They could however they will only support Bitcoin in the "late game".  They have a high margin business that has high barriers to entry.  $50 to send $500 on tens of billions of USD a year.  10%+ what an awesome racket.  Bitcoin can only hurt those margins.  Now if Bitcoin continues to grow at some point in the future they will face a decision adapt or be bypassed but we are talking adoption 100x higher than now at a minimum. 

Nothing prevents them from doing that and you are right they have the infrastructure in place however just like PayPal and other "vested" enterprises they aren't going to do anything to rock the boat.  Those companies margins are based on the fact that it will cost a competitor tens of millions if not a hundred million to build out a comparable network.  To make money all they got to do is not mess that up.

True, true.  Was thinking 120V.

Platinum doesn't mean 92% efficiency "in worst case".  More like 89% to 92% depending on load on 120V.  On edit:  240V is generally 2% to 3% higher efficiency which is what btc_uzr was referring to. 

Still a very good PSU.  

http://www.plugloadsolutions.com/psu_reports/CORSAIR_75-001305_860W_ECOS%203323_Report.pdf

One thing to watch out for is that KNC for some reason decided to use 4 PCIe connectors instead of EPS12V connector + 3 PCIe connectors.  On the 860 Corsair 2 of the PCIe connectors are on the same PSU connector (i.e. single set of wires with 1 PSU connector on one end and 2x PCIe connector on other end).  Without testing it there is no way to know for sure what the overcurrent limit is for that connector (good PSU limit both overall current and current per wire).  The PCIe standard only mandates that two 8 pin connector supply 300W (1.25@ @ 12VDC).  Now the PSU probably can supply a lot more than that but just by looking at it there is no way to know for sure.  Most reviews only show total load not max load per connector and certainly not at amperages beyond what a PC would use anyways.  

To clarify imagine a Jupiter uses 790W that works out to 16.4A per connector however with this PSU two connectors are on the same set of wires meaning 32.9A.  If the PSU has the overcurrent set to say 40A per connector (connector on PSU) then it would work fine.  However lets say it is only 30A.  Despite the PSU having enough total power its current protection system would cause it to trip because too much if being pulled from one wire.   This could have been avoided if KNC had used EPS12V connector plus PCIE connectors instead.

My guess is cost. Still many people might be surprised to know that Corsair doesn't manufacture any power supplies, and neither do Coolermaster, OCZ, PC Power & Cooling (after 2009), Thermaltake, Silverstone, EVGA, Rosewill, NZTX, XFX, etc.  There are only a half dozen companies which produce (good) ATX power supplies in the world.  It is sometimes funny to have two people arguing about which is the better PSU when both are the exact same power board made by the same company and the only thing that is different is the stickers and color of the cables.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/power-supply-oem-manufacturer,2913.html

Most of the high end PSU are made by companies that most people have never heard of like Channel Well, FSP, Sirtec, HEC, Super Flower, etc. Two companies which actually make their own power supplies are Seasonic and Enermax (most newer models).  SeaSonic sells units under their own brand and they also make units for other brands.  One thing to watch out is the other brands often will change manufacturers even within a same "model" so without seeing the power supply label and looking up the UL code you really have no idea who made the PSU.  That is one reason I have always recommended SeaSonic.  Every SeasSonic is made by SeaSonic and nobody else.

Produce hardware that can mine many magnitudes more efficiently than what the botnet has access to.

For the record based on the chart I seriously doubt it is a botnet in the general sense (general purpose trojan and rookit).  The day to day changes in hashing power are too consistent.  A botnet will consist of tens of thousands of nodes and the % that is online is constantly changing.  Some nodes are killed permently and the botnet is constantly recruiting new zombie nodes.  The graph looks nothing like one would expect for a botnet.

Now maybe someone misuing corporate resources?  Maybe.

Well we do have to "deal with SHA-2" as a change to a different hashing algorithm would be a hard fork and that isn't going to happen.

I don't trust the NSA.  I trust the fact that:
a) the algorithm is open
b) the constants are sequential prime cuberoots rather than "random"
c) the entire world community hasn't found a flaw.

Compare that to the EC RNG which was recommended by the NSA.  A single cryptographer found the flaw in the span of a few months despite it being rather than rare algorithm with no widespread usage.   However the entire world community can't find a backdoor/flaw in an one of the most widely used hashing algorithms in the world?

I would say it seems unlikely at this point however you can never prove a flaw (intentional or otherwise) doesn't exist.

While I don't believe NSA has compromised the secp256k1 curve it would be a good idea for Bitcoin to support different address "types".  Today Bitcoin only supports a single type of address construction (excluding P2SH) but this isn't a requirement.   It would be possible to extend the protocol to support multiple methods of address generation.  If ECDSA, RIPEMD-160 or SHA-256 are partially broken to avoid a loss of confidence (and eventually loss of fund security) it will eventually be necessary to extend the Bitcoin protocol to support a new address types.  Doing this now (before mandatory due to compromise of current primitives) would lay the foundation for a more extensible/adaptable protocol.  

Bitcoin uses both digital signatures (ECDSA) and hashing functions (RIPEMD-160, SHA-256) in transactions/addresses.  The protocol could be extended to support a second "type" of address using DSA, RSA, or ElGamal for key generation and a different hashing algorithm (RIPEMD without SHA, SHA-3, WHIRLPOOL) to derive the address from the public key. An even better solution would be one which allows mixing and matching keys and checksumed hashes (addresses).  Alternative curves for ECDSA could also be explored.  

The main disadvantage of using non-ECC based signature systems is that they generally have larger key and signature sizes for an equivalent 128 bit security.

Example 2 input, 2 output transaction size

This assumes the use of explicit key (PubKey is included with signature).  I am unsure if Public Key Recovery is possible with DSA or RSA (it is for ECC but unused by Bitcoin protocol).  If possible then using implicit public keys would provide a significant reduction in transaction size (45% to 75%) as it would allow the elimination of the PubKey (384 bytes) in each input.

How is it a waste of time and energy to scam money off of "investors"?  Your only mistaken is in thinking the OP is genuine.

There is no such thing as the "primary address".  Transactions consts of one or more inputs and one or more output.  You should not assume the sender controls any of the inputs as they won't in a shared wallet (exchange account, eWallet, etc).  However if you feel the need to ignore this warning among the inputs none of them are more or less primary than any of the others.

The case is nowhere near 19" wide.  They could have made the case 19" so it actually could be rackmounted and would have had enough space to mount a (user supplied) ATX PSU inside AND put the modules in a line.

Well no.  If you are going to provide a correction please at least get the terms correct.  ECDSA is not encryption.  The Bitcoin protocol does not use encryption in any form.  Some clients/wallets encrypt private keys for saf(er) storage but to date all of those have used symmetric encryption (i.e. QT client uses AES-256).

Because the NSA is so smart that despite the algorithm being open and public nobody else on the planet has found the backdoor despite almost two decades of crypto-analysis? Somehow plenty of other less common weak, flawed, and backdoored algorithms get broken in a matter of months or years but SHA-2 is just beyond the smarts of the entire planet (except the NSA).  What makes this even more dubious is that the NSA would be playing with fire.  SHA-2 is the only hashing algorithm in "Suite B" and its use is MANDATED by CNSS for use in classified systems including those with national security implications.


https://www.cnss.gov/Assets/pdf/CNSSP_No%2015_minorUpdate1_Oct12012.pdf


The SIPERNet and JWICS uses SHA-2 (and only SHA-2) to ensure packet security (prevent MITM attacks).  Think the internet but instead of lolcats it has information that (and I quote) "the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security [of the United States]".

Seems likely the US government would mandate the use of an algorithm they know is weak to protect some of the most important (and damaging) secrets of the US government.   I mean there is no possible way that ANYONE ELSE on the planet given an infinite amount of time, resources, and motivation couldn't find the backdoor and then use it to compromise the SIPERNet (and countless other military and intelligence systems) that might result in "exceptionally grave damage to the national security".

Of course not.  The NSA has god like powers over math and a monopoly on access to all the smart people on the planet (including future generations until the end of time).

For those who want to remove their tinfoil hats and consider things it is probable the NSA will do (or already has done):
* Use secret warrants to force ISP to provide access to raw communications.
* Install backdoors into operating systems, programs, and libraries.
* Actively infect computer systems and network to compromise data before it is encrypted.
* Engage in MITM type attacks that result in parties believing they are communicating in a secure manner but are both communicating with an NSA relay.
* Use brute force to break weak cryptography (80 bit strength or less) as well as keys derived from weak passwords.
* Break the low level requirements for strong cryptographic systems like encouraging usage of faulty or low entropy RNGs.

If you think of cryptography as a locked door, then strong cryptographic systems are more like a massive vault door.  Brute force isn't an option but it doesn't mean you can't (go through the wall, open the vault from the inside, record the code used to unlock the door, sneak in when someone opens it, make the entire vault and owner "disappear", etc.

Um that would assume each user only buy $1 worth of Ripple?  How about sell $100 to 100,000 users?  or $1,000 to 10,000 users? or $10,000 to 1,000 suckers?

Profitable for whom?  OpenCoin still owns 90%+ of all the coins created.   Even with modest success they stand to make tens of millions of dollars.

I don't have to use MtGox to use Bitcoin.  I have to use the proprietary closed source ripple network to use Ripple.
See the difference?

No they don't.  The ripple server (rippled) is released as binary only.  Nobody has a copy of the source code except OpenCoin, Inc.   Even if someone did it would be no different than stealing source code from Microsoft.  It continues to remain the property of the owner and that owner could seek legal action against those who fraudulently use, modify, or distribute it.  If OpenCoin went bankrupt before releasing the source code under an open source license the assets of OpenCoin could be bought by another company say PayPal for the sole purpose of killing the project.

Which the server IS otherwise it would include a copy of the source code and a open license.

You do understand that in contract law there is the concept of default provisions.  Unless otherwise licensed the code and any resulting binaries are the property of OpenCoin, Inc.   

Likewise lets say Microsoft's servers got hacked and someone released a complete copy of the windows source code.  It wouldn't be open source.  The source code would still belong to Microsoft, they would have the legal authority to go after those who distribute and modify it.  Now people could (and likely would) make unauthorized copies but unless the source code is licensed using an open license it remains the property of the owner.  The source code remains the property of OpenCoin, the haven't licensed it.  The server is a closed source, and proprietary.

With no bugfixes, improvements, enhancements ever?  No the network wouldn't insta-die but imagine Satoshi had kept Bitcoin closed source and then disapeared.  Do you think Bitcoin would have flourished?