I have recordings proving Coinbase knew about breach months before disclosure

> So I sent them an email to ask that they remove it (I billed them for it)

Sending unsolicited bills for unrequested services is a great way to make sure nobody takes your email seriously

This doesn’t surprise me at all.

Bitcoin, and really fintech as a whole, are beyond reckless.

Very interesting... January 7th is when I reported it to them so that lines up. I suspect I wasn't the very first person, the person I spoke with on the phone had the confidence I wouldn't expect on the first try.

> an outsourcing company

From what I've seen, this is going to be a common subheading to a lot of these stories.

Hahaha, i'm using this next time I get a spam call

I sent the phone recording and emails to coinbase, and they acknowledged them saying "This report is super robust and gives us a lot to look into. We are investigating this scammer now."

How do you know?

I'm not trying to be recalcitrant, rather I am genuinly curious. The reason I ask is that no one talks like a LLM, but LLMs do talk like someone. LLMs learned to mimic human speech patterns, and some unlucky soul(s) out there have had their voice stolen. Earlier versions of LLMs of LLMs that more closely followed the pattern and structure of a wikipedia entry were mimicking a style that that was based of someone elses style and given some wiki users had prolific levels of contributions, much of their naturally generated text would register as highly likely to be "AI" via those bullshit ai detector tools.

So, given what we know of LLMs (transformers at least) at this stage it seems more likely to me that current speech patterns again are mimicry of someones style rather than an organically grown/developed thing that is personal to the LLM.

I don't know if he wrote it via AI, but he repeats himself over and over again. It could have been 1/3 the length and still conveyed the same amount of information.

Supporting evidence required.

I know I shouldn’t pile on with respect to the AI Slop Signature Style, but in the hopes of helping people rein in the AI-trash-filter excesses and avoid reactions like these…

The sentence-level stuff was somewhat improved compared to whatever “jaunty Linked-In Voice” prompt people have been using. You know, the one that calls for clipped repetitive phrases, needless rhetorical questions, dimestore mystery framing, faux-casual tone, and some out-of-proportion “moral of the story.” All of that’s better here.

But there’s a good ways left to go still. The endless bullet lists, the “red flags,” the weirdly toothless faux drama (“The Call That Changed Everything”, “Data Catastrophe: The 2025 Cyber Fallout”), and the Frankensteined purposes (“You can still protect yourself from falling victim to the scams that follow,” “The Timeline That Doesn't Make Sense,” etc.)…

The biggest thing that stands out to me here (besides the essay being five different-but-duplicative prompt/response sessions bolted together) are the assertions/conclusions that would mean something if real people drew them, but that don’t follow from the specifics. Consider:

“The Timeline That Doesn't Make Sense

Here's where the story gets interesting—and troubling:

[they made a report, heard back that it was being investigated, didn’t get individual responses to their follow-ups in the immediate days after, the result of the larger investigation was announced 4 months later]”

Disappointing, sure. And definitely frustrating. But like… “doesn’t make sense?” How not so? Is it really surprising or unreasonable that it takes a large organization time, for a major investigation into a foreign contractor, with law enforcement and regulatory implications, as well as 9-figure customer-facing damages? Doesn’t it make sense (even if it’s disappointing), when stuff that serious and complex happens, that they wait until they’re sure before they say something to an individual customer?

I’m not saying it’s good customer service (they could at least drop a reply with “the investigation is ongoing and we can’t comment til it’s done”). There’s lots of words we could use to capture the suckage besides “doesn’t make sense.” My issue is more that the AI presents it as “interesting—and troubling; doesn’t make sense” when those things don’t really follow directly from the bullet list of facts afterward.

Each big categorical that the AI introduced this way just… doesn’t quite match what it purports to describe. I’m not sure exactly how to pin it down, but it’s as if it’s making its judgments entirely without considering the broader context… which I guess is exactly what it’s doing.

Many people find whining about coherent, meaningful text based on the source identity to be far more annoying than reading coherent, meaningful text.

But I guess you knew that already, which is why you just made a fresh burner account to whine on rather than whining from your real account.

That's true, but in this case I got a response from the head of trust and safety after I sent the phone recording, email + email headers, saying "This report is super robust and gives us a lot to look into. We are investigating this scammer now."