks for the pointer.

 --

Appreciate the advice. We're listening and learning. We'll focus on the product, engage constructively, and let the work speak over time.

Yeah....that post, I honestly don't get it, it's an open thread to make good discussions on, and I'm asking a question to see the opinions of others on what they think on the subject matter, I'm not saying it's a great post, but it isn't a bad post, and I don't even know why it was locked, I'll like to use this chance to understand so I can make quality posts going forward.
I hope you take this in good faith and not just dismiss me but rather educate me, as an upcoming community member, thank you

Yes, thanks for bringing that up, but it doesn't really fully address the point I was trying to convey. It is purely about the speculation whether AI was used here or not and considering how many accounts have been nuked based on AI usage, it is a relevant topic I guess. I use the word "nuked" because it is quite irrelevant whether this guy here gets banned or receives three red tags, account is dead anyway 99% of the time. And you can see how the opinions quickly begin to differ even among well established forum members, but it only needs one guy to pull the trigger and red tag when the account is not that well established yet.

I haven't checked any of those other posts, but if I am not mistaken, @nutildah checked some of them (unless I misunderstood) and turns out they are not? Doesn't matter, but for the sake of this experiment (which again I find sophisticated), nobody except for @Ivystar5 themselves knows the truth here. My guess is he didn't use AI because of my little ChatGPT experiment.

And to be really fully, fully honest: if this guy gets a tag as a shit poster (which I support without a doubt), and you would for some reason thrive to apply equal rules for everybody, damn @LoyceV you would have a new full-time job on this forum and you better hire a few more people to help you out when you need some sleep because an 18 hour day won't get the job done.

You said I altered the thing I copied and pasted, I altered nothing from it, I said Hi, I just saw a news about SK blah blah blah there is nothing edited there, after that first intro, I pasted the information I got, what edit are you talking about please, point it out.


As I said before, I ain't denying I wanted merits, I remember when I made a post that got up to 4 or 6 pages, I was so happy, I told my friend that introduced me to the forum about it, I felt I have made a very good post, but no merit, he told me, "It happens sometimes" that's when he told me about merit sources, that if I engage with them I can get a merit or 2, he then told me about JJG, and I said ok lemme see, I did and it worked, I was very happy to get my first merit, it felt like now I've grown a little in the forum.


This is from what I've heard from my friend after the brief introduction to the forum, after some solid advice I got there, I changed my mindset and genuinely start engaging in the forum, then I saw the node challenge which I did and it helped me boost my rank in the forum.

There was a post that felt to me like I've made a good post, because I had a lot of people engaging in it, I used it to go apply for merit at loyceV merit gifting thread, and I was told it was a shit post, damn, that hits hard, It was gut wrenching honestly, but I said, I'll improve and do better.

If you look closely in my profile, you will see that I try to improve everytime, I wasn't good from the start, I won't say I'm there yet, but I'm better compared to when I started, when I saw the AI guideline made by Theymos, I thought well I won't fall victim to this because I don't use AI, not knowing my past is there to hunt me lol.

I remember this post, this was like my first post ever, and I saw this on a site(I can't remember exactly), back then, I barely know about the rules and if I had known, I would have referenced where I got the news from, I am completely wrong, u can say ignorance is not an excuse, but other than this, can you point out any other AI post, or copy paste post I have made, you saw the post of a newbie who haven't familiarized with the forum and concluded that I am an account farmer.

saying I'm looking for merit is true, I want to increase my rank and grow in the forum, it feels good and there are other incentives.

Saying I'm a shit poster is your own subjective reasoning, I won't argue with that, but if you can point out my flaws so I can improve on them I'll appreciate it much more.

But saying I'm account farming is a false accusation, I can proudly say u are wrong, in that

While starting in the forum, these are some rookie mistakes I made when I started, someone even tried explaining how to quote, but I can't remember the post, if not I would have sent the link.




I initially was having a hard time in quoting that I made consecutive posts which was later merged, after the correction, I learned how to quote properly, it was still around the same time I made that terrible post which you're holding on to, so my question is, are you gonna blame me now, for being a rookie and a newbie then.



Concerning this, as I said before, yes I did a mistake, no doubt, I didn't do my due diligence and proper research, and honestly, I didn't know repeating what others have already said despite it being uniquely your experience is constituted as spamming, but now I know better, but if you say I am account farming because of these, it doesn't make sense to me, cause I AM NOT ACCOUNT FARMING

You can say I am a shit poster (cool I'm still growing, someday I'll be as good as you), you can say I copied a post and pasted at some point, I can't remember if it's AI honestly, (I was a rookie back then just starting), but I strongly disagree with you on being an account farmer.

I don't know what else to say other than, I have learned my lesson, and moving forward I'll do better, but again I'm not an account farmer

I usually see (and hear) weird sentences like that coming from people who are thinking in their own language and translating into English as they speak/write, which many of those with a lower level of English do.

Not saying that is the case here, but it could be one of the explanations.

Uh I dunno, it might have been written by a human, I've seen some people write some pretty heinous nonsense here over the years. 

If it said, "from the time of my knowledge cutoff date," then I might be a bit more suspicious.

Let's take a look at the full sentence (yes its 1 sentence) for a frame of reference:


To me, he's trying to say "since I've known about Bitcoin". But this post is so bad, even knowing that tidbit doesn't help it convey a single meaningful thought. Its truly a case of silence being better; ergo, I'm still fine with the ban, lol.

I don't know .

Generally speaking :
What is open can be closed.
What is on can be turned off.
What goes up can go down.
Etc... And vice versa.


Mmmm, I see what you mean. There's a flaw in my rules.
I will simplify and clarify this point:

Before :

Now :


And add this line to the cash shop : "Purchases in the cash shop are only possible during the prediction period (start of the round => topic lock)."

For that, you should take in consideration that not all Electrum users are as well-versed as we are.

For someone who has bare minimum knowledge on how to improve their privacy, then having the current default is better.
Once a newbie learns what to do to minimize privacy risks, then he'll finds a way check whether he can manually manage his addresses,
which isn't too hard to find in "Show->View Addresses".

In your case and other advanced users, the Receive tab isn't that much of a bother/annoyance even if you're not using it and it can't be disabled.
It only takes a little bit of space in the GUI.

This is why I've noted in previous reply that: personally, I'm only using that tab in testnet3 and testnet4 and most importantly, the note below it is one example of that.

❤️ ❤️ ❤️
Thank you

Judging by their commitment and how quickly they respond to community needs, I have the impression this isn't the end.
From what they wrote above, I gather they intend to improve and continue working. I wish all projects that come here would demonstrate these qualities.
I wish them the best and hope they don't lose their enthusiasm and that the project will be a success.

Maybe Yogg is still interested in helping 

Very good manager, he helped me and we worked together on some projects.

He owns the forum and he is keeping it alive for many years, living legend of bitcointalk.

Bitcoin OG that is active in forum after so many years since 2011.

This is very interesting competition, and I wish I could many good lookin bitcoin pizzas

Best gambling prediction project that engages bitcointalk community in many seasons.

Best crypto casino discovery for me, I think this is going to be very popular soon.

LoyceV, GazetaBitcoin, PowerGlove remain as helpful as ever, and the forum just wouldn't be the same without them.

This members are my biggest enemies, but they are doing great job when they are not fighting against me

 Without the hash, we could detect a winning pattern mid-scratch and swap the result before reveal. With the hash, the result is locked. It closes that attack surface.

That's why we changed the terminology on the site. The current system verifies your card wasn't tampered with after purchase. Full deck verification is a bigger technical challenge — we're exploring options including the approach you outlined.

That's a good way to frame it. . No timeline yet but it's something we'll be taking seriously.
 
We publish the win rate (1 in 3) because players can verify that over time. 

We'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Wow! you are the real OG! Cool idea. Can help you bring it to life. Let's discuss in dm?

Actually they did, and tried more valiantly than some:


It looks like the ban is just a temp ban, so that's good, and they also have a sig ban for 1 year.

Since this was a novel experiment, I don't think we'll have many more instances of accounts potentially being unfairly banned for using AI due to this particular reason. But if that's what happened, then yeah, we should try to not do that in the future...

I want to address comments left in a different thread by someone tagged in this thread, and explain why I'm not removing my feedback.


I know this is an account farmer because of their aggressive attempts to get merit starting Day 1, which continued up until they were exposed for posting nonsense in Dev & Tech Discussion. They've also been using AI to write their posts since Day 1.


Copyleaks: 100% AI generated
Sapling: 100% Fake
Stealthwriter: 54% AI probability

There shouldn't be room here for accounts that don't really contribute anything worth reading and solely exist to squeeze merits from the usual sources... I would estimate around 75% of all active accounts fall into the former. But to be a shitposter and pushy about merits, that's too much, just fuck off already.

This was from this thread and my tag reference link; I am in agreement with it and it fairly explains the reason for my tag:

AI models write based on the writing styles of humans. They don't create any style of their own
They can repeat themselves, always use the same style or make mistakes without any logic. But they don't invent a style.

Therefore, these text checkers easily give false positives.
Even centuries-old texts have been classified as AI-created...

Woah, last time I tried , it did not generate a public key. But I kept checking ,4/5 x a year and was live for AT MINIMUM 3 years, I think longer but I smoke a lot of weed ( a joke, not the smoking part, but it being the reason I can’t remember. My long term memory is incredible , and that’s not a brag (be a pathetic one) but I can’t keep absolutely everything retained like an elephant or an AI machine such a LoyceV). I will try to do the same when I get a work break. I obviously read intro briefly , defended myself (didn’t need to even read it to do so ) and been going through this thread when I get a free mn here and there

I only use the "Receive" if I want to create an invoice with a description and a set amount, and generate a URL and/or QR code.  I find it helpful in some situations.  For example, I use them for the NFL Pool I host every year.


For standard payment requests I do the same.  It's easier to apply the used address filter to the address tab, pick an address, and apply a label.  If previously shared addresses are still visible, I'll know because they already have a label, and I can easily ignore them.

In that regard, using Bitcoin QT as a wallet is pretty straight forward, just click on the receive tab and create a new address every time you want to receive a payment.  You'll never reuse (or re-expose) an address, and you don't have to worry labels if you feel lazy.

We never said the hash proves deck composition. We said it proves the card wasn't swapped after purchase. Those are two different things. We've been clear about this distinction from the start.


It makes complete sense. The hash guarantees the result existed before the player scratched. Without it, we could change the outcome after seeing the player's action. With it, we can't. That's not nothing — that's a real protection. We renamed it from "provably fair" to "verifiable integrity" precisely because we listened to your feedback. If the footer still says "provably fair" that's an oversight we'll fix.


Fair point — we misrepresented your position. You proposed a third-party shuffle system. We'll review it seriously. But it's worth noting that what you described is a custom solution you came up with on the spot — it's not an existing standard that we ignored. We're a new project. If a better system exists and is practical to implement, we're open to it.


This is the first time you've actually proposed a mechanism for verifiable RTP. In our previous exchange, we asked how a published RTP could be verified and the answer wasn't there yet. Now you've outlined something concrete. We'll look at it.

But let's be clear about what you're asking — you want us to build a system where someone could win 1 BTC on their very first card on day one. That's a legitimate design choice, but it's not how physical scratch cards, lotteries, or most prize competitions work either. The National Lottery doesn't put every jackpot into circulation on day one.


The discount gives you more cards for less money. Whether that's meaningful depends on the prize distribution, which is the same whether you buy 1 card or 6. More cards = more chances. That's not misleading, that's arithmetic.

Minimum win is 100 sats. At current prices that's roughly £0.07. Not life-changing, but it's a scratch card — same as buying a £1 scratcher at a shop and winning £1 back. The prize tiers go up to 1 BTC. We've published the tiers on the site.

We're not missing the point. The BOTB comparison was about legal framework and industry norms, not about where we're advertising. You said we should publish RTP. We pointed out that a publicly listed company operating under the same UK law doesn't do that either. That's relevant context, not a dodge.
You live in a country where the State Lottery was caught drawing from unsold tickets. We agree that's wrong. But we're not doing that — every card in our system is purchasable. There are no phantom tickets.

Our facts are straight. We said we answered every question apart from RTP. We didn't answer RTP because, until this post, there was no proposed mechanism to make a published number verifiable. We're not going to publish a number that requires blind trust while being told we need to eliminate blind trust.

Noted and appreciated.

Fair point. Removed the advert.

We respect the time you've put into this LoyceV. You've pushed us to tighten our language, rethink our terminology, and consider better systems. That's valuable. But the feedback saying we "refuse to answer" doesn't hold up when we're literally here answering everything point by point.

First thing, we didnt know you can advertise here, but edited that comment adn remvoed the pack.

LoyceV naturally stands alone as the forum's greatest living legend.

suchmoon, fillipone, and LoyceV remain as indispensable to the forum as ever in their own subtle ways.

achow101 and gmaxwell are still doing their part to keep the Development & Technical Discussion boards sane.

Once again, I find myself nominating the pizza bake-off and other food-related contests for the way the bring their respective communities together.

Yes, I know BitList is more of a revamp of an old project than a new project entirely, but it deserves recognition all the same.

RebelMoney gets my vote for their artwork El Regalo.

LoyceV, GazetaBitcoin, PowerGlove remain as helpful as ever, and the forum just wouldn't be the same without them.

Following the same logic as last year, I give a second nomination for the up-and-coming artist RebelMoney, as well as icopress for hosting this contest itself.

apogio and The Sceptical Chymist are part of the Merit Cycling Club for a reason, after all.

They're ladies if they say they are (and possibly even if they don't), so let's not get too caught up in technicalities. Not that I have any reason to worry about that, of course...

Okay, I understand now. A probably fair system works, but not for SatScratch, because the value of winning cards drawn by their system is pre-determined by them.
We can't determine the value of the cards in the pool to be drawn.

This solution sounds very good:

Is it deliberate typos? It's 'ZeroGPT', you wrote as, 'ZeroGTP'. Also, it should be, 'I write my own texts', instead of, 'I wrote my own texts'.

This is very different from double spending. Double spending would involve two transactions attempting to spend the same UTXO in a conflicting manner.
But in this situation, each transaction is spending a valid output created by the previous one. Take it to be sequencing and nit a conflict.

This is very correct. The transactions are dependent. Each transaction spends the change output from the previous one before their parent transaction is confirmed.

Yes, the default ancestor limit is 25. There is not uncertainty. It is a policy

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.