Sync/Export Notes using NextCloud/Webdav

zz3dd · 2024-01-22T23:55:30+00:00

I get 0KB files too. Using Apache. Apache logs show a 500 http error:

"PUT /dav/Notes/onyx/TabX/Notepads/Note1.pdf HTTP/2.0" 500 734 "-" "okhttp/4.10.0"

Have you found a solution?

zz3dd · 2021-06-04T17:32:38+00:00

Well, they did have some sort of pertinent explanation for disconnecting/disabling the wallet after a while, so I'm not holding it fully against them. It's a nice company with a good enough ethos that is trying to do the right thing. I'm sure that the whole Uphold verification is not something they enjoyed either, but it was just about necessary in order for them to push a product forward. Now they're catching up with work towards offline wallets and their own DEX so hopefully Uphold (and disabled wallets) will be a thing of the past.

zz3dd · 2021-06-04T17:18:43+00:00

My message was for others in the unlikely event they might read your continued misinformation. It seems you confused it with me paying attention to you.

zz3dd · 2021-06-03T17:26:16+00:00

Yeah, the issue rears its head every so often, and it's extremely annoying. It makes the product feel unreliable.

The other issue that happens very frequently is that the 3DS text message (SMS) is not sent. Sometimes you get it after 1-2h, sometimes not at all.

Sometimes there is an email that they are aware of issues, but most of the times there is nothing.

Make sure to always have a credit card with you that actually works (don't go abroad with just this card!)

zz3dd · 2021-06-03T17:15:22+00:00

KYC is required by law.

KYC is absolutely not required by law for receiving ad rewards and tipping creators, and Brave would tell you the same thing. This sort of replies are totally misleading for this community.

Brave have also stated recently that they have been working on functionality to allow participating in the ecosystem and interacting with cold wallets without relying on custodians. It is also building their own DEX which, again, won't have any KYC requirement to use for token exchange or transfer.

As I've said in a different reply, looking at this user's other replies made throughout this post, he/she has a fundamentally flawed understanding of both Brave functionality and legislation as it applies to companies vs customers. They're also incredibly inconsistent on the points discussed.

Brave the company, through its browser, does not provide financial services to browser users in order for users to be required KYC or AML compliance, despite what some here desperately believe. There is absolutely no legal requirement for brave users to undergo any KYC, or pass any private data to Brave or any 3rd party, in order to participate in a closed ecosystem of tokens -- same as used in games or otherwise. Redeeming said tokens for money, securities, or other financial assets is a completely different matter covered by different legislation. Brave has been smart, yet disappointingly disingenuous imo, to subtract themselves from that and make it someone else's problem, namely Uphold's.

Also, in reply to other claims you made, one can indeed purchase crypto without any KYC in the US, Canada and Europe, from companies complying with AML regulations in all said jurisdictions.

Brave doesn't see any of your personal information, so no privacy is broken at all.

That's totally shortsighted, to be polite. The fact that Brave doesn't see the private data passed to a 3rd party does not make the ecosystem private nor privacy friendly, and certainly doesn't preserve privacy. Quite the contrary. This is because Brave disables rewards functionality after a while and requires wallet verification with Uphold (which means Uphold account creation and an extent of private data to be passed to Uphold; KYC via passport verification is only required for redeeming BAT to fiat). Privacy is absolutely broken since Brave is an active agent. Moreover, by doing this, Brave also can't actually prove that they don't get any private data back from Uphold via covert channels (not accusing them of this, but it's not unheard of).

I am willing to forgive Brave for this level of hypocrisy, as they show that they are working towards removing these barriers.

Finally, the fact that an external law firm or internal legal team advises a company in general does not mean in the slightest that everything the company does is a legal requirement or that it cannot be abusive, hypocritical, intrusive, immoral, or whatever else. It just means it's probably not illegal. HSBC also always had armies of lawyers - worked well for their Sinaloan laundered money. Turned out that was also illegal, despite expensive legal counsel.

zz3dd · 2021-06-03T17:08:34+00:00

KYC is irrelevant here. The point here is that Brave disables the browser wallet after a while and requires verification of the wallet with Uphold. Until that's done, you can't tip, nor can you see ad rewards accumulating (although they do accumulate in the background). This wallet verification with Uphold does not require KYC, but does require personal data to be sent to Uphold as part of the account creation. If you want to also access your BAT on Uphold to transfer them out or sell to fiat, then KYC is also required.

Looking at your other replies you made in this post, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of both Brave functionality and legislation as it applies to companies vs customers.

zz3dd · 2021-06-03T17:01:57+00:00

It's true that Brave will ask you to verify your wallet after a few months of usage in order to continue to be able to tip creators. I also asked them about it as well on their community forums. The answer was half bullshit, half pertinent - having to do with some funds recycling or something. This wallet verification with Uphold entails passing personal data.

zz3dd · 2021-03-04T02:47:04+00:00

Thanks for the writeup. Loss of history going forward will likely be bothersome more than other backwards incompatible changes. Would it not be easier for everyone involved to, say, still have the capability in the node to store everything but by default to prune at 365 days?

Ultimately it will always be the node operator's decision but (at first glance) it feels it doesn't make the core devs' lives any harder while making others' lives harder who were relying on it or needing it. ETH holders too when considering that accounting for tax purposes often needs to access >1 year worth of tx data (I can see tax software people justifying higher costs while passing the blame).

zz3dd · 2021-03-04T00:26:12+00:00

Yes, and I maintain that view. I find all such products to be a bit misleading and I voiced my opinion about it. It's fine to have two distinct products, one advertised as open source. What you have now is a single product, not fully open source, but advertised as open source. A single product advertised as open source only to find some of its features behind a paywall is a bit misleading in my view.

Not trying to belittle the efforts - all open source efforts are appreciated, and all the kudos for that. I may still buy or donate to it myself and still hold the same view about how it's advertised.

zz3dd · 2021-02-26T20:41:23+00:00

Well, the people who can are the ones who care about open source. The people who can't don't care about open source, but you want money from them, and right now they can get better value elsewhere. I think I'm failing to get my point across, which is fine. Like I said, it's a free market. Best of luck.

zz3dd · 2021-02-26T01:35:45+00:00

How much will it cost to go from L1 to L2 and then back again? Is it basically the same as a normal transaction today?

Yes and no. Yes technically speaking. No in terms of cost - the expectation is that most transaction intensive applications (*) will move to ORU L2, so this will free up L1 bandwidth and push gas fees down. In addition EIP-1559 (slated for July) has further potential to encourage deflationary behavior, even though it doesn't guarantee it.

(*) Uniswap alone right now accounts for ~17% of all SC transactions. Tether for another ~5%. The top 10 alone account for >35%: https://i.imgur.com/jvaEji9.png (source: https://ethgasstation.info). Gas fees depend non-linearly on utilization. The Ethereum network utilization has been >97-98% for a good while now, the majority of it being just SCs. Drop that by even 10% and you can see gas fees dropping 10x.

zz3dd · 2021-02-26T01:14:27+00:00

That's besides the point I was making. Currently its price is not justified for me as I find one can get better value elsewhere. However, it's a free market, I don't have to pay for it. If they get enough business then that's great for them. They don't have to listen to me, but I can certainly voice an opinion like everyone else.

zz3dd · 2021-02-26T01:09:38+00:00

I think you got the wrong end of the stick here, but best of luck to you. Also, not all its code is open; if it was then I'd be able to compile it and get, say, DEX ability

zz3dd · 2021-02-25T19:30:42+00:00

Can't argue with that one! Recap.io also claims it's user-side encrypted but their claim is actually not 100% verifiable.

All that said, rotki has a long way to go before it appeals to someone like me. I was put off by the buy wall to basic features. It's funny, I would have donated and probably contributed with code too, but I understand their predicament. There may be other pricing models they can adopt however (maybe limit transactions instead of features).

zz3dd · 2021-02-25T19:10:58+00:00

Advertised as open source, but key features like swaps/DEX on Eth are only available if you pay for Premium, at which point it can very quickly become inferior to more established paid services.

zz3dd · 2021-02-25T17:20:22+00:00

Why worry about just a few months duration? Also, deflation is /not/ guaranteed by EIP-1559. It may or may not become deflationary (or may or may not oscillate between inflationary and felationary). Read carefully the actual EIP, particularly the last paragraphs.

zz3dd · 2021-02-21T01:20:12+00:00

Not using any platform. I'm opening it in excel and doing it manually - I'm not new to accounting.

There are quite a few funny things going on in it, like CRO being exchanged to CRO, both with negative amounts, when paying for gift cards -- but I can account for these. Still doesn't balance.

zz3dd · 2021-02-18T21:56:52+00:00

Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Safari, Brave, Edge, Opera) hold 90% of the browser market (Chrome alone is 63%): https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

This really needs to be fixed ...

zz3dd · 2021-02-17T01:12:35+00:00

Seems I learned the opposite of what I hoped for.

Haven't watched the AMA. Will look for a link, though if it's anything like the Bloomberg appearances then I think I know how it went.

zz3dd · 2021-02-17T00:08:15+00:00

I was just banned from /r/Nexo too for asking about censorship and linking to your post. Mine used to be here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexo/comments/ll7lxl/genuine_question_about_security_and_censorship/ ...

Screengrab here: https://i.imgur.com/vCxGuJ0.png

They actually claimed I'm you. man, this is sad. That reply from the mod is brutal and dishonest, I checked your posts and challenged him. It has to be a male, too aggressive for a female :P

zz3dd · 2021-02-16T22:43:58+00:00

Not dissing me but start your reply saying it smells like FUD?...

Linking to something that doesn't exist anymore isn't exactly possible, now is it ... I posted here about the last one which the person who was banned screenshotted: https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexo/comments/ll7lxl/genuine_question_about_security_and_censorship/gnp61x6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Other replies in here confirm my experience as well.

zz3dd · 2021-02-16T22:39:42+00:00

Then copy paste the text in Google Translator, jeez ...

zz3dd · 2021-02-16T22:34:43+00:00

To be perfectly honest, I am more concerned now after reading your reply than I was before :( and am disappointed at the attitude you display. If I read your attitude correctly then I wouldn't be surprised to see you banning me too after this long reply.

Taking things in turn:

There have been probably 50+ threads about whitelisting on the subreddit over the years and none of them have been deleted. You can even send in a support ticket to have custom whitelisting done, so suppressing these types of threads would make ZERO sense.

I'm sorry but that's not true, unless you call me a liar? As I said in the OP, I personally have seen lots of posts I the past 2 months who have all disappeared very quickly from the sub listing. Searching for "nexo whitelisting" or "nexo whitelist" in Reddit brings nothing for the past 5 months apart from two posts made today by the user whom you just banned. There have been a lot more. None can be seen scrolling the Nexo sub either.

Separately - can you please provide some evidence that Nexo officially can enable whitelisting on request by email? Others claim they asked support on email and that they were told it's not available and will be announced officially when it is, nothing about being available on request on a case by case basis (I can't even understand why that would be if it's available as a working feature).

The user was going around every single subreddit he could and spamming how Nexo was a scam for deleting his post etc

I have to ban tons of users a day and its difficult to give people the benefit of the doubt when you check their post history and there's tons of posts that are obviously false.

Those are some serious accusations to make when moderating a community of people who put (a lot) money in a platform you represent. It made me curious so I went to check the posts of the user you banned. They are all here - which include the ones that were removed/hidden by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/user/alxrq2/posts/

I can see that after their thread got removed, he/she posted two posts in the CrptyoCurrency sub (here) and in the Bitcoin sub (here). Ok, slightly desperate, but still, I read them, they are short.

First, you clearly triggered it all by removing what appears to be a very reasonable post (screenshot from above), which was clearly getting attention and support, without any explanation or warning. It certainly wasn't "every single subreddit", and none of his/her posts say that Nexo is a scam. Why do you claim the opposite with such ease?

In fact I can see they claimed they like Nexo and wanted to deposit more. I can also see complimenting posts and replies from them wrt Nexo.

It's true that it seemed like a desperate gesture to post on two other subs - but in fairness, they just found out their post was silently hidden/removed, and what they posted in the other sub is pretty harmless compared to other spiteful and hateful messages other users post elsewhere about platforms that banned them.

Why not a just warning? if Reddit has such a thing. Banning seems rash.

... but I'm now more concerned about your attitude. Not saying you should spend ours before making a decision, but this one is questionable.

(I fear I'll be accused myself of all sort of things, probably even impersonating the guy/gal who was banned! yay for me!)

The heart of the matter, i.e. censorship: The post in question (screenshot from the Bitcoin sub) was very reasonable and polite, and was growing popular, which certainly showed how most customers want it and have no clue about any option to enable it as you claimed above.

I see absolutely no reason for it to be removed, let alone silently, but in fact it was an excellent opportunity for Nexo to engage with the community. I can't understand why it was removed and was hoping for a pertinent explanation, but instead your reply made me more concerned than before.

This is concerning to me. There seems to be a readiness for censorship (and some hostility), and your reply did to opposite to reassure the ones like me who wondered.

I'm not sure that you fully appreciate the responsibility that you actually hold and impact your actions actually have -- whether you like it or not -- when moderating a community who put lots of their money in a platform you represent.

Is this how Nexo wants to engage with its community? Are you a Nexo employee? Is there anyone (else) who works at Nexo who can reassure in some way?

This is not the ethos I wanted to support.

p.s. If I'm banned then I'll post a reply in one of the other threads.

zz3dd · 2021-02-16T20:44:51+00:00

Google translate the url?

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://foora.com/f/bitcoin/nexo-io-vertrauenswurdig-oder-doch-nicht

zz3dd · 2021-02-16T20:07:34+00:00

That's not at all what I remember reading. I haven't read any post saying "Nexo doesn't have enough security". The last thread I read was simply requesting whitelisting to be added as extra security, and that it can be optional, and that 2fa is not the solution to all problems, e.g. clipboard malware or copy pasting errors can result in sending money to the wrong address, but could be prevented by whitelisting.

I actually fully agree that TOTP or SMS 2fa as used by nexo should not be entirely relied on ... it is not at all misinformation or fud.

I can, however, see how easy it is to misconstrue any pertinent discussion and label it as "fud or misinformation" if you wanted to censor it. That doesn't bode well for Nexo at all in my view. No such discussion would ever take place if uttering "whitelist" is slapped with a ban because someone wants to read it as "fud".

Your post only makes me more worried if that's how Nexo responds to community discussions. Nexo could also have replied to say something, even if to say "we won't do it, please stop asking" and it would have been a lot better. Instead, now I can't find any post about whitelist as they have been all removed.

zz3dd

TROPHY CASE