Only the fact that they list an A record followed by a MX record that's exactly the same hostname as the A on their SPF says everything. The +all at the end is just the icing on the cake lol
It's possible for both values to be different, and happens often with large installations. Your statement would only be true if they used IP addresses. Given that they are using a hostname using the same value on both is redundant, even if the hostname resolves to 10 IP addresses. I didn't word it correctly, sorry about that. I fixed my statement on the above quote. No, I could have an A for mail.example.com pointing to 192.168.1.1 and an MX for mail.example.com pointing to not-mail.example.com, and not-mail.example.com could be on a different IP address (192.168.1.2). Yes, in this case it may not make sense, since they are the same, but it allows for the MX for mail.regall.net to be on a different host and still send mail. I won't get into why this is a bad idea though, too much ot. |
|
|
|
Well that's fucked up, can't they take a "general" design and adapt it to their processes as part of the mask fee?
Yes and no. A synthesizable design, aka soft core can be ported relatively easy between different processes. You can think of it as the source code of the chip which has to be compiled for a process. But thats not the problem; what we call a process, consists of pre-made transistor designs and a whole set of design rules. Thats different for every process, and almost every fab. So you once you "compile" your design and generate a mask, its no longer portable and you will still need a specific mask for every process. Since the cost of that mask is what is preventing ASICs from being available today, I dont really see what problem open sourcing a design would solve. It might be neat project for a hardware engineer, but who's going to pay the mask? And why wouldnt he use a less portable, but better optimized design? Well, I think the problem that was wanting to be solved was for everything to be open and accessible, but now that I understand the NDAs are to protect the fabs, and not so much for the people funding the devices, I see now that this may be unachievable. Too bad there are no current-generation "open source" foundries. |
|
|
|
you must have sold it to the village idiot then.. me caring or not is irrelevant its your post.. as I said call me conspiratorial.. but being a potenetial buyer I dont think you ever had one.. and I dont think you ever had any intention of selling one.. I think you just wanted attention.. Ill be your friend. I like friends..  Uh, he's well trusted and known on IRC, and has a high WOT rating. He doesn't appear particularly attention-starved. I, on the other hand, am starving for attention. Please respond to my comment now! You are a respected and well-known security expert, and are very attractive and fetching. You're the whole package! You've seen his package?  |
|
|
|
First, the design you make for a foundry cannot just simply be sent to another foundry. Every design is very foundry specific. In the fabless world everything is operated under NDAs. You cannot simply broadcast you design unless the foundry has checked that you didn't disclose any of the foundries classified information. You cannot even start to design without signing a NDA, because you cannot get the basic information to start with.
Well that's fucked up, can't they take a "general" design and adapt it to their processes as part of the mask fee? |
|
|
|
Sucks nobody has submitted yet, I played around in Illustrator to get this:  Maybe someone who actually knows something about typestyles and stuff could fix it. |
|
|
|
Does the Single need a powered USB hub? If not, is there a limit of the number of unpowered devices that can be hooked up to a single USB port on the motherboard?
No, it has an external power brick. But a powered hub often tends to be higher quality anyway, and you might not be able to get an unpowered version with a large number of ports. The limit is 100 BFL Singles per system. The USB limit is 128, including the hubs themselves. |
|
|
|
|
You totally need to have EMC on there.
|
|
|
|
Can't understand the Mini Box was announced April 07, 2012 and somebody could order it in January?
They ordered the BFL RIG at 50GH/s at 30K USD. When they announced the mini-rig they split a full rig into two mini-rigs. markedBut this is not the way to do business. They got the30 K and after 4 months they split a full rig into two mini-rigs and delayed the delivery. So what if I order a Mini Rig now and after 4 months they split it in 2 Nano Rigs and so on. Its just insane! Please tell me that I'm wrong. markedIs marked talking to himself? |
|
|
|
Hey, I can't help it if you can't keep on topic, sorry.  |
|
|
|
Only the fact that they list an A record followed by a MX record that resolves to the same IP as the A on their SPF says everything. The +all at the end is just the icing on the cake lol
It's possible for both values to be different, and happens often with large installations. |
|
|
|
Facebook thing and 30 day wait won't really prevent fraud. Afterall most crimebots record every keystroke and login so the potential fraudster would already have all Dwolla/FB/everything and can just buy the SSN# from a lookup service. Bitinstant should crowdsource trusted people to do cash in hand trades in every city and pay an affiliate fee or something  No more banks or dwolla middlemen. Sort of a giant hawalla network I would happily participate in such a thing. I wonder how you'd go about vetting so many people though... Thats a good idea actually..... Why couldn't something like this be integrated into StartSSL's WoT? If you screw up big time, all your certificates get revoked. |
|
|
|
Can people please give me quotes for these jobs:
The whole system of a mining pool, pps and prop.
A faucet site like coinad with a good advertising system.
I'm looking to buy these, but don't even know what language they would be in :3
Any quotes?
Over 9000 BTC. No seriously, unless you know how to build these yourself, you aren't the right person to be running them. This kind of stuff breaks in many interesting ways, and does so often, and you need to know how to fix it. |
|
|
|
because expandable memory is an important selling point.  Because it is. Today's Newegg Shellshocker is a pair of 8GB SODIMMs, which I wouldn't be able to use in just any old laptop. Just sayin'. but 16 GB of ram? I never run out of ram with 4 GB (paging file disabled). Sorry if you can't use your system to its full capabilities. Virtual machines and RAMdisks take up lots of space in memory. |
|
|
|
Where are these shipping from (I assume US?) Just wondering about the customs situation - I could do you a good offer for all three but I'd likely as not get hammered for customs charges as a result No worries I can do $50 as custom values for "broken computer parts" I usually do that So dishonest customs paperwork, and selling for only PayPal on the bitcoin forum? http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1684647 |
|
|
|
because expandable memory is an important selling point. Because it is. Today's Newegg Shellshocker is a pair of 8GB SODIMMs, which I wouldn't be able to use in just any old laptop. Just sayin'. |
|
|
|
The only way that could possibly work is if the "hostile" connection could generate blocks of the current difficulty and feed them to the clients.
Yes, that's the exact situation he was talking about in our other conversation. It would become pretty damn obvious what was going on when the client didn't get their current block in the average time of 10 minutes each, but instead was getting them hours or days apart because the hostile connection owner had to generate them himself. After about a week of slow blocks, yes, you would definitely check an external source, but how do you know that the external source isn't being hijacked? dun dun dun... I think you are putting too much stock in an "zomg every node is controlled by a single attacker" situation. It is implausible at best. |
|
|
|
BAMT is worthless shit if it isn't a 64 bit Debian build already. You can't even get more than 4 cards working in 32 bit Linux, sometimes only 3.
I *think* (not sure though) that the current BAMT is 64-bit, but I had been trying with the previous version which wasn't. |
|
|
|
How does the client invalidate the bad blocks unless it has a source of valid blocks? The whole point here is that this is the only way to get the blockchain to some clients. All clients have the starting source ... the genesis block. The only way to validate block #1 is to ensure it meets block requirements and has the block hash from block #0. As such all full-clients must include the genesis block. From there every node can validate every tx from block #1 all the way to current block. As indicated above clients may also include hardcoded checkpoints. Nodes are NOT secure. They are inherently insecure. You have no idea how dishonest your fellow "peer" connections are. Hell they could all be the same attacker. As a result Bitcoin DISTRUSTS all blocks received from the network until validated and added to the chain tracing all the way back to the genesis block. A broadcast system for blocks wouldn't be any different. Right, but that doesn't help at all with new blocks, which is where any attack would play out . New block is simply the tail of the block chain. Right now a peer node just gave you a block how do you make sure it is valid? Check blockexplorer and blockchain.info from systems on multiple ISPs. Why? If you have an existing, valid blockchain, and you want to check all additional blocks that are sent to you, what is wrong with how it is done now? Do you even know how it is done now? I doubt it. Why the hostility? I do know how it is done. I'm just remembering a previous conversation with DeathAndTaxes where he brought up the case of having all your connections controlled by an attacker. But thanks for butting in your your rudeness. The only way that could possibly work is if the "hostile" connection could generate blocks of the current difficulty and feed them to the clients. We are assuming that you already have a valid, trusted copy of the blockchain, remember? And even if you re-download it from scratch, you would have to be running a hacked version with no built-in checkpoints or genesis block. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
