Yes, very helpful staff and will be doing business with them soon.

Never use GPU-Z for power measurements, hardware watt meter is the only sure way. Everything else is just software estimate
that is often pretty wrong

Theyre not expensive, either:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/AC-power-meter-220v-digital-wattmeter-energy-monitor-electricity-consumption-KI/153101520651?hash=item23a58fcf0b:m:mAjCDfztrd1tW9iDnDvS1xw

I ordered one of the power supplies and did a review, you can find the link here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5005497.0

The most significant benefit the blockchain could offer healthcare is security. Under blockchain, even a doctor would require multiple authorized “signatures” or permissions from other parts of a network to access patient records. So the patient's healthcare records are protected from  and the patients would be rest at mind.

Not seizable? Ask Ross ulbricht about that, he had 144,000 Bitcoin seized alone.

Altcoin is a development of Bitcoin based on Blockchain technology. I think we should not stop there, someone will make Bitcoin change and establish its position with the world. The development of technology will not stop, I still hope Bitcoin will go further in the future.

This is not the case here. Bill is trying to hide his money from the justice, his wife and probably the other girls eyes. Bill can even switch his fortune to Bitcoin and move to Russia if he wants then convert it to Rubble. Smart Bill, be like Bill..

the issue about blockchain is that some believe EVERYONE has to by law verify data.
at the moment there are only 10k nodes verifying bitcoin. yet millions of users.

so lets go with the concept of not needing millions of verifiers, but just a number of strategically separate verifiers
now lets take healthcare

who actually NEEDS to vrify the data. vs who needs to just be able to viw their own records

imagine a blockchain which has a multisig requiring 3 signatures per record.
a general practioner. a specialist and a labtech. this way a record wont get locked into a mempool without it being seen by validators.
then when forming a block of test results. each ward/department of a hospital then validates the block to insure each test result conforms to certain rules.

it does not actually require every hospital around the world to receive, verify and store every record of every hospital. all it needs is just enough equally distant participants to be involved to ensure no single point of failure

for instance most patients records of a town in america dont need to travel to japan or china. so records just need to be verifid by a lab technician departmnt, a specialist department and a GP. (thats 3 separate buildings) then because of locality. it can have 5 randomly chosen hospitals that are picked within state or county to double check. and have a few out of state, again for emphasis doesnt ned all world hospitals holding the same data

again dont think about it needing to have millions of verifiers for every piece of data uniformically.
there could be a state ledger of xxxthousand patients and another state ledger of anothr xxx thousand patents.

as for any concern still about data storage risks. each departnmt does not actually need to hold the entire blockchain. imagine it like each node only producing a UTXO database of transactions that node(department) is involved in.

..
think about it. in the US there are 320mill population and 5500 hospitals.. thats only <60k patients per hospital(chain)

people do not get tests every 10 minutes. so say they have on average 2 tests a year. thats only 120k record updates needed every year on average

now if the main hospital chain is just full of TXID's thats only a blockchain growth of 3.84mb a year.
meaning a hospital could easily store that blockchain. along with 5500 other blockchains of TXID's without having to stor all patint records.

and each department having just 120k records a year (lets say 500bytes per record) 60mb a year growth. can easily store its own patient data for easy access but also data or nearby hospital departmnts or randomly selected hospital departmnts to keep things distributed to avoid the single point of failure problem.

as i said. 60mb growth per hospital a year..
bitcoin grows at ~200mb a DAY. which is 73gb a year
so a department could store upto 1000 other department ledgers and not be any issues of 'scale' that bitcoin has been fudded about

Obviously, we're now in a blockchain craze that everything in our environment needed to be use the blockchain claiming it will be economical and sustainable in the long run which is not at the first place.

Not just because this is what the technology dictates it shouldn't be necessary to do so considering this is a health issues that everyone thinks needed a privacy.

Yes like I said there are articles and fancy media coverage but the industry isn't just ready yet.

That makes sense! But again the authority who is allowed to change the data must be verifiable publicly otherwise false data could also be updated.It isn't easy as it sounds to be honest.

Can you quote any real-life examples of the same? There are a lot of news and media coverage but have you ever come across a real-life hospital putting any of their processes on blockchain yet?

Patient data should be mutable man! What if the patient suffered a condition in the past that he doesn't suffer anymore? The data should be updated. Yes, we don't have to replace the previous record but definitely, need to update it.

They are really true sources of information but when I make a plagiarism check I observe strong prevalence amongst each other. It might be funny but using plag. checker can give you a shallow however decent idea about the project's foundation.

Well the main point of EOS is faster and cheaper transactions with a developer and token ecosystem like that of ETH. It is a indeed a competitor to ETH, until ETH can scale to at least hundreds of transactions per second. But the main selling point of EOS is actually not the tech or community or idea, but the guy behind it. People have actually bet on Dan Larimer who has in past launched successful projects like Bitshares and Steem.

So overall, I think EOS is worth investing in. It was the biggest ICO till date and if you look just investment wise, then I think currently the entry point is good. As for how usable EOS is, then we'll have to wait for a while.

I've read just a few dozens of WPs since I'm in crypto, just briefly checked other. There are not a lot of good WPs, actually

Notably, this wasn’t the first time that Petersen has been forced to return a large bitcoin donation. He told CCN that his campaign has twice been forced to refuse donations of approximately $250,000 for exceeding the FEC limit on individual campaign contributions.