Electrum just released a new version, 4.2.2. One of the "issues" they fixed wasn't actually an issue with Electrum, but rather an issue with a the crappy KeepKey hardware wallet. # Release 4.2.2 - (May 27, 2022)
* Lightning:
- watching onchain outputs: significant perf. improvements (#7781)
- enforce relative order of some msgs during chan reestablishment,
lack of which can lead to unwanted force-closures (#7830)
- fix: in case of a force-close containing incoming HTLCs, we were
redeeming all HTLCs that we know the preimage for. This might
publish the preimage of an incomplete MPP. (1a5ef554, e74e9d8e)
* Hardware wallets:
- smarter pairing during sign_transaction (238619f1)
- keepkey: fix pairing with device using a workaround (#7779)
* fix AppImage failing to run on certain systems (#7784)
* fix "Automated BIP39 recovery" not scanning change paths (#7804)
* bypass network proxy for localhost electrum server (#3126)
As you can see from the release notes above (emphasis mine,) the pairing issue with KeepKey has been fixed "using a workaround." How do I know the issue is with the hardware wallet, and not Electrum? The same pairing problem is endemic with the KeepKey and any desktop client I've tried. The same problem with pairing is present with KeepKey's own bootloader and firmware update client. The issue started after a firmware update roughly 2 years ago (IIRC,) and until now KeepKey has been unable to resolve their issue. In order to pair a KeepKey with desktop clients one would have to run the application with administrator privileges. I just tried the new version with one of my KeepKey HW wallets, and it pairs up smooth as silk. Kudos to the Electrum team for stepping up and taking care of their supporters. |
|
|
|
Madrid is great at making a comeback. like the game against City. they fell behind in the first leg and turned it around in the second. Madrid has a good mentality for the final.
but Final with only 1 leg. This will make Madrid have to work hard from the start of the game. Liverpool can beat Madrid. The opportunity is quite big if Madrid still uses the usual strategy played by coaches. it would be easy for Liverpool to understand killing Madrid midfielders and strikers.
Madrid is a really good team, and the way they handled MC in leg two of the semi-finals was impressive. Manchester City is usually so good at defending, but they RM just wore them out with their patented patience and precise passing. It was a bit of a surprise to see MC buckle the way they did, it seemed like their heart just wasn't in it. I just finished watching a rebroadcast of the 2018 final match. The things I noticed; The injury to Salah really hurt LFC, that was quite unlucky. Too many mistakes by Karius; one in particular could have kept the game in reach going into the final minutes. It just seemed like luck was not on LFC's side, and the match was mostly closer than the final score indicated. |
|
|
|
All prices include shipping anywhere in the United States, for international or discrete shipping please contact MinerJones. All accessories and documentation are included unless otherwise noted. The M14 receiver heal is not for sale. Payments here: bc1q2nwf4njwkpeuyycx5a95nj6mf8m45djdk863xs Or, if you prefer we can use escrow. 
Ledger Nano X $100 -  
Ledger Nano S $40 -  
KeepKey. New, unopened. $35 -  
KeepKey. No cable or documentation included. $20 -  
|
|
|
|
I don't think that's true. I mean, theymos can remove the whole forum, or go hardcore on the PHP code and implement any feature he chooses. As for trust feedback I don't think he has given himself (and other administrators) the ability to remove other peoples' feedback in such a trivial way such as clicking a button. I may be wrong, but that's my assumption.
Admin can also remove it
No admin had removed negative trust before in the past and theymos does not want to interfere with that. Come to remember one incident, he actually did remove trust feedback though it was a special case of Trust spamming. Of course, he can't remove feedback like in OP's case. Lol, that thread was hilarious. I remember that now, he also applied a limit to the length of reviews that can be left on the trust page. It was kind of nice when you could leave a detailed description of the issue, every once in a while I find it kind of limiting now. Some schmuck had to go and ruin it for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Salah saying that he's a score to settle was funny as hell. It's true, Liverpool has to go out there with a chip on their shoulder. I thought they were the better team in 2018, and I think they're the better team now. It's bound to be an awesome match no matter how it goes.
|
|
|
|
Sorry for your trouble, chil_ilya. better to use a noncustododial wallet
It's unfortunate that newbies need to be told this, but they just don't know what they don't know. FreeWallet, and any custodial/exchange wallet is the antithesis of reasons behind bitcoin. The problem lies in the name itself; when a complete neophyte goes looking for a wallet because he wants to experiment with cryptocurrency he doesn't want to pay for a wallet... |
|
|
|
Nice to see you're beginning to understand the problem. You still have a ways to go, but I think you've reached the opinion I had in about 2016. Maybe in another half a dozen years you'll start to see that you're actually contributing to the problem and begin working to fix the trust system instead of trying to empower those who are actively destroying it in order to maintain some form of control even though their lack of actual interaction trading and working with users makes them unfit to carry such responsibility.
There are multiple ways to abuse the power of being on DT. For example there are those who frivolously red-tag members for petty offenses, and there are those who include every newbie who's ever left them a good review into their trust list. Both are equally damaging to the reputation and usefulness of the trust system. |
|
|
|
A pseudocode example would be:
array = [address1, address2]
for address in array:
payto(address, amount, password=password)
Thank you very much for your time!
Very interesting. I've never tried this myself, but I'm curious: how do you ensure you're not picking the same UTXOs for the subsequent transactions? Would the addresses identified in the "array" send all the coins locked in UTXOs to the address identified in "payto?" Where does the change go? |
|
|
|
I have looked at available hardware wallets on the market. Almost all have something that I'm not happy with.
Ledger is NoNo, I'm not willing to support this company with a single penny/Satoshi.
Trezor One is pretty limited, same for PiTrezor; Trezor T too expensive for my taste. I hope a new Trezor with their own open-source SE chip isn't going to be with a price tag as model T.
Specter DIY is an interesting option for me.
Passport batch 2 looks interesting, too.
Bitbox02, well, not bad, but doesn't really outshine in my opinion.
Coldcard's recent move and future Mk4? Hm, not so happy and amused.
Other hardware that focusses on smartphone use or hasn't own displays is out of consideration for me.
I started out with the KeepKey because it was one of the cheapest open-source hardware wallets around, but I didn't really find it all that great. The GUI that used to be available when I bought mine was one of the reasons I didn't like it, and ended up using it exclusively with Electrum. It's no longer shipped with a user interface, because they're using it to promote their other product, ShapeShift. To be honest the company kind of gives me the creeps, even more than Ledger. I've also used Ledger's Nano and NanoX, but I tend to agree with you about Ledger as a company in general. The fact that the wallets aren't open-source is a sticky point for me, but they really lost me when they let my personal information get leaked. Forget about sats, I wouldn't give them a fraction of ripple. I just reserved my order for a ColdCard mk4, so I'm interested to see how that works for me. My go-to HW wallet has been the Trezor, I use both the One and the Model T. I don't deal with altcoins when I can avoid it, and I have none that I'm holding so I primarily use them with Electrum as the interface, and both have been great. The only limitation I find with the T-1 is that it's not compatible with XMR, which really hasn't been an issue since I don't HODL monero, but I do like to trade some on one specific P2P platform just as a way to (slowly) grow my stash of BTC. Just wanted to give a glimpse of my thought processes... (I don't feel a pressing urge to have and use a hardware wallet, yet.)
As long as you know how to keep your coins (seeds) safe, a hardware wallet is just nothing more than a good way of keeping your coins mobile. If you don't need the majority of your wealth to travel with you, then cold storage is more practical and more affordable.
To me, I think a Trezor One with secure element would be worth like $200 or 200€, but the current model T price tag is already around the 300 mark, without this new custom chip so I won't hold my breath.
You correctly figured out that most wallets have one problem or another; not open source, no screen, wireless connectivity, price - so even though at first glance hardware wallets seem like a pretty exhausted field after so many years, I'm pretty excited to see what the next months and years will deliver and if we can get the perfect device. Wow, I had no idea that the Trezor models have gone up so much. They used to try to keep the price point competitive with Ledger, but I guess there's no point in that since Ledger shot themselves in both feet in recent years. As for the "perfect device," I don't think you'll ever get a consensus on that one. You can ask ten different people what they would consider the prefect hardware wallet, and you'll likely get ten different answers. Hardware wallet manufacturers' primary marketing demographic isn't the technically astute, so their definition of the "perfect device" is more likely to result from how well it sells and how user friendly it is. That's not likely to coincide with your definition (or mine.) Do note, regarding SeedSigner and having to store the seed 'in the open' in your home, that any device without secure element is doing just the same. Software wallets and hardware wallets like Trezor models without SE (including PiTrezor), basically store the seed 'in the open' as well, just digitally.
The question whether this is a potential attack vector entirely depends on the circumstances: where will the device be stored, where will it be used, by whom will it be used, how often and does someone have access to it for longer periods of time unattended? In some cases it will be better to have a fully open device (but without SE) and in others you rather put some trust in the SE to be benevolent to in turn get almost guaranteed protection from technological attacks by malicious parties in your surrounding.
That's a good point about seeds being "out in the open." I'm don't have the technical knowledge to what makes a "secure element," and whether it would be open-source or not. But if not, then I'm inclined to keep using my Trezor with a strong Bip39 passphrase to encrypt the seed. |
|
|
|
Someone in Newzeland scammed me, and owes me big
I know his Name, Phone number, and social media (He started deleting his social media profiles now to run away)
I know where he works & His phone number
Anybody who can track him down/Get his family details/Threaten him over calls n all to get my money back
I can pay him upto $1500
Don't msg me UNLESS you're serious! So only tell me if you're serious
My telegram is : @sloppybtc
If you truly got scammed, then go to the police. Asking others to harass and threaten someone is the same as harassing and threatening them yourself, which is illegal. Besides which, what evidence do you have that supports your claim? Assessing your previous posts on this forum, a more reasonable conclusion would be that you tired to scam someone and got exposed yourself. |
|
|
|
Admin can also remove it I don't think that's true. I mean, theymos can remove the whole forum, or go hardcore on the PHP code and implement any feature he chooses. As for trust feedback I don't think he has given himself (and other administrators) the ability to remove other peoples' feedback in such a trivial way such as clicking a button. I may be wrong, but that's my assumption. |
|
|
|
You didn't even pay attention to the first word in the topic and wrote here complete crap.
Roflol! You silly scammer! Do you really expect anyone with half a brain to believe this thread is real? The first word in the title of the thread is a dead giveaway that it was posted by one of your scammy alts. Just take a look at the OP's post history; "they have the best tennis odds," lol. And, do you really expect anyone to believe the issue was resolved in less than 20 hours? You didn't even try to make it believable. Because it wasn't me who created this thread. My previous post only referred to the fact that the user did not read the thread at all. I am totally supporting ignoring threads without evidence. I wrote about this much earlier: I support that all Newbie accounts that are created just to create scam accusation to be treated the same, i.e. with a high degree of suspicion.
1xbit had been flooded with this type of spam for months and everyone was always taking the Newbie account side without even checking it.
Now the situation has reversed and I am very happy about it, but I am also supporting ignoring any Newbie accounts that do not provide evidence, regardless of later progresses of that case.
I can see that we can agree with each other at least on this topic. Lol, that's brilliant. Not only are you promoting a scam, but you're using this obvious ruse to gas-light legitimate scam accusations. I must hand it to you, it takes a real sociopath to stretch logic to this extent. Your tactics are obviously working to some extent; those who are fooled by your deflections will soon be parted from their money. I don't care to presume how you deal with your conscience, but I imagine it involves lots of alcohol. |
|
|
|
Won't go first Lol, scammer. Certainly you're aware that PayPal allows one to charge-back a purchase for up to 180 days. You won't send a revisable transaction first, but you expect someone to trust you to send you a non-revisable transaction? Probably because you've never seen €2000 in your life. Even if you did have €2000 and was willing to send first, I wouldn't send you a single satoshi until that €2000 sat in my PayPal account for a minimum of 181.5 days, i.e. 36 hours more than PayPal allows for charge-backs.
Thanks for being brave enough to handle this amount of currency. You just won the prize for the dumbest post on the internet. Click here to collect your reward. |
|
|
|
It's been a while since I've messed around with my node setup, but there's something I forgot: This: rpcuser=worldcoin
rpcpassword=worldcoin
Doesn't belong in the worldcoin.conf file, it belongs in electrumx.conf. Here's the documentation for rpcauth.py from the bitcoin core master: usage: rpcauth.py [-h] username [password]
Create login credentials for a JSON-RPC user
positional arguments:
username the username for authentication
password leave empty to generate a random password or specify "-" to
prompt for password
optional arguments:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
So, you'll need to use rpcauth.py to generate the authorization code that needs to be in the coin daemon's configuration file. For example:  As in the example above, if you use "worldcoin" as the rpc username and password (I suggest a stronger password, or let rpcauth.py generate one for you) you'll need the following code in your worldcoin.conf file: rpcauth=worldcoin:1667bd1179bbdd121aec27fc98bb66e9$77cb74246ed721086f2b80cf32d76ffc63036dea38ae87794de662bc44155b83 |
|
|
|
|
01) Liverpool
02) Over
03) Over
04) Under
05) Yes
06) 2nd
07) Yes
08) Yes
09) Yes
10) No
11) Yes
12) No
13) No
14) Yes
15) 22'
|
|
|
|
Apologies for any inconvenience you might have had with the verification procedure. We always strive our best to complete the procedure smoothly.
Don't you get tired of apologizing to your victims and instead do the right things as required? It doesn't seem like you are striving to have the whole procedure smooth when someone has to wait for almost a year to b verified. Why would he get tired of it? Apologies and feigning support is a lot more profitable than doing the right thing. Freewallet's business model: 1. Lock customers' assets. 2. Politely string them along with KYC requests. 3. Sell your customers' assets when the market pumps. 4. Buy back your customers' assets when the market dumps. 5. Profit. |
|
|
|
He has been spamming the hell out of my inbox with the same copy-pasted message over and over again. I just had to temporarily disable receiving PMs from Newbies.
He just spammed with the same copy/paste wall of text on Telegram. There was no additional information provided, just incessantly claiming that Balimiami is a scammer and demanding that the trust be removed. If there is some evidence that he's not part of this farm, I would love to see it, but all the evidence seems to indicate that he is. I noticed that BountyDetective edited his post in Alts Thread to remove Ariful07, and he and CryptopreneurBrainboss removed their review. @CryptopreneurBrainboss and @BountyDetective, can you please provide us with a reason you've chosen to remove your review and accusation against this user? |
|
|
|
I see it different, sorry.
I see it like cleaning the dust in the house, although knowing that more will come in.
I see it like cleaning the leaves, although knowing that, especially in the autumn, there will be the same mess again.
Making your surroundings more pleasant or at least bearable (not necessarily/not only for yourself) is not not really futile. But if you only manage to clean up 2% of the dust and leaves in a certain area, there's really no point in even trying. Just give up on the place, and keep the rest of your house decent. That's why I still report the bounty spammers when they shitpost on the tech boards. This reminds me of the corporate slogan I often hear thrown around; "The 80/20 rule." The premise is that resolving 20% of the root causes of an issue will often eliminate 80% of the problems with a specific process. The inverse can also be true; to eliminate the remaining 20% of the problems will require significantly more effort. An assessment of risk, reward, and value of the time and resources required to resolve the remaining 20% of problems will often show the payback is not worth the investment. |
|
|
|
I've said before that I think tagging Newbies for "bounty abuse" is futile. Accounts with high Activity and 0 Merit have nothing to lose, because they can easily create new accounts. Worse: it makes negative feedback very common instead of reserved for scammers, which leads to more and more people (including bounty/campaign managers) ignoring the warning. So I don't think tagging them makes the forum better. I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't care about bounty spammers in the Alts ANN board, because I rarely read that board. If ever. Like suchmoon said, as long as they stick to the bounty section to report their twitface telescam posts, I don't care. But when they are caught with multiple alts participating in those bounties, that is a form of scamming. Not only are they scamming the bounty manager, but they're also scamming other members of the forum who miss out on a spot in the bounty (if there's a quota.) I know, I know, if they're applying for a bounty, they probably don't deserve my sympathy because they are also spamming newbies. In the end who cares if it's one spammer with 20 alts, or 20 spammers with no alts? But we were all newbies at one point, and we all had to learn in one way or another. If the bounty manager stipulates that no alts are to be enrolled, then cheating that bounty should result in a tag. On the other hand, I understand and share your concern. There has been a lot of spamming the trust system recently with pointless tags, which concerns me too. And any tag on a throwaway account is essentially a throwaway tag. It doesn't help the forum, and reduces the value of red-tags. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think ignoring them is a good one. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't call it a scam like @DireWolfM14 but it definitely sounds fishy.
I was half joking, but only half. Three dollars is not very much money in my world, hell you can't even get a cup of coffee in most cafes around here. In some places, however $3 is half a day's wages, so it may have been an significant fee to the OP. The real concerning thing is the form he filled out. What kind of personal information did he give away, under the guise of learning about wealth from this seminar. I've been to many seminars for work related stuff, and I've found most to be an absolute waste of time. However, the promotors of the seminars now have my (work) email address. Coincidentally, after these seminars the subsequent onslaught of related and unrelated marketing emails I get goes up 300 to 400 percent. So, one needs to ask himself, what's the real purpose of these seminars? Is it to teach people or mine their data? Those of us who've been around crypto for any length of time understand that nothing really valuable can be learned in a 4-hour seminar. If the "instructors" at these seminars have any sense, I'm sure they know that too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
