This.  A thousand times this.  Attacking POS is economically more feasible than POW.

Received my Labyrinth and it's an amazing piece of art just like the 2014!  The puzzle is pretty tough if trying to get them all to the center, extremely unique and some of the people I've shown it to said it looked like a labyrinth before I got to tell them the name of the bar. 

I'm still interested in a couple.


Printer buffers are usually stored on the computer sending print jobs. If a printer has a buffer of its own, it would most likely be stored in volitile memory and cleared once you power off the printer. For maximum safety, you could always throw the printer in a fire after printing your wallet

I'm more concerned about the technology producing the entropy. I'm not really familiar with static RAM cell power states as a source of randomness, but hope that the technology was implemented correctly and is generating truly random numbers.

Scrap that... my best is now 2:55.  I was able to upload the entire video to youtube... it's odd to watch.  I solve it upside down but my phone is hanging over the end of my desk (so it's upside down too) so it looks normal on the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7kGYalYljY

Sure.  Here's the post in question:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=707341.msg8071506#msg8071506
No such signed documents existed, ergo canary couldn't have had it in his possession.

You can check Hierarchial view if you scroll all the way down on the Trust settings page, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

Canary, I like you, man. You're OG and you've always been cool with me (well, my main account anyway). But taking a look at your Trust list raises some eyebrows. Leaving a positive rating for someone you've traded with is fine -- I do it myself sometimes. However, it appears that you're actually adding these people to your Trust list, which is completely separate than your Trust ratings. I'm not sure if were aware of that dichotomy, as the Trust system itself is fairly confusing, and I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of the difference until several months after the Trust system went live.

Here's one branch of your Trust list that might need a 2nd look:

CanaryInTheMine -> Trynmpo -> PlusLegit

The latter two have been decisively outed as scammers:

Trynmpo: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=925125.0
PlusLegit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576101.0 (as well as a bevy of other scam accusation threads)

IMHO you should really start off with a clean slate. Wipe your Trust list and add only those you actually trust. I usually ask myself, "Could I confidently send 500 BTC to this user and trust that they'd send it back without hesitation?" If the answer to that is, "yes," then they're a candidate for my own Trust list (Depth 1 I guess).

Regards,
TC

What's more likely: that Friedcat got swooped off by Chinese secret police and no one knows about it, he died and no one knows about it OR that he felt burdened by the failure of his creation and decided to abscond with a few million $$ and a fresh start? Yeah.. Occam's razor people

Unlikely.

Rockxie's statements seemed to indicate that it was not completely unexpected that friedcat would "disappear" (run away).

The other rumors (that even his wife is looking for him, etc...) are just that: rumors.

Given the large number of scams that various mining manufacturers have pulled off throughout bitcoin's history, I think it would probably be appropriate for none of the mining manufacturers to be anywhere near the default trust system.

Allowing the manufacturers to receive benefits from being on the default trust network makes them appear to be more trustworthy then they probably should be considered. Take friedcat for example, his close relationship with CITM has allowed him to maintain an impenetrateable trust rating that is maintained at +150 despite having 3 negatives from people in the default trust network. He received positive trust ratings from an artificially high number of his customers. As a result he was trusted enough to be able to steal over a million dollars from his customers.

If I were an outsider and I were considering to buy from Bitmain, SP, or even FC, then I could see that they all have positive trust score, and have their trust opinions trusted by default so I may elect to cease further due diligence on their operations prior to investing large amounts of money into their equipment.

All three of the above just so happen to be on CITM's trust network.

Hmm interesting, I don't have any say in the matter, but I am curious. Why would you not just leave Dogie negative feedback if you didn't trust him, rather than excluding him from being trusted by others? Seems a little bit harsh. I don't know too much surrounding all of the parties involved with all of the hardware producing companies and the recent shenanigans, and I don't make judgements unless I'm involved or have a significant amount of information proving something, but just because you don't trust Dogie, is your reason strong enough that others shouldn't be able to make their own decisions and add Dogie to their trust lists?

It's also possible FC went camping around his own backyard.

Canary, are these statements based on inside knowledge?