|
Thanks again for your flawless timing!
|
|
|
|
I am surprised that your outbox spanned upto 125 pages. I'm surprised it's only 125  @OP: my method is Search for "e", by user Royse777. That shows almost all posts in my Inbox. I check the date of the post I'm looking for, and go to the same date in my Outbox (that takes a few clicks). I usually find the post there. If you're looking for a user who never sent you a post, you're out of luck Another idea: download all pages. Use browser.altClickSave (note that I haven't tested this) and you run through your 125 pages in 3 minutes. Do a local text search, and keep the data for next time. |
|
|
|
|
The trick is to navigate forward again after you accidentally clicked "back". At least that's what works on my browser (most of the time). But since it doesn't work all the time, I avoid it as much as possible. Or open a post-link in a new window, that way there is no page to go "back" to.
|
|
|
|
Was it so hard for him/them to send email only to members who already have account with leftover balance, instead of asking everyone to send their private information? You mean he'd reach 100% of the customers instead of being able to say "you had your chance and didn't take it"? |
|
|
|
This is .... weird: Please be aware that after this 30-day withdrawal window, we will not be processing any further withdrawal requests. ~ 1. First name, Last name (if you are KYC verified)
2. Username (request will be ignored if the username does not exist)
3. Email address (request will be ignored if the email does not match)
4. Refund Amount (approximate balance is acceptable)
5. Wallet address (we will process only in the cryptocurrency you have) What happened to using account credentials for withdrawals instead of emails? What happened to contacting your customers instead of writing about it months later on a third party forum? Could it be someone else gained access to the account and is now collecting personal information? |
|
|
|
It looks like users lose their Donator status when they get banned. See Alwaysmining's profile. I didn't know that. |
|
|
|
This forced all people to request dollar withdrawals from banks. Since the banks, of course, did not have enough dollars, they resorted to the government, which decided that no citizen could withdraw more than $200 or perhaps less The more I think about this, the crazier the whole concept of "money" is. We went from gold to paper certificates, after which people found out they could no longer exchange their paper certificates to get back their gold. Then we went from paper certificates to a number on a screen, and now people can't even exchange that number on the screen back to the paper certificate! And with all this, people have totally forgotten it used to be gold instead of a number on a screen. Long story short: this is why I'm in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If we can't find common ground there, it seems this can only be settled by a 3rd party call. LoyceV and yahoo are both high ranked DT members with Top 10 community inclusions. They’ll make a call here and we will agree to that call.
LoyceV or yahoo will then check if both of us will play by the rules of that call. That sounds a lot like being a kindergarten teacher. I'm not doing that. I've made my point too many times already: ignore each other, and move on. You don't even have to wait for the other guy to do this, either one of you can abandon this drama at any moment. That's what I tried to do but because there's really nothing more I can add, but somehow it keeps coming back to me. So, I'll accept either call, be it the one from yahoo already or if LoyceV decides to offer his solution as Switzerland. I'm all for making your own call.
unwatch |
|
|
|
Ratimov changed his username, now he is Symmetrick  He keeps surprising me. I'm impressed  If the @OP change the subject to "Should Ratimov/Symmetrick be in DT1?" does it kills the purpose of changing username?  It depends: Why are you guys posting the old names of people who clearly needed their names changed for privacy reasons? Obviously any data posted online is going to be quickly archived somewhere, but that doesn't mean that your highlighting/reposting of it has no effect. In some cases you may literally be putting lives in danger. If you were investigating a scam or something, that'd be different, but you seem to just be indiscriminately & recklessly dredging up data that would best be forgotten. Ratimov could argue he changed his username for privacy reasons. Lol. |
|
|
|
Do I first import instead of making standard wallet then send it to the address. This works. Or do I make an standard wallet then import them send to the Ledger address? This also works (but takes 2 transactions, 2 transaction fees, and means your cold storage funds spend a bit more time in a hot wallet. Are sweeping involved in any way in the procedure? Any Electrum wallet can sweep a private key directly to the Ledger address you enter. Basically, you have options  What I would do, but that is my personal preference, is import the private key into Electrum, then make the transaction to the Ledger (and this is the easiest method to add offline signing to the mix). |
|
|
|
Is sweeping in essence just en extra unnecessary step vs importing if I just want it directly on my ledger wallet? Import: add the private key to your wallet. Funds don't move. Sweep: move all funds from the private key to a new address. Funds move. You can't import a private key on a hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
So all I need to do is change from the default Electrum address to the Ledger address? Yes. And check the address. |
|
|
|
Also there's a possibility that you can ask the sender of the transaction to broadcast it again in the event it becomes local, if the mempool size is low enough to allow your transaction to get in again. For example if you had a 20 sats/vB local transaction yesterday, you can broadcast it now and see it as unconfirmed. You can do that by yourself, right? I can't current test it as I don't have a "local" transaction, but I assume Electrum stored the raw transaction, which you can broadcast. |
|
|
|
there is an obvious trust system abuse that need to be addressed. In that case: there's far too much jitter in this topic to quickly see how obvious it is. |
|
|
|
decided that judgement of LoyceV, suchmoon and lovesmayfamilis is not up to his standards. That's okay I'm much more curious why he still includes someone without Trust list and without sent feedback. |
|
|
|
My Ledgers are old now an will probably need to be updated. I probably need create a new Ledger wallet on an online machine, but there shouldn’t be much risk right? The Ledger is only receiving unless I missed something. You may need to update the Ledger if it's old enough not to support Segwit yet. Other than that, if it works, it works. Ledger used to be safe even connected to a compromised computer, but nowadays they lost a lot of credibility. |
|
|
|
Lying again 1miau? But the only thing you are able to is to repeat the same bullshit again and again This seems pointless. The two of you won't be able to resolve this any time soon. it's always important to find a peaceful solution, to stop name-calling, to stop pouring oil in the fire. Or, if a solution is futile: let it be. Ignore each other and move on. You can't agree with everyone on the internet, and that's okay. There's no need to agree. I'm tempted to start a "let's fight on controversial subjects" topic, but that wouldn't be very Switzerland to do. I am not going to entertain you anymore. Great! But why didn't your post stop right there? Do you think it's fine to use the trust system against others for political disagreements? Let me answer that by quoting theymos out of context: In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle. |
|
|
|
The Linux Live DVD is too complicated, but thank you anyway! It's really not that complicated, but takes some time. When dealing with 0.5 Bitcoin, it's the only way to be certain malware can't get to your coins. The chance may be small but the risk is huge. Edit: Can I create a new Ledger Wallet on an offline machine? I can't tell: if the new Ledger wants an update first, it may not work. But it doesn't hurt to just try. Note that "offline" is not the same as air gapped, if you plug your internet cable back in later. |
|
|
|
What does this mean? One could argue fiat money is a scam. All you have is a claim on someone else's future labor, and as we've seen in the past, central banks can reduce that claim as much as they want by diluting the money supply. Also known as "Central Banks go BRRR". Or, to quote Henry Ford: It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The daily forex trading volume in euros is larger than all euro banknotes in existence. Henry Ford Well, look at "actual money" then. 85% of it is completely unaccounted for. It gets even better when you realize the "actual money" has no real value either. And that is exactly the reason why we don't have a gold standard. It is enough for everyone to withdraw their savings on the same date from their bank accounts for the corruption of this system to be discovered. In the Netherlands, they've been trying to make "calling for a bank run" illegal since 2010. As far as I can find, it's not illegal yet. More and more banks are now limiting cash withdrawals, and charging customers for it. It's like buying your own money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
