Yep got mine just now too, hashing away nicely, thanks.

-MarkM-

Of course it can be done. Easiest way is probably just to wait for ripple server source code to be released.

-MarkM-

Maybe they will even end up with two new products once they see the actual chips: one-chip Saturns and two-chip Jupiters, made from chips that had very low bad-engine rates!

(Total wild optimism speculation that of course just to stir the pot, but think about it, just how many bad engines per chip are they allowing for?)

On the other hand maybe the die is so massively huge that the number of bad engines per die will tend to average out to much the same for the majority of the dies...

-MarkM-

I expect they have lots of wiggle room. Lots. They upgraded the expected hashes per chip already but it seems likely even the current figures are based on worst case yields, for example.

Basically I suspect they are still underpromising and still have plenty - lots - of room still to overdeliver, maybe by surprising amounts.

-MarkM-

My first order was in batch 3 I believe but I got the email and paid my order for batches 3 5 and 6.

East coast, Atlantic time, maybe I got up a little earlier than some of the rest of North America.

-MarkM-

Thanks. I kind of suspected they weren't going to be building Saturns out of two marginal-cost-$2.00-chips and Jupiters from four such chips so thought I should bring that up.

(Though even so, once prices go marginal, difficulty seems likely to be skyrocketing maybe way beyond people's previous worst nightmares! )

-MarkM-

Just because various posts around these forums claim from time to time that actual marginal cost per chip of ASIC chips tends to be in the $0.50 to $2.00 per chip range...

...Are such claims thinking of much smaller-area chips than these? Or could large chips like these be where the extreme high end - the $2.00 per chip - comes in?

Or maybe would a better guestimate include an area to begin with, like "marginal cost for ASIC chips tends to be in the range of $0.50 to $2.00 per 25 square millimeters" or somesuch?

-MarkM-

Me too.

-MarkM-

No, and it would be kind of a waste of good hashpower.

It makes much more sense to merged mine it.

-MarkM-

Blockchains are insanely expensive to secure.

It is crazy to launch some new crapcoin and expect anything other than absymal failure, possibly with a quick dump on the way if you're lucky and you premine or instamine a lot of coins.

This stuff should be happening constantly. Get ready for it...

-MarkM-

Oh cool if Lolcust was involved in that then maybe Tenebrix also has the fix, heck maybe even Fairbrix has it.

-MarkM-

Most of the recent bitcoin clonse probably also are vulnerable to the timetravel exploit since they pretty much just cloned bitcoin. For good SHA256 coins look for the merged mined coins, most of them added the timetravel fix way back when they added merged mining, and some of them are very low difficulty still since so few people bother merged mining. As actually getting the most out of your SHA256 hashing power becomes more important (as more and more hardware starts finding electricity bills significant) it seems likely that more and more pools and solo miners will pick up more and more of the merged mined coins so picking them up now before everyone does could be a good strategy...

-MarkM-

It could maybe become so if enough scamclones manage to divert enough hashing power, maybe.

However I think it is also possible that litecoin, like bitcoin, imagined itself to have such a huge amount of hash power that it might have deliberately avoided fixing at least one known attack, known as the timetravel exploit, and seemingly no one has yet managed to timetravel either bitcoin or litecoin yet as far as I know so maybe litecoin really does have "enough" hashing.

But, if it is true that litecoin, like bitcoin, felt that fixing the timetravel exploit was not necessary due to their massively huge amount of hashing power, how many clonecoin authors will have even known about the timetravel exploit, let alone about bitcoin and litecoin not having bothered to fix it 9due to arrogantly assuming their own hash rates are too huge for anyone to make use of the exploit) and thus actually bothered to puthe timetravel fix into their clonecoin?

I am thinking few, if any. Thus that probably almost all these recent scamclones are basically begging to be timetravel-exploited...

I am not actually sure though that litecoin never did get around to including a fix for the timetravel exploit. (An excuse for not fixing it would be that it would be a hardfork change, thus maybe not worth doing if there seemed negligible chance anyone could muster enough hashing power to use the exploit.)

-MarkM-

It is pretty obvious that the vast majority of scrypt coins are vulnerable to attack, even with merged mining they might not be able to muster enough hashing power to secure themselves, without it they are pretty much begging to be attacked.

-MarkM-

That is part of what namecoin is for. For example your nyms in OpenTransactions can be put under an alias registered in namecoin. You don't have to put entries in namecoin into the default domain, you also have aliases and actually even arbitrary categories. Certainly aliases as well as domains.

-MarkM-

Just put it into some autosurf sites as your target page to send traffic to, and assign visits, or if you have no visits credit, leave a few browsers running generating you credit. Alexa is pretty much the main reason to even bother using autosurfs at all.

-MarkM-

Isn't the BFL stuff some of the highest hash per watt?

If so, then presumably as people with higher electricity costs stop making profit some of them might stop mining.

So it seems like to at least some extent this should be self-correcting, and it will end up coming down to who has the lowest cost of electricity?

-MarkM-

OP says forum user Teek handles Canada, but i don't see any group buy thread or similar thread started by such a user so not sure how to proceed...

-MarkM-

Groupcoin, 50 coins per block. Devcoin, 50000 coins per block.

I suspect some out of GeistGeld, Coiledcoin, Tenebrix and Fairbrix might also have constant coins per block.

-MarkM-

You can't, as even if you had them put files containing codes, they can still make massive numbers of subdomains essentially free and have their webserver show you the different code file you assigned for each to prove thay are different sites, because basically they really are different sites it is merely trivially easy to create thousands of them.

-MarkM-