The one line in that update that could be a downfall: Chips for POS applications are inherently very low power devices. Mining chips are the exact opposite and generally aim to pack as many cores onto 1 die as possible and run them as fast as possible. Designing for the required high power density and sustained high junction temps in the chip calls for an entirely different skill set vs designing low power chips that *maybe* pull a peak power of 500mw and when idle under 10mw or less.

Hopefully they will be taking a very careful look at the IP that Block purchased from Intel along with Intel's remaining stock of chips.

An oven is overkill. Use a hairdryer instead so you you do not have to remove the boards.
Only 2 reasons for needing to do this: Possibly a bad solder joint and heating the board makes it expand just enough to make contact - though odds are it would still be erratic.

More likely is that the board has some 'bottom of the barrel' grade chips in it and they need to be warm before they can run at whatever voltage/frequency is being commanded. The characteristics of semiconductors changes rather dramatically depending on their temp. This is why most miners do a preheat cycle when they are powered up. In your case the chips just do not get hot enough to work.

With said 'modifications' being replacing every single mining chip in it with a different ASIC designed for sha-512. Oh, you also have to replace the mining program as well because cgminer & Braiins are <drum roll please> written to only handle sha-256. In other words you are making a totally new and different machine...

I suggest you take your own advice and learn how Bitcoin mining works. A good place to start is here.

Folks, just how many times must it be said that BTC mining is NOT "solving complex mathematical problems". Decrypting sha256 is NOT a complex problem - it is a simple and very straightforward brute-forcing of a solution by substituting values applied to the fixed mathematical process: apply a number to the process, see if works and report yes or no. If no, increment the value and try again. Repeat billions/trillions of times per second until new work is received (most often the case) or 1 core in 1 chip in your miner gets lucky and finds the correct hash.

Precisely. Learning what commands your OS uses to compile/install code is the 1st thing you need to know. Makes no difference what the OS is be it 'doze or one of the many variants of Linux (which includes Mac...). The source code and instructions on how to compile/install it works for the majority of people.

Yes, some of the 'ux's out there don't use apt and some do not like the Debian libs so as Kano said, you need to find out what equivalents your flavor uses and work it out. Welcome to Open Source coding! For edge cases like yours appears to be, once you get things figured out - as a community service, post them to the git so others can do it as well.

@BurningWoodenLeg: just what OS are you using? You mention students so perhaps it's Chrome? Don't think you ever said what it is.

No, it is a low temperature solder.
The chip is a flip-chip package with the backside of the actual silicon die exposed on top of the chip. That bare Si is then flashed with a copper film to allow for soldering. This gives highly efficient heat transfer but is also rather fragile, if the heat sink gets knocked off odds are it will also damage the chip.

The whitepaper is not code. It is 1 document amongst many. Not being code means that there is no bug or dependencies review done to check it. The paper not being associated with any built-in MAC OS functions or apps also means that there was no documentation review or updates to it.

So yes, it was simply an Easter egg that someone planted long ago.

There is no 'firmware' to be flashed to the stick. It uses the cgminer program tha is ran on a PC. Any 'ux preferred but yes there is a Windows version as well. That thread will cover what you need to know.

Good point.
The one change I suggest would be to have his idea run on GPU's. After all, there are gazillions of them that are not 'being used to advance science" Then get in touch with all the GPU makers and convince them to require the algo to always be running in the background...

Of course, there is a plethora of apps out there one can voluntarily install to 'work for science' in the background. Things like SETI, several protein folding programs, etc. Hell, a few even have Rewards programs for folks who dedicate resources to the problems being crunched.  

Of course that would take this thread right out of being related to BTC and put it solidly in the alts sections meaning the mods would have to move it. Again

damnit.. there I go adding to the troll chain...
edit: Oh, a closing comment @ OP -- we know you have us on Ignore. If you insist on snarky 'reminders' about it well - I for one also have you on ignore as well <but yes occasionally can't resist seeing if you have added anything constructive>. Thing is, I'm replying to someone other than you so...
 

Even more to the OP's misguided point - they *are* right about 1 thing: the BTC algorithm wasn't designed to advance science. Well guess what - most technology of any sort was not designed for that either. Was television designed to advance science? Were mobile phones designed for it? etc etc etc? Of course not. They were created/designed to address 1 specific problem. Yes they have been able to evolve but that is only due to the add-on technolgy that now powers them.

There is no matter of 'bitcoiners are unaware'. We know full well what it is and what it was designed to do. As Franky pointed out BTC was created to solve 1 specific problem and it does that very very well.

I would but I'm on Ignore as well   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0 which is Bitcoin Discussion and allows a - broader range - of discussion provided it DOES  deal mainly with BTC proper would be another area for him to go off in. As you've said, this area is for BTC mining discussion only.
Oops... 'ignorant' me did anyway  

A good place to start would be to get one of Sidehack's Compac-F which is a USB stick minerr, that would take care of having an AISC-based miner. Be aware that the USB port MUST be able supply at least 3A This is the link to its thread and it also covers setting up cgminer from Kano's git which with him being the sole remaining active Primary developer of it, it is of course the latest/greatest.

Agreed. I put them on Ignore a long time ago and only reply to non-trolls.
The only amusing bit is that as usual, they are just another example of someone disparaging what *they* perceive as a flawed system and of course failing to suggest alternatives. Since BTW there are none, perhaps they might actually apply their knowledge of mathematics to working on an alternative that would fit in with their view of the world? Nah...

(Emphasis added is mine) I agree 100%.
I for one can think of no legal reason for folks trying to keep their crypto tx's hidden. The days of having private and secret holdings have been over for centuries with ALL governments being highly interested in them. These days the closest we can come is the proverbial "bank account in the Cayman Islands". People need to accept that fact and as you end with, "It's high time the crypto community joins forces with regulators and policymakers to cook up responsible, lasting solutions that appease every stakeholder."

Spot on.

Oh, @OP: It is considered rather bad form to do sequential posts because it is viewed as 'cheating' just to build post count. If you have more to add before someone replies - edit your last post to include it.

What a horribly stupid move by them... Yeah it makes it easier (cheaper) to assemble but ya'd think that the s17 fiasco would have taught them a lesson 

Came across an archive with all of Satoshi's posts here in the Forum and one is from Jan 2010 in response to a question asked. The thread deals with what has now become known as ordinals...
Replies 10-12 fit in quite well...

It all depends on target difficulty of the coin. With BTC diff at 47.89T it would be abysmal.
For alt sha256 crapcoins which all have far lower diff, ask in the altcoin areas of the Forum. This area is for BTC only.

Correct. Generally this type of thing is done for accounting purposes to move around funds from one internal address you own to another related address you own. Perfect example is the rather large sums moved around by exchanges & pools.

AFAIK, you have to use your own node to broadcast a 'real' tx to mainnet that has a usable fee attached to it and include your zero-fee tx with it to be sent to another address you own. For that matter, the 0-fee part can be payouts to multiple addresses - it's how most pools handle user payouts. The tx with fee does not have to be a big one, 0.0001 with appropriate fee attached would do it.

As for No it isn't. It's a cold, factual and possibly valid assumption given that you have yet to give a reason for doing what you are asking about. It is highly unusual for a person to do. Many of us have been here for a decade or more and seen it all when it comes to scam plans...

Fee is only 0.5% vs 2%, yes NH works fine

AFAIK Braiins is the only pool that does it, ref https://help.braiins.com/en/support/solutions/articles/77000422680-what-is-merged-mining-
Details as to how it works https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work/275#275

No idea what the exchange rate between BTC and NMC is. Considering I can't say I've ever seen NMC being actually used one has to wonder just how many tx's are actually in its blocks...