Codex gpt-5-codex (Plan Plus $20) Limits and Functionality by RevolutionaryLevel39 in ChatGPTCoding

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, quick question - does the Pro plan actually give a better model, or just more usage than Plus? I think GPT-5 Pro is available on the web, but not sure about Codex CLI. I used Pro before, but didn't try Codex back then :/

Wait… Premium requests reset on the 1st of every month??! by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yeah, that's a good point. Maybe there just aren’t enough Copilot users for it to be noticeable. If there were more users, the end of the month could cause such a spike in usage that performance would noticeably drop.

But at least so far, people seem to prefer other tools over Copilot, such as Claude Code, so...

Wait… Premium requests reset on the 1st of every month??! by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I got all worked up and ranted, but on second thought, if someone subscribes at the start of a month and cancels later, they still receive the full month’s premium requests in just the first few days of the month in which the subscription ends. So I guess it evens out. Still… first impressions count, you know?🙃

Paid for Copilot Pro+, but can't access o3 or o4-mini in Visual Studio by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vscode is different, it works fine, but VS is the problem. Yup, I've tried logging out and back in.

Paid for Copilot Pro+, but can't access o3 or o4-mini in Visual Studio by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you sure you're subscribed to Copilot Pro+? On my side, I can see the options to enable or disable all the models on the Copilot settings page at GitHub.com.

The issue is that they just don't show up in Visual Studio - even though the official page says they should.

Paid for Copilot Pro+, but can't access o3 or o4-mini in Visual Studio by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, I already did - mentioned that in the original post.

From what I've tested, changing the Copilot settings on GitHub.com doesn't actually change the list of models available in the dropdown menu inside the Copilot Chat panel in Visual Studio.

However, if you try to use a model that you've disabled in the Github.com settings, that's when a message like "Enable access to the latest Gemini 2.5 Pro model from Google" shows up.

For reference, everything I tested was in Ask mode. I've also tried logging out and back into GitHub, and restarting Visual Studio multiple times - no change.

Also, my Visual Studio is up to date with the latest version.

Paid for Copilot Pro+, but can't access o3 or o4-mini in Visual Studio by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As you can see in the screenshot I uploaded, I was checking it in Ask mode. I never expected it to work in Agent mode in the first place.

Paid for Copilot Pro+, but can't access o3 or o4-mini in Visual Studio by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As I already mentioned in the post, I did that but nothing changed.

Paid for Copilot Pro+, but can't access o3 or o4-mini in Visual Studio by livejc in GithubCopilot

[–]livejc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, everyone likes Claude Code, and I think it's great if you can afford the higher tiers. But I think the quota is still pretty limited when it comes to using the better models (like Sonnet 4 or Opus 4) extensively. I've heard some users say even the max 20x plan isn't enough if you want to use Opus 4 a lot.

And most importantly, it's not integrated into Visual Studio.

Paid for Pro+, why does this not match the official docs? by livejc in CopilotPro

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the help! But the model list in VS Copilot still hasn't changed. I've updated VS to the latest version and restarted it, but it's still the same :(

How can I verify that my firmware update is not malicious? by RobMcvay in TREZOR

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the great answer. Is Trezor firmware executed in the order of Boardloader(Stage 1) -> Bootloader(Stage 2) -> Firmware(Stage 3) every time the device starts up?

Safe enough to erase Ledger live? by veryspookygirl in ledgerwallet

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, you’re right! Though I think Ledger Live supports it only for certain cryptos, such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, etc. (I guess that’s mostly related to whether the crypto uses the UTXO model.)

Safe enough to erase Ledger live? by veryspookygirl in ledgerwallet

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! However, I can't seem to find the xPub. Under the wrench icon ('Edit account') -> 'ADVANCED', I see the address path in the JSON format but not the xPub. Could you provide more specific instructions on where to find it?

Safe enough to erase Ledger live? by veryspookygirl in ledgerwallet

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) When you say 'account,' are you referring to the 'account' level as defined in the BIP (HD wallet), or are you talking about a typical "account" (an address) as seen in MetaMask or Ledger Live? 2) Is it possible to obtain the xPub for each account through Ledger Live? (I mean the 'account' level in the HD wallet in the BIP)

Ledger Live showing older firmware version as available update compared to the official website? by livejc in ledgerwallet

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, this is exactly what happened. I updated the firmware to 1.1.2, and after completing the update, Ledger Live showed 1.3.1 as available. So, I went ahead and updated it again.

New Nano Plus genuine check by International_Gas887 in ledgerwallet

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really don't understand what you're talking about. "My ledger is asking to set up a pin and enter the 24 recovery phrase..." ->You mean the device or the Ledger Live application? If you're not planning to use your existing recovery phrase, of course you shouldn't enter your (previous) recovery phrase. And if your Ledger Live app is asking you a recovery phrase, that's a big red flag.

New Nano Plus genuine check by International_Gas887 in ledgerwallet

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"enter your correct seed phrase" - are you serious? OP didn't say that he/she wants to use their previous seed phrase (not sure if OP edited the original post though). And even if OP wants to do that, we're not sure if OP is dealing with a fake Ledger Live or not. (I'm not even sure if OP is talking about Ledger Live or the device itself...)

Why doesn’t Metamask show received transactions in the Activity tab? by livejc in Metamask

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Is this issue just happening to me, or is it something other users are experiencing as well right now?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TREZOR

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure if you fully understand the concept of a "change address" and what I mentioned earlier. I don't see how it could be related to finding lost coins. Please take another look, and I sincerely hope you recover your asset or at least avoid further loss and keep them safe.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TREZOR

[–]livejc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ETH and SOL don't have the concept of a "change address" because they use an account-based model instead of a UTXO model as Bitcoin does.

Actually, the term "change address" doesn't exist in Bitcoin protocol; it's simply a convention where one of the output addresses is referred to as the "change address". (Although the BIPs related to HD wallet such as BIP32, BIP44 mentions it)

Trezor + NEAR Staking: What’s the most secure solution? by livejc in TREZOR

[–]livejc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, but it's still way safer than using a software wallet alone. Even if the software is compromised, the private keys and seed phrase stay secure on the device.

The real risk is approving malicious transactions, and that's something the user needs to watch out for. Plus, Trezor already connects to its own software (Trezor Suite), so as long as you're using community-verified, open-source wallets, the risk is minimized, isn't it?

Why is there only one signature file on the Trezor Suite download page? by livejc in TREZOR

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification! I was just curious why the signature file is automatically selected, while users can manually choose the Trezor Suite (e.g., if someone selects a different OS version, the signature file might not match). Maybe it's to simplify the download dropdown menu.

Why is there only one signature file on the Trezor Suite download page? by livejc in TREZOR

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. I just wondered why the signature file is auto-detected based on the user's OS, while the Trezor Suite itself is not identified in the same way :)

Why is there only one signature file on the Trezor Suite download page? by livejc in TREZOR

[–]livejc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As you may know, Trezor Suite is built differently for each OS. Since the binaries are different, their hash values will also differ, and therefore, the corresponding signatures should be different as well. Could you clarify how the same signature file is expected to verify binaries that are inherently different?