alright, i got it working:

my problem turned out to be twofold:


I was inputting the URL incorrectly as you mentioned, and the device was not being recognized because i erroneously believed i had installed the winusb drivers, when i only had done so my 1 other stick.

OK OK

i'll report back!

hey all,

running into a small problem here

using cgminer, got zadig, it recognizes the device, but everytime i try and run it i get this:

Input server details. URL: ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://stratum.mining.eligius.st:3334 -u 1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRyb RJK7ybEm5m5HwTr --compac-freq 150 Username: 1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr Password [enter for none]: [2015-09-10 23:47:42.715] Failed to resolve (?wrong URL) ./cgminer -o stratum+t cp: URL stratum+tcp://./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://stratum.mining.eligius.st:3334 -u 1 BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr --compac-freq 150 failed alive testing, reinpu t details URL:


could it be my network?

NP

I just posted them hoping that it would motivate a few people on the sidelines.

TY sidehack and novak!

came nicely and safely packaged.

I'll play with it later tonight!

retrofitting boards and selling direct to customers is not a viable & sustainable business model IMO.


Unless sidehack & novak are being contracted out to retrofit a massive farm where the only barrier to success is actual R&D (and not chip availability/money) i dont see a sustainable business, because you guys are way overestimating the amount of actual customers.

What sidehack & novak are insanely good at is squeezing out every last drop of efficiency on the hash/v curve. That's the specialty, and the bm stick miner is a proof of concept that people are leaving an insane amount of value/efficiency on the table by buying miners that arent custom built/tuned for efficiency.


A viable business would be starting a farm, buying up thousands of old s1, s3s wholesale from professional mining operations and being able to retrofit them with previous gen designed chips &boards  yourself.

I can see that working as a business that actually has an opportunity to scale.


you guys are insanely smart, just horrible businessmen.

trezor signs the transaction, and sends the signed tx back to your computer


you broadcast it.



using an airgapped computer means you are putting a lot of faith into the rng. Trezor allows you to select your own pin & passphrase on top of the 256bit private key.

saying that you wouldnt trust more than 10 btc into trezor, but believe that airgapping a computer solely for wallet generation of btc over 10 is laughable. I mean, do you seriously believe that an offline version of bitaddress.org is safer than trezor?

Unless you permanently airgap a computer that was built specifically for wallet generation, and nothing else, how exactly is cold storage safer than trezor? And unless you are a programmer who can inspect code, how can you trust any of the wallet generators that do not use bip32/39/44 like trezor or a MS wallet like copay?

trezor is superior to printing paper wallets.

i thought that you could recover your trezor wallet with electrum...

https://doc.satoshilabs.com/trezor-faq/overview.html

here's what you fail to understand:

Miners must be incentivized to secure the network. We cannot assume that fintech companies will move to the blockchain via side chains and be willing to secure the network at a loss. We cant assume that a country will adopt bitcoin, that nasdaq or nyse will transact on the blockchain. We can only assume that bitcoin as a currency and store of value moves forward. If this is the case, we have to cater to the miners.

Because no one knows how bitcoin will scale in the future, relative to today, it becomes very difficult to model TX fees. Bitcoin TX volume, and thus fees, can explode for many different reasons, each drawing a different preferred blocksize and fee structure.

If this is the case, we should delay the hardfork as long as possible so that we collect as much data. I am not opposed to hardforks because most of the hashing is generally transparent and accessible (e.g. bitfury, 21e6, knc).


The biggest issue I have with 64mb blocksize is that what happens in 2024 if bitcoin has never experienced an exponential adoption event? If TX volume continues to increase linearly, fee models that we create today may be incorrect, irrespective of bitcoin price. So if we miss on fee projections, along with 6.25 btc block rewards, we risk the security of the network. It is far better to underestimate bitcoin adoption than it is to overestimate.

The blocksize debate seems much more intricate than many of you are all led to believe. My simple understanding of economics reduces us to two decisions:


Inflate bitcoin, e.g. remove the hard cap and allow for greater block rewards to sufficiently incentivize mining
or
Reduce block size/slow block size growth in order to encourage fees.


By 2024, approximately 94% of all bitcoin's will be mined, and block reward will stand at 6.25btc. Unless a massive adoption event occurs that causes TX volume to jump exponentially, it is possible that by 2024, or past 2024, miners will no longer be sufficiently incentivized to "mine" as good actors.


The issue is that no one knows how bitcoin will be used in the future, but in order for it to successful in any capacity, miners must be incentivized sufficiently. Blowing the cap off the blocksize is a good way to disincentivize people from submitting TX fees, and the only people in the world who probably would be willing to mine at a loss are the trading engines that operate stock exchanges, countries that adopt bitcoin, and banks that are using sidechains.

In order to support a massive blocksize increase, you have to have a lot of faith that in the future (within 10 years) bitcoin's transaction volume + TX fees experiences a possibly brief but exponential increase. We've made a lot of inroads in the industry, but we've so far failed miserably as a currency since 2013. If blockchain technology is our own avenue for increasing transaction volume, I don't think there should be any rush to increase the block size.

We should only increase the blocksize when absolutely necessary. E.g. when we know that there is transaction volume that will never leave the network--- industries entering side chains to obfuscate their transactions-- country x adopting bitcoin-- x country's stock exchange moved to blockchain.

blocksize (today) at 1mb filling up (today) and forcing people to submit 0.0002 btc, or 2000bits as a TX fee does not warrant a block size increase.