Given the amount of time you spend on this topic, you must not have much of a life.

You are just the kind of redundant noise which lowers the value of Bitcoin Talk.

I would prefer to be able to follow projects and their news here, but people like yourself have driven projects to their own forums. You represent a gross waste of theirs and my time, but then, that is why there is an ignore function.

Edit: First time I ever used ignore...too bad it still shows his presence.

I just got an invoice too...

Anyone else get the "invoice" email with the revised dates? Mine was stated at 4/29/2013 when in fact I was promised miners within 3-4 weeks from the original date, in the end I got my miners in early April BUT they don't work and have no confirmation or update on whether I am getting replacements or not. I was offered 2 replacement miners on the 10th, I accepted but have gotten no follow up.


On the hardware side....damn I had not even considered the heatsink as a source of the shorts.....Just an oversight since its such an obvious and needed piece of hardware....alternately, couldn't a small copper plate be inserted in between each chip? Sort of how CPU heatsinks function. Put a copper plate/shim in between the chips and the heatsink it would actually eliminate that particular problem. Both sides greased up to keep it held in somehow. maybe as a getto solution crazy glue the corners to keep it fixed and grease up both sides of the shim to insure contact with both. The copper thermal transfer would work in a pinch and would be a nice workaround to the shorting issues that MIGHT be caused by the heatsink...

Also sorry to hear your card died. This was the same issue I observed in almost every instance (one card was DOA and never worked). Most of the others did the same thing within minutes. The ones I have running now I figure are on borrowed time. The only working miner I have is an Antminer s2. Despite the shipping issues It works well. All parts are solid. AND well built. For ALOT less than the AMT miners were. The irony is the Antminer runs at 1.2 some of the time (usually 1056).

You create a M-of-N (e.g. 2 of 3) multisig transaction that is actually a counterparty transaction to, say, transfer an asset from one address to another. The multisig inputs specify the 2-of-3 requirements, and the multisig outputs specify (i.e. embed) the counterparty issuance data. The inputs would just have the minimum multisig BTC amounts, with a normal fee going to the miners (i.e. overage between the inputs and outputs). As soon as the required parties sign the inputs, they are then 'spent' (thus, making the transaction active, and counterpartyd "seeing" it and adding it into its ledger)...before that event, the transaction is not yet recorded as an accomplished action on the counterparty ledger itself, but is in more of a pending state.

(Adam can correct me if I'm off on any of this, as it's more his area.)

I was talking about adding support for multisig inputs (which right now is not supported). The data is encoded via multisig outputs.

I agree it would be a great feature to support. This will most likely require multisig inputs to properly implement, so that funds are held in 2-of-3 P2SH addresses, where the client has 2 keys -- one being a backup key only sent when the account is initially made -- and the server has 1. That is, unless someone has another way to properly do it (in a non client-side-only "fake" way that could just be bypassed through regenerating the BIP32 wallet elsewhere)..

We have a plan to add multisig inputs to Counterparty at some point in the future (Adam would be able to comment on the exact timeframe here.)

Friction,

I'm not sure what you were planning in regards to the special METAcoin, but I think it would be best if the Foundation did not issue its own coin:  We allow free markets [Laissez faire] to
decide which user defined coin will turn out to be the "special metacoin".

I think from a legal standpoint this is also the best option, for obvious reasons.

Distributed exchange isn't a part of colored coin protocol, but it is possible to build a distributed exchange on top of colored coins protocol.

Don't bet on it. At the clock frequencies the ASIC run at those spikes/dips can cause all kinds of havoc if not decoupled at the chip. Methinks that thinking is what got BM.ch into trouble in the first place. Power distribution at high switching speed loads is a very localized thing.

Not sure how well the reference boards work but if they do, then yes, just get a bunch and string'em up. Is what the Ant's do. Looking at their boards each is made from 4 identical sectors. Each sector even has it's own Vcore supply.

I assume that BM.ch just wanted a 'clean' design for the 8-chip boards. And blew it royaly.

yes we are. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=569769.msg6754740#msg6754740
they are physically identical packages aside from the numbers on them. Someone screwed up badly there with what reel got loaded into the stuffing machine.

We will have to hear back on whatever isawhim's idea is with the not-responding board. It does seem that some of the local decoupling caps are missing/erroneously changed with resistors.

That is what I don't know. I know the cards are daisy chained on the backplane. But the chips on the card is what I am not sure of. Without any further info or documentation on the design we have no idea. I will need to take a closer look as I actually haven't. I probably will later after I get some time to sit down for a while and work on it.

Getting back to technical.....so is the issue with the cards blowing a hardware problem then? The traces shorting or some other component causing problems? I would presume a single chip blowing would still allow the rest of the card to function unless there was some kind of daisy chain that cuts the electrical flow.

Looks like a couple of my comments got deleted. I was pretty pissed that day over the lack of replies and had a moment. Oh well. I get inconsistent responses anyway after trying to work with them. As an FYI AMT put an offer out to get me two new miners two replace the two fried ones I have. I have not seen or heard anything since that offer. I accepted it even. I don't have any word on status of this. But I have given up trying to communicate as I, like everyone else is getting nowhere.

Since they are deleting days old posts they might want to be aware that the mirror hosts these posts as well and those cannot be removed. Plus I have a record of the removed posts in my PM box so I can always repost them. I likely wont though as its not worth it and I was pissed off when I wrote those (not that it makes it any less wrong what I wrote). Anyway in spite of that I am still working to solve what could be a software problem with these miners not just for me but for others. It might benefit AMT (if they are still in business after the lawsuit) as well the work we are all doing here, but ultimately we are doing it for the people who got screwed with faulty hardware. Those of us all working to get the miners working at least are working together to help each other out. We are not likely to see any compensation from AMT for that effort anyway.

I still maintain they were legit but screwed up royally, but just had alot of bad situations and fucked up royally on the communication. But I figure its just shitty planning that got them here and allot of false assumptions and not keeping on top of regulations and things like that. I don't totally think they were looking to screw people over but the shitty planning that led them to this mess just got worse and worse and was unmanageable. I said from the start if they were able to just properly communicate and set proper expectations none of this would even be an issue. Sure the lawsuit would have happened likely anyway as they were dragging things out. But the first problem was lying (or misleading us) about expectations and dates. The truth would have been just fine. Hey guys we have problems with IMET, we also have problems with bitmine we are sorting out....compensation coming....that would have helped to some extent. But if the goal was to not give compensation this is why they are where they are at now.

Anyway thought I would comment on my deleted posts.

New build:

Linux 64-bit: http://killerstorm.xen.prgmr.com/alex/chromawallet-linux-x86_64-0.0.6.tbz

 * There is a history tab now.
 * It scans for received payments automatically in a background thread, there is no need to click 'Update', and it starts faster.
 * We use helloblock.io instead of blockchain.info because there were problems with blockchain.info. Also, helloblock.io works with testnet
 * Problem with invalid balances and things like that were solved. (Well, hopefully.) People who used older versions needs to run cw-cli full_rescan first
 * For now it simply trusts data it receives from helloblock.io. We already have 99% of SPV implementation, it will be present in the next version.
 * p2ptrade got several improvements, but might still be finnicky

Note: People who used older versions needs to run cw-cli full_rescan first.

Known issues: Old send and trade transactions will be displayed as 'unknown' in the history. We will address this later.

Some of problems which were reported by LOL were not fixed, particularly, it's possible to confuse it with 1-satoshi transaction, but it won't be in a permanently-stuck mode.

Can someone compare Coinprism's implementation of colored coins through Open Access with Counterparty? Is there an advantage to using a proprietary currency, like XCP?

Also, what is Coinprism's revenue model? The wallet is free, so how are they making money?