I can only say that I would not share any illegal info with bob.
He'll turn you in to the police in no time. Don't share your joints with Bob123. Sorry bob no cigs for you. I don't care about your joints if you don't use them to scam other people  If you don't harm other people and don't provide things which others can use to harm other people.. whatever  |
|
|
|
Point is I am planning to Buy a Ledger Nano S instead of the X as what someone Posted in a thread somewhere it's just "storage capacity is bigger for the Ledger Nano X".
Not only does it have more storage capacity but also allows user to connect with another device using Bluetooth. For some people, it is a clear security hole. Well.. security hole is a bit exaggerated. The interface itself is not a vulnerability. But it poses as an additional attack surface. I mean.. if there would be a vulnerability in the firmware which allows me to trigger a transaction without confirming the button, one might be able to abuse it by standing near the device, while a direct USB connection would be required without bluetooth available. In both cases the vulnerability would be extremely dangerous. But bluetooth would make it even more serious because it could be exploited without even touching the device / a computer. This is just a theoretical case on why bluetooth might be more dangerous in some circumstances given that a vulnerability exists. This doesn't mean that bluetooth itself is bad / vulnerable / etc. However, i personally prefer a hardware wallet without an interface besides USB. More security doesn't hurt IMO. |
|
|
|
Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.
IMO, this is an extremely vague interpretation of 'damage'. I would understand this if i had intentionally replaced another buyer. If the seller had backed out from the deal with another buyer and instead decided to trade with me, that indeed - under some circumstances - could be seen as damage. But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him. It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public. Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.
The flag has not been started by the seller. There was no damage resulting from rescinding from it. There first has to be a contract, before there can be a breach of it. |
|
|
|
Exactly, it only means that the connection between the user and the web server is encrypted. SSL certificates are cheap nowadays. I saw ads as low as $8 a year. Phishers and hackers will buy such cheap certificates solely for the reason that people think they are a sign of security.
You can get them for free. Let'sEncrypt offers free TLS certificates. They don't even need to pay for it anymore. But still, a lot of scams don't even bother get a certificate  Anything which doesn't have a TLS certificate should be accessed with caution. Do not download software via http. At least not if you can't or won't verify the signature of the file. |
|
|
|
|
This message appears because you are running electrum as root.
Please don't run electrum as root. Don't run any GUI program as root. Ever.
Do you actually have a normal user (non-root) on your system? If not, create one. Then use this user to run electrum.
Use a regular user and the output will be gone. Additionally this doesn't mean you can't use it properly. Everything is fine with your appimage.
|
|
|
|
~snip~
While i agree that the most probable case is that someone stole it from his place while he was away, it is still very well imaginable that they got stolen from his email account. This doesn't explicitly mean that someone targeted him. Email accounts get hacked daily. And once hacked, the inbox/outbox/drafts/trash is being searched for valuable information. If the attacker knows anything about cryptos, he will recognize a mnemonic code. However, it would have been a big coincidence that this happened while he was not at home (where the 2nd copy of his seed is stored). If you don't have a trusted place, it is getting hard to store sensitive information to be accessible without decryption. |
|
|
|
You don't get to rescind an agreement AFTER considerations (the PM) have been provided.
Well.. i can just repeat myself.. you seemed to have overlooked that (or maybe just didn't reply on purpose): [...] Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says: "SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance." So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself. Seller: "280$ ok,? !!" Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good" Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!" Bob123: "Yes with escrow" As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met. If THIS is the 'contract' or 'agreement' in your eyes, then you just proved that the flag is inappropriate yourself. Good job on that. The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage. This did no damage to anyone at all. So thanks for admitting that the flag is inappropriate. 'Breaking' the 'agreement' did not do any damage. Therefore the flag is not valid. I don't understand why you are trying everything you can to convince others to support this flag. It simply doesn't make sense to me. It seems that the majority of voters also thinks that this flag is not appropriate. Supporting: 1 Opposing: 7 |
|
|
|
[...] Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says: "SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance." So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself. Seller: "280$ ok,? !!" Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good" Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!" Bob123: "Yes with escrow" As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met. If THIS is the 'contract' or 'agreement' in your eyes, then you just proved that the flag is inappropriate yourself. Good job on that. The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage. This did no damage to anyone at all. So thanks for admitting that the flag is inappropriate. P.s. Rescinding from a trade isn't even considered breaking it. But whatever, you have already proved that the flag is inappropriate. Thanks for that, the discussion should be over then i guess. What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had.
I can't even try to take you seriously anymore Too much trolling for me. |
|
|
|
@bob123
~snip~
None of your mentioned scenarios would imply that he is untrustworthy. Scenario 1 does not imply the he would do 'evil' for 0.3 BTC. That is only your assumption. It is based on nothing except for the fact that he put his acc for sale for 0.3 BTC. And this was 3 years ago. Scenario 2 does not imply this either. Even if the account has been sold, the person who owns this account has proven to be trustworthy now. I don't see a reason why tagging would be necessary. I don't think it would help to prevent scam in any way. Neither would the community benefit from it all. If he wouldn't have shown that he is trustworthy, i would agree with you. Warning others would be appropriate then. But in this case, i don't think so. |
|
|
|
He still used deception to destroy the property of another.
No. I didn't destroy or damage anything. Just because other people don't want to buy this account anymore because i shared non-confidential information, this doesn't mean that i did any damage. It is the right of everybody to know which account has a trustworthy owner who has put a lot of effort and time into his account, and which accounts are simply bought and basically completely untrustworthy. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.
So.. because THEY 'need' to keep it secret, I am no longer allowed to share that (non-confidential) information? Uhm.. no.. Definitely not. I can share any non-private information as i wish. If someone is doing an extremely shady business which needs to have this information not shared at all.. that is completely their problem. I won't support a shady business. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.
Tell me three.. If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue.
Account selling is fraud. They are helping other people (the buyer) to deceive the whole forum to believe the person is 'trustworthy' and 'reputable'. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. Unethically? Maybe. Fraud? No. Rescinding from a trade and sharing non-confidential information is not a fraud. Even if that is the reason that other people won't buy those accounts anymore, this doesn't make it fraud or scam. And everyone still seems to forget. The flag is inappropriate.. simply because no violation of the contract lead to damage. There wasn't even a violation at all. I did not get an account, so i don't have to pay for it. Simple as that. Rescinding is not a violation. I never agreed to any terms which stated that rescinding is not applicable. The accounts are not banned. Nothing happened to them. They are neither damaged nor stolen. I just shared non-confidential information. Just because the majority of account-buyer don't want to buy them anymore.. this doesn't make me scammer. I warned the whole forum about untrustworthy accounts. The fact that people don't want to buy them anymore just confirms that they mostly try to do shady stuff with them. Except from that.. those accounts are still as before. No damage or anything. |
|
|
|
There you have it then.
You can NOT flag or red trust account sellers who offer their accounts for sale. Because a year later that account may just post this account is no longer for sale and tell you it never sold.
Or accounts sellers can just tell the new users to post that message and job done.... no red trust.
That's nonsense. I will continue tagging account seller and their accounts. However, if an account shows to be trustworthy after the potential sale (which nutildah's definitely is), there is no reason to start actions against it. It might have been traded or not. The person who owns this account since the listing has shown to be trustworthy. |
|
|
|
Actually I did that yesterday, like more than 24 hours ago, and the reason is because I don't agree with tagging people for old offenses unless their account is currently engaged in sketchy activity.
Alright, that's a cometely valid point of view. My stance is that these accounts (who showed untrustworthy behavior) should be tagged regardless of whether they are currently involved in sketchy stuff or not, except in the case where there are proven to be trustworthy at the current date. This was also the reason why - for example - i felt it would be inappropriate to start negative actions against you since you have proven to be a reputable and trustworthy member of this community. After going a year and five months without leaving a single feedback you've left 22 negative feedbacks in the last 16 days, some are for account sales in 2016/17. You left a total of 5 feedbacks in your 3 years here before that. That kind of behavior is a bit odd to me, but you know, you're free to do as you will.
I understand this. The reason for my actions is that I have decided to shift my attention on this forum from the technical support to the reputation section. Not completely, but i will try to make this forum a better - and less scammy - place. However, thanks for being honest and explaining your actions! |
|
|
|
There is no way you can know this?
Also.. i believe i am not on his trust list, not sure though.
Sure there is a way that someone can know this. Simply go to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt and find out who your name is under. Also, LoyceV publishes information about people's trust lists, weekly. http://loyce.club/trust/ It appear's Direwolf added you recently because your name is not on his list in Loyce's latest data. Oh, i completely forgot about this site. Thanks for the heads up. I wonder why i got distrusted by a nutildah.. i guess because he tried to sell his account and i am not a fan of that.. Didn't even do anything about this, oh well. People have reasons for their actions i guess  I added bob yesterday.
I appreciate that you are thinking that i am trustworthy, and not that i am a scammer - like quicksy does. |
|
|
|
|
You should always create a paper backup, no matter what kind of wallet (software- / web- / offline- / hardware-) you are using.
I am not that familiar with armory, is there some kind of 'special' paper backup you are talking about?
Generally.. always have a physical backup of your seed or private keys.
Do not rely on digital storage (e.g. USB / SD cards) only.
|
|
|
|
What does quickseller's latest navel gazing have to do with DireWolfM14's thread?
bob123 is included on DirewolfM14's trust list, making bob123 DT2. There is no way you can know this? Also.. i believe i am not on his trust list, not sure though. |
|
|
|
[...] Die Scams die man hier so erlebt, die sind teilweise schon verdammt ausgefuchst. Um so viele Ecken gedacht… ein cleverer Scam, der sich erst nach x weiteren Schritten wirklich entfaltet, sodass das Opfer bei den ersten Schritten ins finanzielle Verderben gar nicht auf die Idee kommen würde, dass es bald ausgenommen werden wird. Das finde ich faszinierend. Es gab schon einige Scams, wo ich mir dachte, wäre ich hier das Opfer, bliebe mir nichts anderes übrig, als dem Scammer zu gratulieren. ^^
[...]
Hast du irgendwelche bestimmten im Kopf ? Alle die ich hier bisher gesehen habe waren mehr als obvious. Auf die hätte kein Mensch - mit gesundem Menschenverstand und etwas Vorsicht- reinfallen dürfen. Die meisten zielen halt auf völlig Ahnungslose ab, welche sich nicht einmal mit der Materie beschäftigen weil sie schnell reich werden wollen o.Ä. |
|
|
|
I initially tried to use apt-get, but it said "E: Unsupported file /path/to/python-qt4.deb given to command line". I'm assuming this was because of the missing pre-requisites - right?
No, it was because you missed the dot ( .) at the beginning: sudo apt-get install ./FileToInstall.deb
1. I seem to have trouble locating a printer (for backups) which is supported by open source drivers ( http://www.openprinting.org/printers) and doesn't have WiFi - any recommendations? Well.. without knowing what exactly the issue is, it is hard to give recommendations. 2. For long term bulk savings - Legacy or Segwit addresses?
It doesn't matter. If you are interested in claiming future forks (i doubt they will be worth anything at all) which won't integrate segwit, you'd need a legacy type address. If they however do also integrate segwit, you'll be able to claim then with a segwit type address too. |
|
|
|
with bob123 formula this is the code def calculateLuck(activity):
luck = 100 * 14 / (1030 - int(activity))
print math.floor(luck) for me not working Merits: 1156
Activity: 938
Position: Hero Member What exactly does not work? This works without problems for me: def calculateLuck(activity):
luck = 100 * 14 / (1030 - int(activity))
print (luck)
calculateLuck(938)
And you don't need to use math.floor() in fact you shouldn't because this can create quite some wrong results. If you want to have only 2 decimal places, add round: luck = round (100 * 14 / (1030 - int(activity)), 2) Your function should then look like this: def calculateLuck(activity):
luck = round (100 * 14 / (1030 - int(activity)), 2)
if (luck > 100):
luck = 100
return (luck)
|
|
|
|
|
You don't get ANY benefit at all.
All you are doing is that you are shifting your trust from your ISP to the VPN provider.
I don't know from which country you are... but in my country the ISP is way waaay more trustworthy than a random VPN provider whose business model is user data.
P.s. Even if the VPN provider claims to not save logs.. they do. They need to.
P.p.s. There are legitimate reasons to use a VPN. But those are mostly to circumvent geo blocking.
|
|
|
|
If my activity were 1022, next cycle I would be legendary as activity it will be 1036.
So luck is 100%, but with your formula I get 175%.
Therefore the if luck > 1: luck = 1 statement If my activity were 1008, I would be legendary either at 1022 or at 1036, hence my luck=50%.
But with your formula is 63%...
Well, that's what i thought at the beginning too.. But it is more probable to get promoted in the first cycle than in the second. If max legendary activity is 1030: There are 14 activity-points between 1008 and 1022 There are 8 activity-points between 1022 and 1030. If the number is random between 1008 and 1030, it is 'almost' twice as probable for it to be between 1008 and 1022 (probability: 14 / (8+14). And this is 0.636363.. what basically my formula says Edit: A better example: With 1015 activity, the chance of getting a rank-up is 'close to 100%'. This basically comes down to a random number between 1 and 15. Probability: (14/15) that it is below 15. Therefore with the formula: luck = 14 / (1030-activity)luck = 14 / (1030 - 1015) = 14 / 15 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
