I've found the documentation to be a bit misleading in some circumstances.  There seems to be some that's still pertaining to the Mk3 or possibly older wallets, and some has been updated to relate to the Mk4.  As for testnet on the Mk4, from the main menu you select Advanced>Danger Zone>TestNet, and their you'll find three options "Bitcoin" (which is mainnet,) "TestNet" and "RegTest."  I played around with Testnet a little bit this past weekend, and worked as I expected.

I tried to trick it, but I can't sign Testnet transactions unless the device is set to Testnet mode.  I've played with hardware wallets and Testnet before, and I was sure I had done so with my Trezors, but I realized it was in one of my old KeepKey seeds that I had all my tesnet coins locked up.  I fired up my old KeepKey (which works much like the Trezor) and confirmed it doesn't have a specific testnet mode.  You just need to pair it with an Electrum testnet wallet and from there everything works as one would expect.

I suppose it is officially "Emirates Stadium."  I've never been there, but isn't still in the neighborhood of Highbury?


Yeah, I can't see him displacing Ramsdale anytime soon.  He'll be in for a rude awakening I'm sure as the PL moves faster than MLS and Concacaf.  It's still good to see an American moving to the PL, and I hope he can contribute.

I'm super excited about Arsenal trading for Matt Turner.  Matt has been amazing on the USNT and for the MLS club, New England Revolution.  I can't wait to see him in action in Highbury.  I've been an Arsenal fan for quite some, with many of my fellow Americans choosing teams with Americans on their roster instead.  So I wonder if my friends who were Everton fans when Tim Howard was playing will be rooting for the Gunners this year.

Stop derailing other people's loan request threads with your own request.  It's rude, not to mention off-topic.  If you don't stop I'll start reporting your posts.

If you want to request a loan, post your own thread or post in the lenders' threads.  alterra27 has his own loan thread where you can make a request.

BTW, the collateral you're offering is only worth $1.  It may get you a loan of about $0.83.

I really like this proposal, so I reset the poll and included this option.  If you've voted, please vote again.

I've never used TrustWallet, but I see they call it non-custodial and since you have a seed phrase it appears that it must be.  At least partially so.  Do you have to use 2fa to send a transaction?  It can be email or sms confirmation codes, or a 2fa app, such as google authenticator.  If so, it's likely that it's a 2 of three 3 multi-sig wallet already.



Say what now!?!?    Where did you upload a private key?  Did you upload your TrustWallet seed phrase?  This sounds like a phishing attack!

PS; report anyone who sends you a PM offering to help, they're actually trying to scam you.

I just want to correct what I had written about the ColdCard and testnet; there is indeed a testnet mode.  Since the ColdCard doesn't sign transactions via USB, it must be in Testnet mode to create a wallet to export.

I'm not a fan of punishing people for doing poorly, that seems like pouring salt on the wound.  There's plenty of incentive to do well, and something like that might sour the experience for someone.  I'd rather keep it as friendly as possible.  But without holding back on the banter, of course.

---

Two more hard votes for 10 players, that make 3 of us.

I'll sell you mine, even give you a slight discount. 

---

Are you going to hang it from the ceiling of your street tent?

Certainly that argument can be made, and I am inclined to agree with you.  I was merely commenting on shear numbers, Ledger having a bigger market share may have made a bigger impact on attracting end users, and hence mass adoption. 


Couldn't agree more, Trezor is a superior product, and company.  Although the ColdCard is starting to win me over, I can't see myself without a Trezor any time soon.



Haha!  Touché.  Shitcoiners will grow up eventually, and they still need some love in the mean time. 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  So, if Claire was excluded by 3 DT1 members, and included by only two she would remain on DT2?


I agree, there should be at least two DT1 inclusions at the very least.

---

It is customizable, as you very well know.


I'm not talking about my network, I'm talking about Default Trust.  You obviously know that the Trust System is customizable, or you wouldn't have customized your own.  This wouldn't change anything for those of us who've customized our trust lists, it would only have effect on those who have not customized there's, i.e. newbies and those who've yet to bother.

---

Here's an example of why I think this is worth discussing; I recently included a member into my trust list who's not very active but has been here for a significant amount of time, and seems to have a good head on his shoulders.  He came to my attention when he questioned me about a tag I left for a suspected scammer, suggesting that I may have jumped the gun.  His concern was admirable, and showed restraint.  I've had the same concerns in other situations.  After looking through the reviews he left for others, and reading some of his posts I decided I wanted to see his reviews in my custom trust system.

Since I'm on DT1, now that I've added him he's on DT2.  My actions have an affect of the trust lists of the majority of forum users.  I don't believe that I alone should have that power.  If some other DT1 member feels the same way about said user, then great, I'm not alone.

Also, if Bob believes he should have that power, that would make Bob specifically the type of person that I say shouldn't have it.

---

WTF?

---

@LoyceV, any way to tell how many members have a custom trust list?

According to Bpip you have a net score of +4 inclusions.  Just to eliminate any confusion; for Claire to be on DT2 at least one DT1 member must have her included.  But, if one includes Claire and one excludes he, she will remain on DT2 even though her net inclusions is 0.

I am of the opinion that a net score of +2 should be required for inclusion to DT2.  So, for Claire to be included in DT2, at least two DT1 members would need to include her.  If one DT1 member excludes Claire, she would need a total of three inclusions to be on DT2.  I think this would reduce the Trust System spam that is so common today.  It would also reduce the potential for trust system cliques from developing.

I'm just curious about what you folks think.

Currently, only one DT1 inclusion is required for a member to be included in DT2 status.  In fact, a net score of 0 inclusions is all that is required, for example:  If Alice and Bob are both on DT1, and Alice includes Claire while Bob excludes Claire, Claire will be left with a net score of 0 DT1 inclusions, but that's all that is required for Claire to gain DT2 status.  In this example Claire's reviews will be displayed as "Trusted Feedback" if the user viewing the forum has the default Trust System settings.

Of course anyone can change their own Trust System settings, including the trusted depth of your included members' inclusions.  This is a good way to customize how you see "Trusted Feedback."  However, this is not something most newbies do when they first join the forum.  I don't know what percentage of members use custom trust lists, but I suspect it's on the low side of total active members.

I have mentioned my opinion about this in the past, but I'd rather not sway the voting by expressing it in this post.  I do encourage anyone with an opinion to share it here.

Doh!  That was a brain fart, yes 17 weeks is good with me.  I like the idea of skipping the last week of the season, we don't need to make it any shorter than that.

The other thing I wanted to say is that I'm fine with sticking to the 10 players we currently have.  This is a good crew, and for the sake of keeping a fun league I'm going to vote for keeping it as-is.

I think 12 teams would make things easier since we could have the regular season be 11 weeks long, then still have up to 5 weeks for playoffs without having to play week 17.  Another option for 12 players is to have 4 divisions, and play each of your division rivals twice.  That would make the regular season 13 weeks long, and we'd still have 3 weeks for playoffs without week 17.  I would like to keep the playoffs to 3 weeks, that would make for Quarter Finals (8 teams,) Semi Finals (4,) and Finals for the championship.

We could still do the same thing without divisions, we'll just have two random teams that we each play twice, then select the top 8 teams for the playoffs.



Even though I won the league last year, this scares me.  

First things first, an English lesson;

• Arabic is a language.
• Arabian is a peninsula or a horse.
• Arab is an ethnicity or a human with origins in parts of the Middle East.

---

I almost responded to this thread when I first saw it because I am of Arab ethnicity and found it offensive, but I decided the best way to deal with this troll is to ignore him.



This is what I really wanted to respond to:  I agree 100%.  The trust system is being spammed with all kinds of stupid shit these days, let's not make things worse.

I agree, it's bound to happen eventually.  Any excuse they come up with will have to be evaluated at the time for validity.  Companies are in business to make money, and selling hard goods is a tough business to be in.  I know from experience.  You sell one hardware wallet to someone, and that's probably the only one they'll buy for the next 5 years.

I've been a manufacturing worker in various industries for nearly 30 years, and I've seen companies I've worked for use different strategies to stay relevant while also supporting their old clients as best as they can.  One widget manufacturer I used to work for would try to upgrade their products annually, and as their previous products became less and less common the prices of maintaining those products would organically become less cost effective.  It's not due to greed, but manufacturing rates.  If I make 100 pieces of widget A, each piece is cheaper than if I only made 50, or 25.  As fewer people need Widget A, it'll become more expensive for the manufacturer keep in production, and more expensive for the customer to buy.  But, in order to stay relevant and keep attracting new customers, they need implement new technology in their products.  It can be a double edged sword; your new customers are happy to have the latest and greatest, and your old customers become bitter as their product becomes more expensive to maintain, or even useless.

I know it's trendy to bash on Ledger these days, especially in recent years, but consider what they have done to help the crypto community over all.  One could argue they've been a tremendous force in the effort to accelerate mass adoption due to the simplicity, affordability, and security of the Nano S.

Again, I'm not a fan of Ledger but at the same time I have a perspective on their struggle that may not be common on this forum.

My first impression was that Royse777 was as much a victim as those waiting for their withdrawal, and I believe he's telling us the truth.  I also don't see any contradictions in Royse777's claims, and I must admit there are a few people here on the forum whom I've never met in meatspace, but I consider "friends."  Hell, I have workmates whom I've only met in Teams meetings and also am very friendly with, and this is my analogue job.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that either, as it is more and more the world we live in.


I resemble that remark!  I have never had any issues with Royse777 and don't believe he's a scammer in the slightest bit, but I think I explained myself well enough for the rational behind my (now removed) red-tag.  Since I had been keeping tabs on this fiasco I've been waiting for an opportunity to revise or remove my tag, I never thought it needed to be permanent.  I finally revised my tag yesterday evening before I even saw this thread or read Royse777's post, only because I no longer saw BitLucy as threatening to accumulate more victims.

As for the remaining red-tags, I hope those who've left them will reconsider.

I might be missing something too, but I don't think the purpose is merely to annoy/harass the other parties, but to delay confirmations until the RBF/CPFP algorithm gets close to maximum fee range, then the attacker sends his own RBF transaction and forces everyone to pay that high fee.  The attack vector would require a a miner with a lot of hashing power to take advantage of the attack.  I don't know how practical/profitable of an attack vector it really is, I mean if the miner's equipment is as finicky as mine I'm sure he's got bigger fish to fry.

I think you might be confused about this, Wasabi should not be downloading the whole blockchain, that's handled by bitcoin core.  If you have a full, un-pruned bitcoin node the blockchain directory will be found in C:\Users\<your_user_name>\AppData\Roaming\.bitcoin\blocks\.  As n0nce mentioned, the RPi OS is based on Linux, the data will be found in /home/<your_user_name>/.bitcoin/blocks/.  The data for Wasabi should also default to the home user's directory.  It may be in a hidden directory, use the command "ls -la" to see all the directories, including the hidden ones.



If you need testnet coins, there are plenty of faucets out there.  I've used testnet-faucet.mempool.co a few times.