[offline for the evening]

Ugh. Cryptocurrency. or at least Bitcoin at a minimum—  is _NOT_ about "democratic consensus" cue the trope about democracy is wolves voting to have the sheep for supper. Democratic consensus is a terrible way to handle things, but sometimes its the best available of all possible terrible ways to handle things, but that doesn't make it good. Ideally people could operate on a purely consensual basis and never be coerced just because someone amassed superior numbers.  "Democracy" is particularly intolerable, however, when voting power isn't tied to people-with-shared-interests but is instead tied to spending (as it must be in a POW blockchain consensus).

In Bitcoin the rules of the system are fixed in the software and autonomously enforced by everyone, without reference to any consensus. No simple majority of users or miners can change them, they are as immune to a majority tyranny as anything we know how to make. Sadly the whole system can't work on this alone, since there is no known decenteralized way to autonomously decide transaction order, but it is only in narrow-as-we-can make it way that we compromise on that.

You do not make your proposals look good when you justify them with such vulgar misunderstandings of the structure and motivations that enable Bitcoin to be (possibly!) viable.

No, in fact, we are not. Please pay attention to what maaku is saying, he is drawing distinctions which you are missing and which— if you continue to miss— will be fatal to your project.

Addresses and version bytes don't exist inside the bitcoin protocol, they're user facing things only.

That doesn't doesn't sound like the kind of assumption permitted in a trustless decenteralized system. If you're willing to trust specific parties to do specific things— the design of paypal is far more efficient.

If you are hoping the value of BTC goes up— just buy BTC.  You will gain even more from that increase in value and eliminate the risks associated with mining. ... such as the current situation where cointerra not shipping.

Then go ahead and calculate it and stop wasting our time with half-formed speculation.  Plus, if you find one one can collect 0.35 BTC.

I'm still waiting, incidentally, for you to take me up on your past claims that you could crack 'random' ECC keys.

This is going a bit off-topic... but it really shouldn't be left unchallenged.

I think you're taking an exceptionally stupid position here.  You have a stack of USD, you could do at least three things:
(0) Sit on your USD and do nothing.
(1) Buy Bitcoin.
(2) But a Bitcoin miner.

If (2) yields less bitcoin than you would have gotten with (1) you are worse off in every way. The miner takes up space, consumes power, has shipping and delivery risks, and is just as worthless as the Bitcoin if Bitcoin loses value, but is far less liquid. You take all the risks of owning Bitcoin, multiplied by illiquidity, plus some hardware specific risks.

There is no scenario in which (2) is better than (1) if (2) yields less Bitcoin, not if bitcoin goes up in value, not if it goes down, not if bitcoin becomes worthless, not on a boat, not with a goat.

Unless you want to consider incompetent people with no self control who can't manage to buy and hold things on their own— in which case I'll gladly offer second signer service for multisig at far less of a loss than ripoff prices from asic hardware vendors and a lot fewer risks.

You're welcome.

You can get computer power cords with NEMA 6 plugs, which is the norm for 240v appliances. They're not common in residences in north america, but not that uncommon commercially.

They've also gone completely unresponsive to me and are ignoring all attempts at communication.

I think they must have meant the price was 0.5 BTC. That would actually be competitive and interesting, otherwise an antminer is a lot less costly— more than enough to ignore the form-factor an included power supply differences, especially considering the power usage. Maybe it could find a use filling in some space in colos with fixed-per-rack power costs.

Under an assumed growth of 2%/day a 315GH/s device delivered Feb-15th will only mine 2.54 BTC in its life. That kind of growth can't be sustained, but it could certainly be sustained long enough to make something drawing 3.2W/GH worthless.

It's currently the Chinese new year.  Everything in China is more or less shut down right now.

I wouldn't be surprised if the problems persist for a couple more days.

This is also why units sold now aren't scheduled to start shipping until 02/08.

There are two PSUs in the unit, and it should be perfectly fine to run them on separate legs of a residential service.

Yea, my experience has been things like... order on Sunday, they ship Monday... actually mining on Wednesday, or another one, order on Monday, mining on Friday.

One of the common arguments against using pie charts is that growth in one item makes it look like the others are shrinking.

P2Pool is somewhat lower than its all time peak hashrate, as your note— a lot of miners fall prey to gamblers fallacy and are only fair weather miners who mine only if the pool has been unusually lucky, even though there is no rational impact... but most of the percentage change has been due to large hashrate increases elsewhere...  And why is P2Pool not getting more of that increase— well, it lacks things like payment in yaun instead of Bitcoin.

So the  fcc/ul approvals are in?  Why aren't we hearing from anyone else about shipping? My order just shows "processing" as it has for months.

Bitmain gave out 0.02 coupons to people who bought at 1.9 BTC, log into their site to see it in your account.

As far as "only 1 week ago", the new price applies to devices which will ship after feb 8th,  9 days from now.  If they hadn't lowered the price substantially they wouldn't sell any at all— at least not to sane customers.

As a KDF?  Can you provide some evidence for that?

I've never seen someone suggest that but perhaps they should.

In any case it absolutely should not use SHA512 as a KDF. SHA512 is a hash function, not a KDF, and it does not make an acceptably secure option.

If instead you were saying PBKDF2-SHA512, okay— but probably not worth the complexity to include more mandatory code.

The parameters selected should work on embedded devices. And with the support for delegation it doesn't matter quite as much if the selected parmeters didn't work on some device.

Is it fraud to declare the actual cost of the goods?

Like, if you pay be 1 BTC, I feed half of it into /dev/null and tend the other half to Alice. Alice sends you a product with a declaration of $500.  Is that kosher?