Yep.

I hope.
Unless all the ASICMINER crew evaporated for Chinese New Year? 

At this time I consider it an good bet that it is either 'us', or more of the Avalons have started to be actually delivered.

I concur, an excellent choice.

If it is stable enough for the hash rate from a single miner.

I have no idea.

And, I expect, more of a hassle for friedcat, or his delegated minion, to set up.

If it is ASICMINER, I would vote, a very minor shareholder vote, for throwing the hashes at BitMinter or OzCoin.

I like the idea of being paid a share of Transaction Fees as well as the base share of 25 per block found.
(Pure PPS is just leaving money on the table.)

Both those pools have Stratum running and think they're ready to accept ASIC levels of load.

-- edit --
I actually prefer BitMinter. Where I'm mining now.

I find the mechanism of PPLNS easier to understand for distributing a share of the Transaction Fees in a block than DGM.

Transaction locked. 

No offense meant, rxw.

Part of my 'job' is to process transactions.   

quoted to lock it in

What dust wrote is correct.

What you 'feel' is not legally relevant.

I guess not.

It was all pretty obvious and automatic when I did it.
Even paying by BTC was handled seamlessly.

Go to purchase a BFL SC Single. On that page is a button to indicate that you're using a trade-in.

This is for buy one / trade in one, IIRC.

Might not be a convenient way to do multiples. I dunno. (Didn't need to know at the time.)

Yes, you're probably right.

Reckon I just got somewhat confused by the pictures and don't really understand what I'm seeing in them.

Looking at the top image I had the impression they were full length boards and assumed that each one was a 'hashing board'. However, in the bottom row of the bottom image it is clear to see that these take up only about a half of the cage depth at most.

Perhaps what we're seeing here is ten power supply modules (psm) in each cage?
Awaiting the addition of ten hashing boards?
(But they don't, to me, look like the picture of a psm posted in:
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1493791#msg1493791)

If so, I don't see where the hashing boards will be inserted.

Hmmm, perhaps that front 'black bar' is a two slot 'back plane'? And each hashing board plugs in next to each psm?

Regardless, all idle speculation. We will know all we need to know soon enough. 

Pretty pictures, friedcat. Thank you.

I've gone back over your posts and didn't find the answer / info for this question:

What is the hash rate for each board?
Or
What is the hash rate for each 'rackable unit' of ten boards each?

I assume you powered up one of these 'rackable units' as an interim step with one or more boards in it.
How did it do?

Is that an image of a single 'module' of the three included as shipped in first batch, four max?

Yes.

"In the future I am thinking about letting users influence the difficulty by preference, within reason."

Thank you.

And I'm requesting the ability to specifically set a minimum diff. IOWs, a 'floor' diff. While the pool still preserves full ability / power to, defensively, dynamically, increase the in effect diff based on per miner hashrate.

Thanks for your consideration.

"If you're using Stratum your bandwidth usage is already low, comparing to GetWork"
Yes, I know.

"Diff on Stratum is sorted automatically based on your hashrate"
No. This is not inherent to Stratum. This is how BitMinter is setting vardiff.

"If you want to have static diff, changes has to be made to Stratum protocol itself"
False. Again, this is not inherent to Stratum.

You are making authoritative sounding responses without fully understanding the subject matter.

I'm using Stratum.

Increasing the diff level could cut the/my *outgoing* number of packets in half or by a fourth.

Could we have an option to set a minimum diff on the website, please?

I'm only cranking about 2.5gh, so the algorithm you use for vardiff doesn't quite push me over the edge, but I would like to set a minimum diff of 2 or 4, and accept the increased variance, just to reduce my network traffic.

Welcome to the ignore list.

And thank you MrTeal.

I was editing / revising my post concurrently with you doing your reply. Thank you.

Transistors, integrated circuits, are based on *semi-conductivity*. semiconductors

electrical conductivity != thermal conductivity

Please play again, please be more specific, kano.
If you wish to be helpful. (Which I'm assuming you do.)

-- edit

I found this in the post you directed me to:
"silicon conducts heat well and as a result is not often used to insulate hot objects."

Thank you, kano.

-- edit 2

My confusion was that silicon is one thing. The composite material containing silicon, sand, is another thing with substantially different properties.

I'm a bit confused, possibly a bit ignorant, about this:
"Silicon is an excellent thermal conductor"

Isn't "silicon" basically silica -> sand -> glass?

Isn't glass *often* used as a thermal insulator?

What am I overlooking, please?

(Not a troll post. I'm assuming there are details I don't know.)

Above quote taken from: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status.html