I will transact with you if you can send first and bank deposit is ok by me but you will cover any fee involve either by escrow or e-currencies payment.

From the given information, the theft depended on 1) session hijacking and 2) compromised 2FA. Although this is certainly indicative of a compromised user device, LocalBitcoins needs to take more aggressive action to inhibit session hijacking.

Even with 2FA enabled, requests which originate from a user with a different IP address and browser than that which was recorded at the initiation of a session should be responded to by immediately destroying that session and asking the user to reauthenticate. In this particular case, the withdrawal request was associated with an IP address and user agent header which were distinguishably different from that which was recorded at the start of the session. As a result, the request should have been flagged as suspicious and denied.

Of course, such policies may not have been able to prevent the theft in this particular case. If the attacker was able to gain not merely read-only permissions but also execution permissions on the user's device, then the attacker could have sent the request directly from the user's device using the existing session, and the request would not appear suspicious to the server. If the attacker was able to access both the user's password and 2FA code, then the attacker could simply establish a new session from anywhere and subsequently send the withdrawal request.

Nonetheless, it is alarming to find that the security of session management at LocalBitcoins is certainly lacking. Taking a more proactive approach to session security would help to inhibit attacks and bolster trust in the LocalBitcoins platform. A good technical overview of the topic can be found here: https://wblinks.com/notes/secure-session-management-tips/

1.     We do not have figures for MTBF at 85% or 90% load, but similar calculations show that at 100% load, the MTBF will be 42% less than in 70% load.

2.     1000W.  Yet please note that the best efficiency of this power supply is at 350~600W load range.  If system is constantly run at 800~1000W, we recommended to use 1500W PSU for best power consumption consideration.

Sapphire fans are complete shit.  All my cards are Sapphire and all of the fans have died in under a year using 100%.  Now I use 80% so we shall see.

I feel that Bitmain is skimping on the PSU.  Assuming that they're using Enermax ERV1000EWT-G 80 Plus Gold which is approximately 90% efficient at around full load (996W or 83A total on the 12V rail), the S2 would be drawing around 900WDC (1000WAC at the wall*90%) from this PSU.  That's a 90% (900W/996W) continuous load 24/7.  That's too close for comfort.  A 1200W PSU (75% load) would be more appropriate.  Personally, I prefer a 1500W PSU (60% load) for the S2; much closer to peak efficiency which is at 50% load.

Bitmain should offer an option to sell the S2 without a power supply at an appropriately reduced price so we could supply our own PSU just like with the S1s or get rid of the relatively puny 1000-Watter and use at least a 1200W premium PSU.  The cost difference for them shouldn't be that much especially when purchased in bulk.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817194101

You know, 48 is considered as "almost 50".
45 is considered as "almost 50".
But not 35 and $35 is highest value that ltc ever reached!

No, the potentially fatal advice that 12V (80A) isn't dangerous.

Now I can't decide if it's even worth the hassle of fighting with western union to reclaim funds  (ever dealt with western union? i think they designed it intentionally so that you want to rip your hair out, so people will learn and they wont have to provide as much service)

Also I think you can buy a money order on credit card? (I used cash). I might try this, and it might be dangerous.

I'm pretty sure that luck reflects the results of the previous block found, not the current block. when this one resolves, it will drag luck down.