Why would you ever look to personal trading success as an indicator of market performance?  It's irrelevant.

Because many of our traits and characteristics precluded the evolutionary need for those traits and characteristics, and that's aside from the fact that there is no current definition of "species" that is Universally applicable to, and consistent with, all humans.

I can't speak for others, but the stats I posted in my review were accumulated while leasing my rig out because of the Paycoin frenzy.  Any significant drop in hashrate was likely the result of renters switching pools or accidentally entering invalid pool mining credentials. 

I didn't know that "life," "the Universe," and "everything" constitute questions.

If anything, I think one (1) would be closer to the answer since one (1) is analogous to a principle of identity.  Life, the Universe, and everything multiplied by one remain uniquely themselves, and yet identity is something fundamental which they all share.  One unites us, and thereby allows for relational differences.

Number philosophy is fun

I find it hard to believe that the "spikes" were the result of BTC being purchased on behalf of those whose money was directly threatened.  That occurred during a time when news events directly catalyzed market movements.  A couple years ago, you could day trade successfully just from reading headlines.

So?  What does that have to do with anything?  Do you think BTC was the best possible option for Cypriots while accounts were being confiscated?  Almost *any*thing else would have been better.

Yeah...I wouldn't count on that.  Humans do not in any way fit nicely into the current evolutionary model.

Do you actually expect a strong correlation between the prices of the ruble and BTC?

If you live in a country whose currency's value is in decline, do you think the smart thing to do is to...invest?  Investing is something you do when you have all your immediate needs met and you have the money to invest.

Moving from the ruble to Bitcoin is like jumping off a sinking ship onto an active volcano.  Why on Earth would somebody do such a thing when BTC is so volatile?  High volatility is expected in such a small market whose reach extends to a global scale.  It's perfectly reasonable to establish confidence in BTC's future while simultaneously making the decision that it's currently a risky investment.

So why, then, are venture capitalists pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into infrastructure and business development?

I received my gold-plated wallet.

Excellent design.  It's fun to stare at

You're welcome, and thanks for the tip on the max volt number.  I plan on tinkering with the settings once the Paycoin proof-of-work phase is done.   I'd rather not screw with my miners while others are renting them

First, I would like to extend a *huge* thank you to Spondoolies for this opportunity, and I feel especially fortunate because there are so many great legendary members who not only have vastly more experience with mining hardware than I do, but who are also capable of writing a great review.

Preface: I've always been keen on computers and tend to pick things up quickly, but I'm not a software developer, I'm not a hacker, and prior to my foray into Bitcoin I had never built or deconstructed a computer of any kind.  Accordingly, this review may be useful for those who are intimidated to explore mining due a lack of technical know-how, or for newbies facing Bitcoin's sharp learning curve.

Shipping, Preparation, and Delivery:

On December 11, after providing Spondoolies with my shipping details, I received an email containing both an invoice generated by Spondoolies for the product and a copy of the FedEx shipping label.  The invoice is nicely transparent and provides the company's contact information.

To prepare for receipt of the miner, I purchased a 1300W PSU.  Specifically, it was this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00COIZTZM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
.  I'd recommend a high-quality PSU rated at 1300W unless you plan on some significant underclocking.

The miner arrived on December 15.  The following pictures illustrate just how awesome this packaging was.  The box was taped *very* securely, and the cardboard inserts help keep the device nice and snug during shipment.  I picked up the package and tried shaking it lightly, but its contents didn't jiggle whatsoever.  The cardboard inserts also support the miner from the top and bottom in addition to the sides.  






The Miner:  The miner itself feels sturdy enough.  You can find all the dimensions and specs for the SP20 here:  http://www.spondoolies-tech.com/products/holiday-special-sp20-jackson-shipping-from-stock

I placed the miner on a hard, plastic surface adjacent to some sliding glass windows.  It's cold where I live, so convection through the windows helps keep temps down.  I also oriented the fan to push warm air back into my home.





Setup:  Ah, yes...setup.  In the past, I've run into a number of headaches when setting up various ASIC and other mining devices ranging from GPU rigs to the Antminer S1, though admittedly many of these headaches were the result of a lack of experience.

So, how does the SP20 stack up in terms of ease of setup?  I'm pleased to say it's not intimidating whatsoever.  In fact, once I had everything wired up, it took me about 3 minutes or so to get the thing hashing.

These are the all the steps I took during setup:
1)  Unpack the device and place it in a desired location, bearing in mind factors such as heat and noise.
2)  Grab a PSU with at least four 6-pin ATX connectors.  Run the connectors from the PSU to the four 6-pin female ports on the rear of the miner.
3)  Grab an Ethernet cable and run it from your Internet router to the miner.
4)  Use the "paperclip trick" to trigger the PSU to run continuously while disconnected from a motherboard.  If you've never done this, it's far more simple than it might sound.  This video provides a tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXgQSokF4
5)  Now that everything is wired up and powered, open your web browser and type in "myminer.io" to gain access to the miner's management console.  You will be prompted for a username and password whereupon you will enter "admin" for both.   After doing this, you will be logged into the management console.
6)  Click on "Settings" in the upper left corner of the management console.  Here you will be able to underclock or overclock your SP20 by tinkering with voltages. You will also be able to control the fan speed of your miner.  If you are unsure about how changing these variables will affect your miner, it is recommended to use conservative settings to ensure the safety of your hardware.  

Here, you also have the option to change your UI (user interface of the management console) password.  I strongly recommend this.

7)  Click on "Pools" in the upper left corner of the management console.  Here you will be able to point your miner to whatever pool account you wish.  If you do not have an account at a mining pool, you will need to create one.

 That's it!  Once you've configured your pools, the miner will automatically restart itself and begin mining for you!

Performance:  Here are screencaps of the homepage of the management console, mining statistics, my miner settings, and a view of the ASIC stats page accessible via the management console:






Review:  I haven't had this thing long, but this machine rocks.  Although I certainly haven't personally tested every ASIC device out there, I've tested quite a few, and the SP20 is the best I've come across in terms of ease of setup.

The device has been mining for more than 36 solid hours now without any hiccups whatsover.  I don't have the proper equipment to accurately measure power draw or noise levels, but using the settings I depicted above I have been getting a steady 1.58-1.60 TH/s without any indication that my PSU is being taxed at its limits.

I'll be honest, this thing is loud (i.e. running at 80% max fan speed), and unless you happen to be a fan of such background noise (I am, and its fan purrs me to sleep) this isn't a miner that you're going to want to keep in your bedroom.  Additionally, *any* miner is going to give off heat according to its power draw, and it just so happens the extra heat generated by the SP20 has allowed me to completely shut off my heat, even during colder nights.  But don't worry, the fan on this miner is a beast and a half and pushes out nearly 200 cfm.

In summary, I couldn't be happier with this miner.  If you're in the market for a sturdy, easy-to-use, cost-efficient miner, the SP20 must be considered as one of the strongest choices.

Pros:  Speedy and professional delivery; stellar packaging; sturdy construction; easy to configure and use; cost-efficient; overclocking and underclocking readily available.

Cons:  Loud; some aspects of the management console user interface are not intuitive for the tech-illiterate.

Actually, I meant the opposite.  I meant that the white paper is how BTC was "presented," and it was presented as a framework for a decentralized monetary system, and not as an investment.

Did you read the Satoshi white paper?

That is how BTC was presented.

I can't tell whether this is full of sarcasm or not.  In case it's not, then okay.

In case it is, then realize that you were responding to a sensible statement.  It's a terrible thing to try to convince yourself that you aren't losing anything by holding, even when your *purchasing power* is dwindling. 

I think Buffer Overflow is referring to this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secondary+gain

In a more general sense of the term, almost everyone seeks some type of secondary gain from even what they consider to be virtuous actions.  For example, I post as I do in this thread because, through now almost 13 years of deep exploration into the topic and having affiliated with at least 6 different spiritual beliefs throughout my life, I genuinely believe that others can benefit from what I've learned and that what I'm saying is generally correct (though admittedly not as precise as I would like, which in itself suggests something).

But my secondary gain is that I'm a narcissist and I like talking about things I feel (key word) confident about so I can assert a dominant perspective.

I think it's okay to acknowledge these things about ourselves.  Maybe it's these 'deficiencies' that give us the necessary motivation to continue, and most importantly to learn from the results.  

1) How do you figure that "all that results is a hypothesis?"  You don't actually mean this, do you?  To reference a common example, would you consider the derivation of the quadratic formula or any other purely abstract proof a mere "hypothesis"?

2) Scientific hypotheses and theories are not the only kind that matter.  Theories needn't be scientific or empirical to be strong or true,  and needn't be scientific or empirical at all.  Theories are just descriptions of something, and that description can be good, bad, specific, general, etc.  There is absolutely nothing sound about concluding that evidence is required for sound theory making, or that empiricism must lead to the strongest kinds of theories.  In many cases, the opposite is true because empirical theories can never be asserted at a 100% level of confidence, while other types of theories can.

3) Consider that, for example, something like the derivation of the quadratic formula is a purely abstract proof that requires exactly zero physical evidence but yields direct application to physical reality.  Conversely, also consider that empirical methods of analysis maintain certain unfounded assumptions such as the idea that we live in a Positivistic Universe, an idea for which there is no evidence and which can actually be demonstrably proven to be false.

4) You misunderstood my post as evidenced when you say "...you would have to define what god is in the first place."  I already conceded that you can't just ascribe some arbitrary definition for God and start from there.  What I meant is that, practically, if we create a sound theory of reality whose explanatory power is at the height of generality, that theory will either directly reflect whatever preconceived notions we may have had about God, or it won't (or we won't be sure).  For example, if the theory directly implicates consciousness or mind is a common substrate of reality, then, practically speaking, we could say the theory directly implies God.  I say this is 'practical' because the 'practical' difference between a theistic and an atheistic view of the Universe is whether its origins are physical or mental.  Would you have any issue agreeing that God exists if it was proven that reality is a mental construct?

So, again, the idea is not to start with some preconceived notion of God and then attempt to prove that it exists.  Instead, just think of it as an optional consideration...for fun.

You are correct there is no way to 'test' for God...in an empirical sense; there is no possible way that any amount of evidence could constitute proof of God.  But you are incorrect that there is no way to verify the claim.

We first have to start with the claim as a hypothetical.  This is permitted because we needn't argue for the claim itself, at least in a direct sense.

The claim, unsupported by any evidence, serves as a point of reference.  Having made the claim, we then need to create a theory that explains the entirety of reality at the height of generality, i.e. a theory whose explanatory power cannot logically be surpassed.  By definition, such a theory would provide insight into the most fundamental characteristics of reality. 

After first demonstrating that such a theory is sound, we look at those fundamental characteristics and hold them up to our initial claim.  If the results of the theory imply the claim, then we can conclude God exists, and at a 100% level of certainty (practically, it's irrelevant if people modify their original claim; identifying and knowing the absolute limit of rational explanation is the important part).

I would agree with you that I, too, dislike when scientists or anyone else assert a conclusion with absolute certainty based upon empirical data.  Although, I think it's important to make a distinction between contexts in which the word 'prove' is acceptable in science vs. contexts in which it is not acceptable.  For example, while it is not acceptable to say that a scientific conclusion is proven beyond all doubt, it is acceptable to say that it is proven based upon the data that's available, and within a certain level of confidence (e.g. "The data supports the hypothesis, p < .05," indicating a 95% confidence level).  P < .05 is probably the most common standard used, although you'll see some studies which test hypotheses at other confidence levels (e.g p < .01, or a 99% confidence level).  The scientific method does not permit conclusions at a 100% confidence level.

Yes, it is self-evident that we exist, and you are correct that there is no conclusive, empirical evidence to support this.  Fortunately, we don't need any.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is the "same with God," as I wouldn't say that God is self-evident.  However, I would say that basically all of the ideas necessary to form a conclusion that God exists stem from that which is self-evident.

I would also agree that God seems the logical conclusion.

As a whole, this last post of yours seems much more reasonable than previous ones.

Because it's a limitation of inductive reasoning.

Your car analogy doesn't work.  The reason the car analogy doesn't work is because a car can fit within the entirety of our scope of observation, whereas a monotheistic god cannot.

We know what a car is.  A car is a product of human invention and imagination, and so we know what the definition of a car is.  Accordingly, any time we actually see a car (i.e. we observed/evidenced it), then we can relate that observation back to the definition of a car.  Because the observation matches our known definition of what a car is, we can conclude that we are observing a car.

This doesn't work with God.  If God exists, he cannot be the product of human invention and imagination.  Accordingly, unlike the car, we are unable to start with any presumptions about what God may be.  So, it doesn't matter what evidence you find because you'll never be able to relate your observations back to a known definition of God so as to be able to conclude that the evidence is actually a part of God.

Edit:  Do you realize that, in using your car analogy, you were attempting to use a method of inductive reasoning similar to what's practiced via the scientific method?  Science forms hypotheses (i.e presumptions) which are then tested by evidence.  If the evidence supports the presumption, then the hypothesis holds.  For example, evidence is held against the hypothesis/theory of evolution to test whether the available evidence supports it.  You are trying to do the same thing by making a God "hypothesis", so-to-speak, and then holding up evidence against that hypothesis to see if your hypothesis holds.  However, in the same way that evidence cannot lead to a conclusion that evolution is correct at a 100% level of confidence, evidence cannot lead to a conclusion that God exists at a 100% level of confidence.

Edit 2:  I think it's imperative you understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction