Got my blade yesterday, holy fuckballs that was fast!

Now I have a plethora of questions, mostly related to the fact that I just want to get this blade up and running for a few seconds in a quick and dirty fashion before doing it all properly.

1) Power: I seem to have it working. But I don't have a molex splitter, so I have just used the one yellow+two black from a SINGLE molex on a cheapo old PSU I've got. Is this okay on a short term basis? As in, I only intend to mine for a minute or two at a time, for testing purposes?

2) Cooling: at the moment I have NO FANS AT ALL. Again, is this safe just for a minute or two of mining? I haven't actually been able to mine yet. Are the power/heating problems lower if it's idling? I'd have thought so... The heatsink and the back of the board (where all the ASIC chips are) feel very warm to the touch but not uncomfortably so (I can leave my hand there indefinitely).

3) Mounting: the blade is resting against an upright cardboard box. It's maybe 10-20 degrees from vertical, so there's some space behind the blade, and plenty in front. Any comments?

4) Configuration: this I don't get. Good news is, the config screen HAS come up, and I've set the blade's address to 192.168.0.101. I've also installed the slush stratum mining proxy on my laptop (just for now). I want to connect to my BTCguild account. Tell me what's not right yet. Laptop is at 192.168.0.100. Wireless router is connected to the internet, its local ip is 192.168.0.1, and I have an ethernet cable from the router to the blade.

Config screen: all numerical performance values are zeroed. Chips are all 'OOOO...' (that's good?). Low clock for the mo.
- IP   : 192.168.0.101
Mask: 255.255.254.0   
Gateway: 192.168.0.101
WEB Port   : 8000
Primary DNS   : 212.23.6.100
Secondary DNS   : 212.23.3.100
Ports   : 8332,8332
Server addresses: 192.168.0.100,192.168.0.100   
user:pass   : Nancarrow_Asicminer:123,Nancarrow_Asicminer:123

Mining proxy command: ./mining_proxy.py -o eu-stratum.btcguild.com -p 3333 -oh 192.168.0.101 -gp 8332

Complains thus:
twisted.internet.error.CannotListenError: Couldn't listen on 192.168.0.101:8332: [Errno 99] Cannot assign requested address.


Halp.

ETA: also noticed that the blade seems to restart about every 2:20. Good or bad?

Well, shit and fuck. Not two words I thought I'd use on getting hold of an ASIC mining device.

Being right at the end of the list I wasn't expecting to be eligible for a blade. So I've stuck too many fingers in too many pies, and temporarily run out of BTC with which to buy this.  But I WOULD kill anyone near and dear to me if it'd help get more BTC.

Friedcat and/or JohnK, I understand that as shipping is 'first-pay-first-served', I'll probably slip right down the queue, which is fair enough. But could you reassure me that you won't
a) boot me out of the queue altogether, and/or
b) get me a scammer tag?

I hope to be able to come up with the money within a week or so. I could make payment in dribbles if it'd help (like I could send 7 BTC right now).

I don't think anyone addressed this bit. The answer is no, the amounts aren't kept separate. It's only when an address is an INPUT that its entire amount gets spent. You can have several transactions send to the same address, and the address only stores the total balance (though the blockchain keeps a record of each transaction, and so will your client if you can be arsed to look, which I usually can't).

1 for me please, if there's even the slightest chance they're still available.

And.... round and round we go again.

No worries, I wasn't accusing you of ranting, I was just taking issue with your plea for the developers to be 'non-controversial', as the developers aren't responsible for the existence of shrieking imbeciles (I do not accuse you of being one).

And asking questions is definitely better than being ignorant. But even better than asking questions is reading first. See the addendum to this post for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196138.msg2040160#msg2040160

[ETA this was in reply to Loozik]

So the devs should only spend time making changes that no-one is going to rant about?

The trouble with that approach is, sometimes the people who rant, are idiots. Must we really all remain non-controversial so that morons don't start shouting?

Should biologists and climate scientists stop studying evolution and global warming because there are yahoos out there for whom those topics are controversial?

Should we abhor censorship so much that we work ourselves up into righteous indignation whenever someone shrilly cries out that censorship is happening? Even when it's, you know, not?

Perhaps a better idea would be, instead of tut-tutting whenever controversy arises, maybe we should study what both sides of the controversy have to say, so that we can quickly come to the realisation that one side consists of thoughtful people who know what they are doing, while the other side consists of people who SHOUT IN CAPS to cover their inability to think coherently?

I don't know how gmaxwell, jgarzik and Gavin put up with this, really I don't.

Questions...
Is there a short and sweet explanation for why 54 uBTC was chosen, rather than say 17 or 68 or 3.9?
If the official client doesn't accept or relay "micro"transactions (sub-54 uBTC outputs), but other clients do, and these transactions end up in a block, does the official client still accept the block as valid?
Will there be an easy way for an end user of the official client to tweak that 54 uBTC cut-off point? A flag to pass to bitcoind, or at least a simple compile-time alteration?
Why was this move felt necessary when I thought the whole idea was that variable transaction fees would create a competitive market for including transactions? What does this move accomplish that transaction fees don't?

ETA: oh, never mind. It turns out I can actually follow some of the discussion on the pull request itself... thought it'd be way out of my depth.

18@1.2

By the way I *presume* the auction ending time is today at 1825 UTC.

1@40

In that case I should let you know about this listing, and subsequent communications, from 'Kidcamico':
https://btcjam.com/listings/2198

He claims that he funded an expired address. I have explained to him that, if this is the case, you can send him the coins back (or better still, send them on to his creditors, like ME). Even if you do not wish to disclose publicly whether or not the transfer happened as he says, and/or whether he's communicated with you, I feel you should at least be aware of this situation.

1 @ 33

Question about the BTC deposit addresses: it says they're only valid for 24h. What happens if a user sends BTC to a deposit address that has expired? Because one current late payer is claiming that's what they did and why they're late. And that sounds like BS to me. Surely you keep the private keys to expired addresses?

2 @ 10

15 @ 1.18, damn your hide.

15 @ 1.16

30 @ 1.14

30 @ 1.1