Since you're issuing the CLI commands as a different user than the "user" (system) running the process, it'll look for the credentials of the user in the user's home directory. The same thing happens on Linux, it's not just a Windows thing. On my Linux servers I run the bitdoind process using a system user with no home directory, password, or the ability to log into the system. Safer that way. Also, it could be that your bitcoin daemon isn't reading any configuration settings, it's just running on defaults. When starting bitcoind, did you include any command line options? Did you specify a configuration file? When running a daemon it's more practical to have two configuration files, one for the daemon to start all the services you want the daemon to run, and another in your home path that specifies the user's preferred settings, like wallet location and whatnot. To me it sounds like the daemon isn't configured with rpcauth. A practical way to set the authorization string it by using rpcauth.py, you can find it in the bitcoin master tree under share/rpcauth/.  So, if you were to use the example in the image above, you would add the following string to the daemon's bitcoin.conf file: rpcauth=username:c02d625224be734104c3515c3fd274e7$f3a29a147dc1322a99bf820328d9918fc5bc626598049b12a0d654f860e952c8
And in the user's bitcoin.conf file you would add: rpcconnect=127.0.0.1:8332
rpcuser=username
rpcpassword=R7eq4jQVYcFvbRUJEGwPX7QOfRBwtp-8cPMdOiF0944=
|
|
|
|
|
14. Alexander Volkanovski
13. Brandon Moreno
12. Robert Whittaker
11. Jalin Turner
10. Bo Nickal
9. Niko Price
8. Jack Della Maddalena
7. Yazmin Jauregui
6. Jimmy Crute
5. Vitor Petrino
4. Cameron Saaiman
3. Jesus Aguilar
2. Esteban Ribovics
1. Tatsuro Taira
NOT go the Full Distance: 6
|
|
|
|
|
a. SPFC
b. Under
c. 1 -0
d. No
e. 57'
|
|
|
|
I don't know to what extent your argument is becoming more emotional than rational, because
Lol, it's always deflection with you. Emotional or rational, does the argument makes sense? If you want the trust system to work properly, it needs to be verifiable. We're all here because of bitcoin, a verifiable and irrefutable medium for the transfer of wealth. People are going to make mistakes with a structure like that. Most of us are used to being coddled by our financial institutions, but it's not our job to prevent those mistakes. Some are going to learn the easy way, from the experiences of others. Some of us more stubborn and need to learn our lessons the harder way. You're not going to prevent all, nor a small fraction of that. Sure, it's great to expose those who've proven themselves to be untrustworthy, but that's not likely to prevent someone from falling victim to their own greed anyway. somebody who has bought account is shady. And in the last 5+ years this was made clear in many occasions.
I don't have the exact quote but at one point theymos said something to the affect of we would be surprised to learn how many high-ranking accounts have been purchased over the years. So, I'll have to disagree with that statement. The truth is there are many cases we'll never know if the member we're dealing with is the same one who created the account. If the account in question is only vying for a position on a signature campaign, and isn't attempting to gain the community's trust, what does it matter? The shady ones will be found out simply because they're up to shady shit. The rest of them may go on forever and never be detected. Just because the majority of purchased accounts that are detected are up to shady shit, doesn't mean the majority of purchased accounts are up to shady shit. |
|
|
|
As I see it, the trust system is useless if you have to have irrefutable evidence, because by then it will be too late.
There are no rules against that, but obviously you insist on being part of the problem you complain about. It seems to me that you are unclear about the difference in the weight of evidence to be had between criminal cases and civil cases.
It seems you are unclear about the concept of public perception. If the perception is that a bunch of rouge DT members are handing out red-tags based on their own biases, then the perception is the trust system is fucked. Go on, keep red-tagging people for stupid shit like - Having alts
- Shitposting
- Purchased account
The only action on that list that is against forum rules is shitposting, but unless theymos asks you to be a moderator it's not your job to punish shitposting, and it's not a function of the trust system. If you insist on continuing the way you are, don't be surprised when you see members in signature campaigns despite having been red-tagged by you. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting that you complain about negative feedback losing it's meaning, yet you are among those who are so eager to dish it out without concrete, hard evidence. Don't you see how your actions are contributing to the lack of value given to red-tags these days?
If you want your reviews held in high-regard, don't emulate one of the most egregious trust-abusers on the forum. Instead, consider how you would want to be treated by a jury of peers when and if an allegation is made against you. Do you want people's opinions of you to the final judgement, or would you rather be treated as innocent unless proven guilty without a reasonable doubt? If the trust system is to be trusted, red-tags have to be irrefutable.
|
|
|
|
Does this mean your still having your temper tantrum (or whatever it was you called it) that you apologised for in another thread?
Lol, I referred to myself as cranky, and yes I'm still a cranky Yankee but this's par for the course. I wouldn't say I've had any tantrums, at least not since 1984 or so. But it's true, that particular newbie's stubborn ignorance did get me a bit more cranky than usual. His giddiness at watching the OP shoot himself in the foot isn't elevating my image of him, either. As you can see, I'm not in the habit of tagging every newbie that asks for an unsecured loan, usually they have to be exceptionally dense to get me motivated enough for that. Hell, even petulant scumbag34 only just recently got his first tag from me after a year of being an entitled loud-mouthed brat. Let's show some unity when monitoring potential scams, carpet pulls or deception being undertaken in the lending section.
Great idea, maybe a thread in meta were we can discuss certain questionable behavior and how to respond in a unified manner. |
|
|
|
~
Lol, 82 NBA games aren't as demanding on a body as 17 NFL games. It's a gladiator sport, with a ball thrown into the mix just for fun. Mmm yes you have a good point here but, how do you can maintain that point when the brother sport of NFL (rugby) play the whole year , and also they dont make changes constantly between ofensive and defensive players. NFL games have ton of rest between efforts. Before anyone think im understimating the effort of NFL players, its huge and one of the most powerfulls when they have to make the strenght. Rugby is played with a ball that's the same shape, and that's about all the similarities the two games have. The tackling style in rugby is totally different, the speed of the game is totally different. Attempting to compare the two makes it sound like you've never watched a NFL football game. Please educate yourself before engaging in an argument about a subject you don't understand. |
|
|
|
~
Lol, 82 NBA games aren't as demanding on a body as 17 NFL games. It's a gladiator sport, with a ball thrown into the mix just for fun. |
|
|
|
I'll pass on joining that discussion for a few days. Seems rby has already had his fate decided.
Once the hyenas start to swarm there's nothing rational one can say to sedate their thirst for blood. But then again, drumming up enough sympathy to intervene is easier in some situations... |
|
|
|
|
I can't believe we're only a month away from a cursory preseason teaser, and only six weeks away from unofficial football. To be honest, I haven't missed it. I'm glad that this thread has been largely active all off-season, happy to see you guys are enjoying it. But I just haven't had the heart heart for it.
After the 49ers' last game I began questioning reality. Is this life real, or am I living in matrix-like experimental reality where cruelty is inflicted on test-subjects through chemically induced highs and lows as hallucinations of football and women?
I don't know, I just don't know.
|
|
|
|
Still no word from the "borrower," and now even the lender is too ashamed to log on. He was in such a hurry to hide in shame that he forgot to post a repayment address.
I want to test out if you are a real lender with good intentions.
Obviously nobody with half a brain wants to test out if your a real borrower with good intentions. Don't make me regret removing that red-tag, I can very easily replace it with another and you're skating on thin ice as it is.
@Timelord2067 and @HedgeFx, You two really need to leave this bickering out of the lending board. I'm tempted to tell you to get a room, but the reputation board would be suitable as well. |
|
|
|
I had not, thank you. I'll look through it when I get a chance. What would be better is if admin did something decisive, and made an example of this account. This troll has multiple alts, it's like he's going to go away but at least set a precident of what's acceptable behavior. This is egregious harassment and trolling. Not the way I wanted to restart my lending business, i.e. with a locked thread.  |
|
|
|
If you're concerned about the difference between Electrum seed phrases and Bip39 seed phrases, you can use another wallet to generate your seed. Sparrow, for example can be used to create a secure Bip39 seed phrase, and unlike Ian's tool, it uses the cpu's processing power to create entropy. If you insist on using the Ian Coleman tool, use the advanced feature to enter your own entropy. Here's a code that can be used to create a 256 bit HEX string that can be used to enter your own entropy. cat /dev/urandom | tr -dc 'A-F0-9' | fold -w 256 | head -n 1 |
|
|
|
i have proof
No you don't, but it doesn't matter. Post a "public loan request form" and you might get it, lol. |
|
|
|
This is my first loan, so I'm still a bit slow.
That's an understatement. Did you bother looking at the trust page of the borrower? Did you bother looking up his post history? No, you say? It shows. He's made a total of 16 posts so far this year (with that throwaway account anyway,) four of which were loan requests. Three got denied, lol. It's been nearly 42 hours since you've sent the money, and this worthless account has yet to log on to confirm that he's received your generous gift loan. |
|
|
|
Things started seeming strange when the Windows signing certificate was never renewed several versions back
Even when the Windows certificate was expired, we had other ways of trusting the software was authentic. More practical and direct ways in fact, that don't rely on a third-party certification. First thing to remember is the official website is bitcoincore.org. Bookmark it, and don't go anywhere else to download the software. On the downloads page you'll notice that you can download the SHA checksums and their corresponding signature files. Learn how to verify a file using GPG, I wrote a tutorial focused on verifying Electrum, but the principal is the same to verify Bitcoin Core. By using GPG to verify the checksum file, and using a tool (like CertUtil) to confirm the checksum of the .exe file, you are getting the assurance of all of the developers that the file is authentic. No trust in a third-party CA is required. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
