So Ronaldo in United and nobody is talking about it here? I expected to find at least one full page of posts when I logged in. What are you guys thinking? Obviously he is a class player and should help United raise their game even higher. What position will he play? I sort of think maybe he would be best as striker this time around. A little bit less of running and more chances for scoring goals, and weakest United position at the moment. I just hope he will not take all direct free kicks from Fernandez since his record in last couple years is far from the best  Never saw this move coming. It was all City in the news and then bam - United done deal. A lot of talking in your thread Premier League prediction about Cristiano.Still he can't do much now at almost 37 years old despite his perfect physical form,age is a determining factor in football.For United though he is a great addition but I don't think he will be a determining factor in United fight for title but let's see. I also put in my predictions but I am pretty sure I will suck up big time this week as I predicted as many in the community have done,I doubt we will see such result.I think I will not be first after this week games but my objective is to be in the top ten in the end of the season so I am hopeful for that. for the case of Ronaldo age is going to be just a number look at Ibrahimovic last season with Milan he scored so many goals despite his age closing on 40yo and he did have a serious injury in the late of his career while Ronaldo little bit younger and have no history of serious injuries like Ibrahimovic and he is a more goalscorer machine with a team that have many creative players like Fernandes Sancho Pogba and others. The only position that United needs to upgrade is a defensive midfielder so I guess we will see Ronaldo have somewhere between 25-30 goals involvment atleast in the EPL. I agree, Ronaldo takes his health and fitness very seriously, and 36 is not that old. He scored quite a few goals last season in Seire A last season, there's no reason to believe he's done. I imagine lots of United fans are happy to have him back. |
|
|
|
Now they have to face the Seahawks and the Packers along with the Saints.
Its very possible the saints are going to suck this year. Maybe. Sean Payton was successful with Teddy Bridgewater, and he seems to have faith in Taysom Hill even if Jameis Winston doesn't pan out. They're definitely not the same team without Brees. BTW this happened with the 49ers when Young replaced Montana and the fans were not happy at all about this until Young could bring win a SB, and even then during that season Montana and Young faced each other and a great deal of 49ers fans were cheering for Montana over Young and the 49ers.
Lol, it's still a contentious issue 30 years later, many are still salty about the subject. One of my coworkers, who's a die-hard 9ers fan wore his KC 16 Jersey to work the week before super bowl 54. |
|
|
|
And @chi cowboys always suck this year won't be any different. Redskins have a tough schedule ahead of them but their d is tight. Giants still gonna win it.
If I were to bet on the NFC East, I would pick the Giants. But I always pick the Giants to win the conference (because I hate the cowboys,) and of course I'm often wrong. WFT kinda shot themselves in the foot by winning the conference last year. By doing so they added two tough games to their schedule. Now they have to face the Seahawks and the Packers along with the Saints. The Cowboys have Dak back, and Dak is far better than anything ya'll got over in New York. The cowboys have some solid wide receivers, running backs etc. Defense may be a bit suspect, but still.
Lol, a bit suspect? Dak is actually a good QB, I'll give him that, but he won't line up as a linebacker, lol. Dallas often has a great offense, at least they're productive in yards and points. The only trouble is they're always playing catch-up. I still think the Giants take the East, but I'm not willing to bet on that.  I think WFT has a better chance than Dallas, honestly.
They aren't going to trade anything for a 1 year Jimmy rental though, San Fran will want to much. And any multi-year deal kind of kills the whole point of drafting Mac 1st by burying him as the 3rd qb. There's teams that will want Jimmy, Denver might be a good landing spot. Or Carolina if Sam Darnold starts out terrible.
You never know. Garoppolo would fit the Pats offense a lot better than Newton, and if Belichick want's Mac on the bench for a couple of years I could see him trying to make the deal. I agree that the 9ers will want a hefty sum to recoup some of the draft stock they gave up to get Trey, so that might be the deciding factor. |
|
|
|
Hi Guys, Free bets for ^^ week 2 of 3 ^^ are going into account today! check them out and good luck!! regards, Steve. Sportsbet.io Nice! Thank you for the free bet. I haven't been affected by the outages, so I wasn't holding my breath to get one, but I did. I really wanted to bet on Arsenal to win, but I also don't want to lose the opportunity to win the bet. I hope that my reluctance to bet on Arsenal will jinx them into actually winning this week. I know it's a longshot, but how cool would it be for the Gunners to top City? I'm looking forward to the match, Go Gunners! Anyway, I went for the safe bet. LFC over Chelsea, both teams to score, and over 5 corners.  |
|
|
|
Can you explain what you mean by "connecting your Trezor to Electrum"?
Do you mean when sending to and from Electrum? Do you mean viewing your coins in some way? You can use Electrum to access you Trezor wallet's and accounts, but only the Bitcoin accounts. There are Electrum forks for other coins, but I don't want to confuse the issue. To access your Trezor with Electrum you'll need to have your Trezor connected to the PC you're using, and create a new wallet in Electrum. It'll ask you what kind of wallet you want to create (choose "Standard,") then it'll ask if you want to create a new seed (choose "Use a hardware wallet.") This will allow you to use Electrum to view and control the bitcoin accounts in your Trezor. I have my coins on Electrum at the moment and am happy, but wanted to get a cold wallet for added security* I assume you currently have a desktop Electrum wallet, that wallet will not be affected. Using a Trezor with Electrum is still more secure than a standard desktop wallet, since you'll need to connect and unlock the Trezor to interact with the newly created wallet file. [* To be honest, I have been astonished at the number of technical issues I see on their forum. I thought a cold wallet was all about just dumping your coins and forgetting about them for years? It looks like you need to check all is well every day, like a cat on hot bricks!]
A hardware wallet isn't a "cold wallet." The point of a hardware wallet is to have a wallet on a device that is isolated from your PC and mostly immune to viruses and malware. Hardware wallets are definitely more secure than a standard desktop wallet, but they are usually used for wallets that you want to interact with regularly. Most people here will define a "cold wallet" as a wallet that was generated on an off-line PC that will not be interacted with regularly. For example; I installed an OS on an old laptop, used it to generate a seed phrase, wrote down the seed phrase and put it in a safe place. Then I formatted the hard drive on the laptop so no trace of the seed phrase is left on any electronic device. That's my cold wallet, where the majority of my coins are kept. I use hardware wallets to house moderate amounts of bitcoin that I want to spend from time to time. |
|
|
|
I would recommend you use Trezor Suite. It's an easy to use app, has a lot of features, is compatible with multiple currencies, and it should connect to your Trezor One without the Trezor Bridge. I've had trouble connecting my Trezor to Electrum in the past, and was able to solve the issue by installing the Trezor Bridge. To download the Trezor Bridge you'll need to access the page by using Chrome, Chromium, or the FireFox browser. If you try to access the page with IE or Edge it'll tell you your browser is not compatible. Here's the link to download the Trezor Bridge: https://suite.trezor.io/web/bridge/ |
|
|
|
There is a very common misconception about how to verify the authenticity of their files; where people seems to assume that so long as the hash of their file is the same as the ones that they see on the website, then it is safe.
Exactly. I've argued about this before when people were suggesting that Electrum should release file hashes alongside their binaries and PGP signatures. It is always a bad idea to release hashes whether it is alongside signature or just hashes that are signed (like what core does) because it doesn't account for laziness of users and their lack of understanding. I'm sure there are many core users who have the illusion of security while skipping the signature verification. No argument from me. The concern you and ranochigo bring up is quite valid. My only fear that some people will forgo the validation all together if they keep having issues getting the PGP signature to validate. There are no instructions on Electrum's website notifying people that .asc files' names need to be changed to match the binary file name, and most people probably won't take the time to research why they're having trouble. I would venture to guess that most people who are using the GUI PGP apps like Kleopatra are not as familiar with PGP as many of us here. Apparently I need to re-write my guide on validation to mention that the signature file names need to be changed to match the binary file's name. |
|
|
|
I have already explained why I am not doing that. If you cannot understand the reason behind it then its your problem.
You gave a reason, but it doesn't make any sense. That's not exactly an explanation--but if anyone is satisfied with The reason I am not posting everything in public is that he couldnt learn from his mistakes. as a valid reason not to post evidence against someone being accused of something, they've got very low standards. My point is that you should stop beating around the bush and just present what you have here, in public, for everyone to see and judge for themselves. Colires gave a perfectly good reason for not posting his "evidence" in public. If this is an alt of OldSamurai\Rambotnic, then it's within the communities best interest to keep colires' methods of detection private. If you're concerned about false positives, ask colires to share his findings with you privately and then you can make a decision with a little more insight. BTW, Hilariousetc said something very similar about his suspicions connecting two unrelated accounts. I don't recall you telling him to post his methods in public or STFU.  BTW, I always had an inkling you two were one and the same as you just start to see these things when you spend so much time on the board, but it was all but confirmed for me when I noticed both you and QS reporting posts with the exact same phrasing. The odds of that happening between two random people is very rare and obviously not something someone else can mimic. QS also does a certain thing on all of his accounts as do you which I'm not going to give away because it's an easy habit to change but it's always the first thing I look for when I see one account that has all the hallmarks of QS. I honestly don't know whether you just see this board as too lucrative to leave it alone and do your best to try rank up an account to maximise earning potential here from whatever avenues you can, or there's something more sinister going on and you've always been trying to build up to a long con or something. |
|
|
|
Windows has a built-in certificate utility that can be used to calculate SHA512 sums. Here's an example of how to use it to find the checksum of the hashfile. You can use the same tool to calculate SHA256 and MD5 sums also. Just change the sha512 at the end of the command to sha256 or md5 to obtain those sums. CertUtil -hashfile C:\path\to\file\ledger-live-desktop-2.32.2-win.exe sha512  |
|
|
|
As for my comment about elevating my view about it all, perhaps I had some preconceptions based on prior bad experiences with forums. Well, this forum has 99 problems but helping newbies figure out issues with Bitcoin transactions isn't one of them.  I agree with nc50lc's prognosis. My suspicion is you created a transaction, but didn't broadcast it. The transaction was logged by your wallet, but didn't communicate the transaction with the blockchain. That's why your backup wallet had no record of the transaction, it was only stored locally in the main wallet. As soon as one wallet broadcasts the transaction all your other copies of that wallet will be updated the next time you synchronize them with the blockchain. I'm glad to hear your issue was resolved, and I'm glad you find this forum helpful. |
|
|
|
Probably not related to the error you have been experiencing... but I've had issues verifying the downloads on Windows using Kleopatra, because the devs have modified the file name structure of the signature files (to include the text 'ThomasV' or 'sombernight_releasekey' or 'Emzy' to indicate which key it was signed with)... Which means that the .asc files are now named differently to the .exe file, so the auto-verify doesn't work any more It's not a HUGE problem... as you can simply rename the .asc file, but it's just annoying! Yes, I have noticed the same problem on my last verifications, when upgrading to the latest versions. It does not seem quite right that you have to rename the file, as it stays the same file in content, obviously. I get the green light when I verify, so I am happy, but these are the things that should make you suspicious of possible malware... This actually makes a good argument for the method used by the Bitcoin Core development group. The Bitcoin dev team uses PGP to sign a text file full of the SHA256 hashes for the various binary releases. One needs to verify the PGP signed text file, then confirm the SHA256 hash of the desired file matches the binary. It does add a verification step, but at least we wouldn't need to change any file names if we use one of the GUI PGP apps. As I posted above, their are ways to verify the signatures without changing the names of the files, but I understand that might be intimidating for folks who aren't comfortable with the command line interface. |
|
|
|
Probably not related to the error you have been experiencing... but I've had issues verifying the downloads on Windows using Kleopatra, because the devs have modified the file name structure of the signature files (to include the text 'ThomasV' or 'sombernight_releasekey' or 'Emzy' to indicate which key it was signed with)... Which means that the .asc files are now named differently to the .exe file, so the auto-verify doesn't work any more It's not a HUGE problem... as you can simply rename the .asc file, but it's just annoying! I've stopped using Kleopatra. It's kind of buggy and quite limited given all the control one has using the CLI. It's definitely a good tool for beginners, maybe some day they'll include a dialogue box that allows you to chose the signature file and the binary separately. These days I've just been using Windows Terminal or PowerShell and using the command line. There's no issue with files of different names; I can open a notepad window and copy/past the commands to check all the dev's signatures. Here's an example I posted a couple of months ago: gpg --verify C:\path\to\signature_file.asc C:\some\other\path\to\executable_file_with_a_different_name.exe  |
|
|
|
Update:-snip- This is a valid confirmation. As it states, you have a "Good signature from Thomas Voegtlin." I can confirm that the key you have for him - 6694 D8DE 7BE8 EE56 31BE D950 2BD5 824B 7F94 70E6 - matches the key I have for him. The reason it tells you "WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!" is simply because you have not signed ThomasV's key with your own key to tell GPG that you trust it. Excellent. Thank you! According to your original post above, you'll need first need to download and import ThomasV's pgp key. The links posted above will get you the key, save it someplace easily accessible, and name it ThomasV.asc To import it use --import /path/to/file/ThomasV.asc. Once it's imported you can sign it using --sign 6694D8DE7BE8EE5631BED9502BD5824B7F9470E6. Editing the key the way o_e_l_e_o suggested is a more powerful way to do it, and gives you options for trust level. Using the --sign command automatically sets the trust level to 4 (fully trusted.) |
|
|
|
Congrats on your new ink. Can't say I'm a fan of tattoos in general, and I've gotten to a ripe age without any so far. I won't say "never" but that's the direction things are going. With my luck I'd get some beautiful hula dancer tattoo That takes some courage to get a meme tattoo, and the art is pretty darn good. That's part of the rationale why this here "dude's" preference would be the henna tattoo, and I would imagine that they hurt less worser, too (not that I am speaking from experience beyond speculative observations). Even a henna tattoo is a little to "permanent" for me. |
|
|
|
You guys can still draft Taysom Hill. |
|
|
|
Risk is perfectly fine, as long as the willing participants are given awareness.
I was under the impression that a welcome message - an introduction to the trust system + scammer indifference - could bring about that awareness and could be a very simple and non-restrictive measure. I don't think your liberty is going to be compromised with a few extra hand movements as a guest. It is not unreasonable to request a landing page for guest users. I have nothing against a welcome message, nor a guest landing page. As I've said before; I think it's a good idea. I don't expect it to solve the scammer problem on this forum (I don't believe you do either,) but sure, it could prevent a few scams here and there, and it couldn't hurt either way. And no, it would have no affect on my liberty. I only brought that up because I've gotten the impression that you would be supportive of more extreme measures to prevent scams. Perhaps I misinterpreted something you wrote in the past to get that impression. Are you able to leverage people's comments in accordance to their actual content via research, or do you place some bias on their site-based reputation? Similarly to as if someone were to trust a member based on rank, the expectation of some local reputation system is perfectly reasonable. Yet, who do you actually trust? Sure, staff can be trusted to some degree, but apparently even DefaultTrust is a bad measure of trust due to the legacy of past exit scams: I would even grant that someone new, having read through enough of the forum, would rather trade (and post) elsewhere unless they wanted to scam others. I don't claim to be Joe Sixpack as I tend to believe I'm more skeptical than most (raising three daughters will do that to a man.) I've been using and visiting forums for a long time, many that focus on subjects in which I'm well versed and experienced, such as BMW motorcycles, Ford trucks, and American rifles. I've seen so many posts by users who claim to be experts only to find them spreading the most preposterous bullshit as if it's fact. I don't pay attention to site specific reputation or reviews. I assume everyone is full of shit until proven otherwise. Which other forums do you visit to where the rules are inaccessible unless you go to their forum discussion board located at the bottom of the front page, view an "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules" buried within SIX sticky threads, and go all the way to rule 19 to find out that scams are not moderated? This is an excessive scavenger hunt. In fact, unless you count an warning to use escrow as a direct "scams aren't going to be removed and we're not going to do anything about them" message, then there's almost nothing said about forum policy. I'm not arguing with you about that, I think we're closer aligned on this issues than not. My argument is that there are plenty of warning signs in existence already to help newbies and guests avoid scams. There's nothing wrong with adding one more. Just don't get your hopes up, because odds are it'll be as ineffective as the current "Red Flags." Was it a programming issue, integrating a DefaultTrust rating as a guest view of trust (preferably with some description/links to explanations)? DefaultTrust is good enough for registered users, after all, and the only difference is a few minutes!
Or, is it instead a fundamental problem? I can't say for sure, I'm not an alt of theymos (or satoshi for that matter.) I always figured it had more to do members' privacy than anything else. |
|
|
|
|
Game 1: 32' 0-2 Manchester United
Game 2: 32' 0-1 Chelsea FC
|
|
|
|
How many people do you think wander into large forums with the expectation, "I need to be on my guard or else I will be scammed, because the forum allows scammers to stay here." It's one of the things that makes Bitcointalk so unique. If I have a problem with my computer, I go to Stackexchange, copy/paste some code, and it works again. The same for car related problems on specialized forums: I follow the instructions, and it solves my problem. But if you do the same on Bitcointalk, you lose your money: Honestly, it's not that cut and dry. The internet is full of misinformation, and most of us have learned to be skeptical when researching solutions to our problems. I don't blindly copy and paste code from stackexchange without researching the commands, nor do I assume that the youtube videos about misfiring Fords are going to address my specific mechanical issues. Maybe big red warning on every trading board post started by a newbie; something simple like "Scammers flourish in a free marketplace, WATCH YOUR ASS!" That might get the job done, but then again it could get ignored just like all the other giant red warning signs. This is theymos' view: Honestly, I think that someone that naïve can't be protected. Even if every inch of the page had been full of warnings, he still might've fallen for it, since he wasn't even thinking about the possibility of being given evil instructions. The scammer was a Jr Member, not some Legendary.
People like him (ie. the majority of the world population) are why we'll someday want an optional sidechain or something on top of Bitcoin which has reversible transactions (via some sort of automatic 2-of-3 escrow which expires after a while, maybe). I tend to agree with theymos, which is the point I was trying to make to actmyname. We can't protect everyone, nor can we prevent all scams. I'm in no way suggesting that we stop trying, but we're going to have to accept some risk. A quote that's often attributed to Benjamin Franklin goes something like this: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." |
|
|
|
Lol @ Fraudiola Lol, spoken like a true LFC fan. I mean, he got beaten 3 times in a row by Chelsea's Thomas Tuchel last season so....  Why the dig on Tuchel? Something I don't know? He had a great run at PSG, and so far Chelsea looks far better since his arrival. Guardiola changed the perception of football in general, calling him a fraud is going a bit too far.
I agree that calling him a fraud is going a bit too far. He's done a great job at City, as much as I hate to admit it. Realistically, I'd love to see Guardiola sidelining Arsenal matches in place of Arteta. |
|
|
|
Don't mean to be a bummer but we talked it over and decided it's probably just best to keep things as is. Mainly because we are a newb-heavy league, some of whom have been practicing 8-team drafts already. No disrespect meant to ChiBitCTy. Next year we'll definitely do a 10-team league. @ChiBitCTy, I hope you're not offended, please don't take it personally. The decision to keep it a small, casual league was discussed from the onset, and that's what attracted me to it in the first place. Sept. 3rd, 8 PM EST
Be there or be square. Excellent, that works out great for me. Gives me just enough time to get home from work, take a fat bong hit, and log on to take my first pick... At number 8.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
