I ordered 10 mobo's
here is the invoice 142.37 each shipped to me in NJ,USA
SO far 1 to:
spotswood
crazydane
some one else I forgot.
1 for me
so 6 available limit 2
USA shipping and a small mark up. say 150 + shipping
no funds due till I get them
ill take one. i want to move to a riserless build. |
|
|
|
im more curious about all those amplifiers and other assorted audio gear actually. what kind of sound setup is that stuff driving?
The audio gear drives the Home Theater in the next room. 2x 2000W Crown amps each drive a 18" sub built into the wall. The other Crown amp drive bass shakers in the theater seats and raised platform. The Adcom's drive the main, center and surround channels. heh, ill bet animals stay away from your house. whats the feedback destroyer for? just used as parametric eq? thought maybe you played around with musical instruments/sound reinforcement when i saw that. |
|
|
|
Note the busy.org rendering of my blog page is still intact as that site apparently doesn’t enforce Steemit’s whale-controlled censorship. Did anybody understand my blog? I have no feedback from any of you other than 18 upvotes before @chryspano censored it from Steemit’s viewers as explained in my prior post. Was the math of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus more comprehensible the way I explained it? I had edited what I had from my white paper to make it a bit more explanatory. actually the "Marbles in Jars Example" in your blog is an excellent way of explaining it for us laymen. once the math equations come in my eyes tend to glaze over but a visual representation such as marbles in jars comes right through. im finally understanding some of this stuff which prior to this was just so much noise in my head when reading it.. im a bit dense when it comes to this byzantine fault tolerant stuff so i appreciate the time spent to simplify it down to my level. thanks! |
|
|
|
im more curious about all those amplifiers and other assorted audio gear actually. what kind of sound setup is that stuff driving? |
|
|
|
Couple of pics of my latest rig:
just. wow. |
|
|
|
I can order 10 for :
1180 boards
174 shipping
68 paypal fee
41 Alibaba ins fee
1463 so 147 a board to my house in New Jersey ,USA
so I mark it up to 155 plus shipping at cost to USA say 175 a board.
Any one want it? I need to get 10 . No rush to pay
which board is it youre referring to? the one that needs a cpu/sodimm and has 8 slots? i may be interested in one. |
|
|
|
For AMD cards, set the following environment variables, especially if you have 2GB cards:
GPU_FORCE_64BIT_PTR 0
GPU_MAX_HEAP_SIZE 100
GPU_USE_SYNC_OBJECTS 1
GPU_MAX_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
GPU_SINGLE_ALLOC_PERCENT 100
Does this apply only to AMD cards, or Nvidia cards as well? amd only. |
|
|
|
|
im liking that 9 slot board with the cpu blade a lot. seems it would make a very clean build, one server psu, no risers, simple to build an enclosed case for. line the front of the case with delta fans and off it goes. then just keep building and stacking em.
|
|
|
|
I am back for about 20-40 minutes
what? you mean you LEAVE us on occasion? you know how rowdy we get with no supervision.. |
|
|
|
Claymore,
I respect you alot and everything. But you really need to start posting some kind of SHA checksum or some GPG to verify your downloads. Every single download of yours comes up as a virus now.
Most bitcoin and crypto related software usually includes some type of checksum so the download can be verifed. Aside from Bitcoin Core this is probably the most widely downloaded crypto related software.
Please start posting the checksum.
+1 to this. and another +1 |
|
|
|
|
mycelium is what i use. when my phone got destroyed i just put the seed words into my new phone and all was good.
edit: private keys stay on your phone.
|
|
|
|
btw, is it possible that I encrypt a normal usb as use it as a wallet? and make 2-3 backups of the same. will be cheaper compared to buying any hardware wallet..
no, as you would have to unencrypt the data on the usb drive to use it and at that point if your computer is compromised you are toast. with hardware wallets (at least on the trezor) you can us it on a computer thats infected beyond belief and still be safe as the private keys never leave the trezor. |
|
|
|
Agreed. I can't really see miners screwing themselves over either. There's too much money invested into mining hardware for them to just let Bitcoin die. They will do what it takes to keep their profits rolling in.
if at some point the potential payoff of attacking segwit outweighs the potential downsides, there would be people seriously considering it. would someone try? dunno. but segwit seems to add unnecessary risk to btc long term value. |
|
|
|
I strongly believe in a Hyper.mesh segwit cryptowinter. Even if the risk and probability was weaker than 20%, it is the kind of scenario that can destroy your wealth (or make you richer) and every sensible investor should have this doom scenario in mind and protect his wealth. I can't see legitimate answers preventing a 51% cartel. The incentive is obvious.
To go further in this doom scenario, I am very surprised and even scared that we can't still find basic information and means to distinguish BTC with segwit history or not.
We may suppose Miners and exchanges partnering are privately using a tool to show if a random BTC has a segwit history. When possible, they may keep the virgin "satoshi's BTC" with no segwit history and release mainly BTC with segwit to the market.
It could lead already to a high number of BTC in the market leaving already no chance for us to receive satoshi's BTCs by chance. The incentive to rollback to satosh'is BTC is even huger if 95% are already in miner's hands.
The incentive for them is also to have the best price for Satoshi's BTC, and If I were in Miners camp, I wouldn't wait too late to rollback in order not to hurt too much the Satoshi's BTC price. It needs to stay connected to the current bubble and not to upset the whole community. They can still market the necessary rollback as a structural segwit flaw they have just discovered and not a during planned and orchestrated evil attack ... They can sell like it is the community interest to roll back now, even without doing the whole attack ! And as sheeps we will follow...
Moreover, with a "segwit distinguer tool" they wouldn't really marginally earn that much by waiting.
i also believe there is a chance of the hyperme.sh segwit cryptowinter scenario. cant give odds though as i do not have the technical expertise. i have (very) old pre segwit coins in paper wallets. however i swept other old paper wallets to get bcc/bch and then traded for btc. i also sent some old btc directly to a new trezor segwit account. so some accounts in the new trezor have a mix of btc from an exchange, others are just a straight transfer from a legacy (ie pre segwit) accounts to a segwit account. sure be nice to have a tool that analyzed those accounts and sort them out. be nice to have "guaranteed clean" btc in some trezor accounts and segwit btc in others. |
|
|
|
|
@tytanick (author of smos) get his account hacked a few months ago. i thought he got his account back fairly quick, like a couple weeks, maybe less? not sure what he did to get it back so quickly, or at least quickly compared to others who have waited months, even after signing messages with account associated btc addys.
btw there is a thread just for posting btc addys then others quote your addy. i have posted a couple of mine in it.
|
|
|
|
If you post pictures of your mine, remember to strip all information from the photos first. some photos may have location data imbedded (phone pic with GPS), etc. Its not being paranoid, some people in the crypto world are try-hard criminals. Although the risk of such things happening are very very very low.
That's what one of my co-investor said and not taking pictures of the farm for Internet distribution. There is a feature in Android to disable "Location Tags" (don't know about IOS) which I use when sharing pix here. there are tools that will strip exif data from pictures in bulk, or you can do it in windows one at a time via the properties option. also, as you mention most android phones have an option to not include that data. |
|
|
|
I chatted with a securities lawyer indirectly through another person, i.e. I do not know who the attorney is and I do not want to know (unless I need to hire such an attorney formally), but he did read my prior post. This was a very informal discussion and not to be construed as legal advice. Nothing I am writing below can be construed to have been written by any attorney. These are my own thoughts. The attorney actually did not state any of the following. These are my own conclusions.
What I realized is now obvious in hindsight, although what I say below was not articulated by the attorney. This is my own conclusion that spawned from the ideas that were raised in the brief informal brainstorming discussion. Realize I am analysing from the conservative perspective on what is reasonably safe to presume, and not wanting to lawyer up and take a huge risk of losing in some regulators’ court in the many jurisdictions around the world (i.e. multifarious jurisdictional jeopardy).
Airdrop re-issuance does not remove the fact that if was a security before, it remains a security after, because the distribution has not changed. There needs to be a stronger disconnection between the prior token which is presumed to be a security (e.g. was ICO issued) and the new airdropped (i.e. reissued) one, otherwise the economic reality has not changed: which is that token and all its derivatives are subject to the resale restrictions on the issued security.
Contrast this with a fork that does not airdrop the same distribution, i.e. not an airdropped xerox copy of a preexisting token’s distribution.
Thus if EOS is a security, the airdropped eEOS would be also. The reissuer of eEOS may or may not be culpable as a common enterprise under the Howey test depending on the circumstances. I was arguing coherently about the issuer perhaps not being culpable, but I was not arguing correctly about the token converting from security to a non-security due to the airdrop.
The mistake in my logic was that just because the issuer might not be culpable for reissuing (i.e. no investment contract formed with the original investors), that does not change the economic reality that the new distribution is the same as the prior one.
Actually the attorney did not actually state it that way, but I realized it after carrying forward his concerns into a more coherent understanding of the orthogonal facets of the culpability of the reissuer of the airdrop vs. the security-status of the airdropped token.
Yeah I can make (somewhat legally dubious but maybe successful) arguments that the reissuer is not culpable for issuing a new security (i.e. the lack horizontal commonality between ICO investors and reissuer), but this seems to have no bearing on removal of the former security status if the distribution remains a xerox copy.
IOW, if it looks and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Xerox copying the distribution of security, is still the same security (regardless of the culpability of the issuer of the airdrop).
The new issuance is also a dividend. But unlike chocolate candy gifts given as dividends to shareholders or token holders, the airdropped token has same tradeable and fungible qualities of the ICO issued token, thus it still quacks the same and has the same familial structure (aka distribution). The economic reality has not changed.
That is to say that randomly dropping freeware like-kinded things to the investors of the security, doesn’t change the nature of the thing, even though the entity doing the dropping (giving) is not necessarily (depending on the circumstances) culpable for reissuing a security.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.
using an airdrop to avoid the securities problem seems to be just trying to use a loophole to get around the problem. i would think such a loophole would be closed fast. if there is a one to one correlation between the tokens it will be treated the same as the original imo. even if it seems to pass the hewey test initially i would worry that such a token will wind up being treated as a security down the line, jeopardizing any project associated with it. |
|
|
|
well on a fun level it just is not here for me.
these alterations in BTC vs BCC/BCH and next fork can no longer be taken lightly.
There is a shit ton of money involved well over 100 billion usd in coins now closer to 160 billion.
I think I will freeze contest and just open a discussion thread. in speculation as to the consequences of the current moves being made.
yeah if its not fun then its time to stop. too much hash controlled by a single entity, hash goes where they want. we would not be trying to predict a trend, we would be trying to predict one entities actions. |
|
|
|
|
claymores 10.2 xmr windows miner can want as much swap space as the total ram of the cards with some options enabled i believe, so thats over 50 gigs swap for some rigs with lots of cards. so 120 gig ssds would do it, but a 60 would be right on the edge.
i use a 256 gig m2 ssd in my rig as thats what i had lying around, but 120 is my minimum. ssd for fast boots/updates etc. who wants to wait around on a rig to reboot for a miner/driver/os update?
4 gb will (should) work but for win7/10 i want 8, especially with 4 or more cards. seems to help stability as ive seen posts where some people with 4 gb ram had problems said they were fixed when they went to 8. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Estimated Next Difficulty: 1,019,593,143,047 (-7.60%)
whats been the biggest drop in hashrate during this contest? curious as to whether we are seeing anything near record drops in hash rate change. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
