Is there anything 'magic' about the ribbon cable between boards?

IOWs, could I just take an old IDE or floppy ribbon cable, chop off the extra wires/connections, and use that?

Merely the substantial entanglement with Bitcoinica is sufficient to seriously taint Intersango.

I suggest you do a lot of homework before making that decision.

Yes.

Nothing has changed significantly between today and a week or two ago.

Yeah, something is broke.

I pointed a miner at it for just short of half an hour. My side shows 359 shares accepted. Web site shows zero shares in current round and zero for last 15 minutes.

I'm going back to where I came from. (Just decided today to try EclipseMC for a while. Bad timing I guess.)

Of course, the major consideration / wild-card here is if BFL delivers on their promises and starts shipping ASICs, in volume, in November. If so, none of the current FPGA based products will ever break even on their up front capital expense if buying now.

An interesting 'bet'.  

Personally, I'm hoping BFL fails. (Such a sad attitude.) Just because of what I consider their unethical practices to date have been.

--

Oh, full disclosure, I own one BFL single. Which is operating at 800 MH/s.

And have a pre-order in for two CM's with an estimated delivery date in September. It is really on the razor's edge whether it will be to my advantage/profit/break-even to pay for those two or not.

That seems very 'clean/simple' to me. One USB port per hash producer.

Especially if the auto-clocking / optimizing will work per FPGA. Assurance that whatever the device can do, it will do the best it can.

I went ahead and switched over to another pool a couple of hours ago.

Not a single getwork request failure since. Much more in line with what I usually see.

ABCPool has a significant problem with feeding work out fast enough.

Well, that's great for y'all. But I'm seeing hundreds of getwork request failures today whereas I usually see a handful per day at other pools. And my average/effective hashrate as reported by cgminer is gradually falling.

"You may want to return your miners to ABCPool."

Perhaps. As for me, as soon as I hit the 0.2 BTC point I'll be pointing my MH/s to a pool which can handle the load.

I'm slightly confused by this statement:
"Each investor who privately buys 5,000 or more shares will get extra 10% ones, plus a position on the board of Bitfountain."

Is this position earned by 'buying' 5,000 shares or by 'holding' 5,000 shares?

E.g., the scenario of someone who buys 5,000 privately then sells them on GLBSE for whatever markup can be had. Then after the IPO is finished he has 500 shares (the "extra 10%") effectively free or probably at an initial profit.

In that case, someone with a 500 share stake who has already taken his intended profits has a board position? That person no longer has much of a vested interest in ensuring a full-faith audit. If anything, the motivation could be to promulgate blue-sky good news to create a bubble to sell his last 500 shares into.

I reckon so. But I do apologize.

People who don't read threads before posting do tend to drive me nuts. 

It usually is.

However, are they actually accepting payments in any form, yet?

Or do you think this is all still in a 'foundation laying' stage and the 'amazing opportunity to invest' is still to come?

"Since the fundraising thread was already made"

Hmmm. Ok, I need to go look for that.
Link for convenience, please?

You're welcome. Comments were offered in good will.

I was merely mistaken about TXN fees being included.

Please make a big deal of it when you, eventually, make the announcement that "As of <date or block#> TXN fees will be included in Ozcoin payouts."

Thank you.

I guess this never happened then:
"4: Reintroducing TXN fees with block payouts"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=14085.msg682703;topicseen#msg682703

This is going to become crucial as we shift from mining to maintenance. First big step coming up in:

Countdown To 25 BTC Per Block Reward
121 Days 16  Hours

If there is no reward given for MH/s used to process transactions, there will be no reason to help process transactions.

Bye, bye Bitcoin.

--

This would also be a way for you to differentiate your for-fee pool from the other ones.

In my experience, merged mining adds about 0.3% to 0.5%.

Also worth noting, however, is that transaction fees don't get passed along to PPS. That's worth about another 0.35% currently. Increasing to 0.7% after the first week in December (reward halving point).

What is the ambient temperature where you have these running, please, somenick?

And I agree with you.

The next shoe to drop in this BFL SC/ASIC drama is when "the promised specs change" and what the performance and price point will be then.

As well as the actual lead time to delivery after 100% money paid at time of order.

<lol>

And I find going back and reading that thread, in light of history and contemporary threads on the 'new' product, to be hilarious.

Possibly. IMO they do not have a reputation which can be cited in their favor.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48863.0

Of course, the BFL web pages themselves have now been deleted / scrubbed. But it is clear from the context of that thread that the pre-release price point was initially quoted as $500.

--

BTW, thank you for digging up the quote you remembered.

Uh, my recollection is that they *raised* the price from $500 to $600 once they actually had a product to ship.

Can you quote something to support your statement about a price reduction, please?

Being able to reflash to lower speed is crucial for these.

As a data point, with my BFL unit, in an 80f ambient temperature, it will run with zero throttling at 800mh/s. Not at 808.

At 78f ambient it will run the 808mh/s firmware but not the 816.

(Case off and bottom 'integrated heat-sink' fan replaced with one the same size as the top fan. I also remounted the main heat sink using Arctic Silver 5.)

Yes, these things *are* that sensitive to ambient temps.

NOTES: It takes about a half hour of hashing for the device to drift up to full temp from a restart. And, for me, the Easy-Miner Autotune function did not select the optimal firmware / hash-rate.


I've seen no significant difference in accepted share performance with mpbm versus cgminer. (As reported by the pool over multiple day runs for each.)