I do beleive this is why BFL are now refusing to give refunds,
You can't make bold statements like this. BFL has never refused to refund someone AFAIK. |
|
|
|
It would make even more sense to have the units on a flight out of China on Sunday night and landing in nearby destinations early Monday to get them cleared through customs and out to the local delivery services as soon as possible.
It would make even more sense to have had the units already made and shipped back in December... wait no, November, October! What is your point??? |
|
|
|
Don't know how they ship but no place I know of ships on sundays.
It will be 9pm in China. In theory it makes sense to start packing Sunday 9pm, work overnight, and have a first shipment ready to ship on Monday at dawn  |
|
|
|
|
Sold 1 more mobo (only 2 left!)
|
|
|
|
|
Sold 1 mobo (only 3 left). Updated OP.
|
|
|
|
Micon: I haven't had time to set up Mono to run Casascius, I will try to do this tomorrow. It sounds here like you're suggesting that 6 plus 3 is 10...
Actually I meant to add "plus one reporting on the Mini Rig SC". |
|
|
|
I offered to buy some stuff but never got a reply, so I bought from someone else
I believe it was a MB + 2 video cards
Sorry, I don't remember receiving an email from you. |
|
|
|
Really? WPA2 dictionary rainbow table is being built using modern miner hardware fairly quickly.
What would be if China invents ASIC for single-pass SHA?
But I said, fuck this government. Lets say it isnt true.
Should I sell this technology? - is the main question.
WPA2 being attackable does not mean its algorithms (AES, PBKDF2-SHA1, etc) have been cracked; it just means that people suck at selecting strong passwords. Use a password like LQ/Y89}Us@{@V>hU&dyL (which has ~128 bits of entropy) and not even an ASIC a million times faster than a CPU can break your WPA2. Nota Bene: There is no such thing as "WPA2 dictionary rainbow tables", the right terminology is "lookup table". A "rainbow table" refers specifically to tables using a time memory trade-off, and using a different function (different "color") on each column. For some reason amateur hackers like the term "rainbow table" and use it everywhere. |
|
|
|
This technology may compromise the whole world SHA2-based Internet security. Whatever... It may compromise any algorithm security. AFAIK crypto-algos were developed to be resisant to CPU-powered computer systems.
You are very wrong. This quote shows you know little about cryptography. Cryptographic algorithms (encryption or hashing) have been designed to resist attacks multiple order of magnitudes higher than what we are capable of today (CPUs, FPGAs, even ASICs). Here is a relevant piece I wrote a few days ago, answering someone who had the same concerns as you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135912.msg1451168#msg1451168 |
|
|
|
Yep I agree to at least a 10 BTC bet. I summarized our bet below (note the addition of "These 10 good standing forum members..."). Please quote my entire post to officially approve this version: Statement
Butterfly Labs ASIC is real and will achieve 350+ Mhash/Joule by June 30, 2013
Details
At least one ASIC-based Butterfly Labs product will demonstrate 350 Mhash/Joule or more, at stock frequency/voltage, at room temperature, for a sustained period of time of at least 60 minutes, with appropriate current-measuring equipment on the device's power input(s). Power consumption shall be measured by adding up current from all the device's DC inputs (12V jack, USB cable, etc.) It will not be measured "at the wall". The purpose of this bet is to avoid wildly varying efficiencies of power adapters and computer hosts. This bet applies to all ASIC-based products that Butterfly Labs will deliver to the general public. This includes the "SuperComputer" family (Jalapeno, Single SC, Mini Rig SC), as well as possibly any unannounced product that the company will be shipping by June 30, 2013.
The legitimacy of the ASIC-based Butterfly Labs product(s) will be established as follow: the equipment must be reported to have been received by 10+ good standing forum members, of which:
- 3 must have each personally measured the Mhash/Joule of the devices
- the other 7 may not have necessarily measured the Mhash/Joule, but must have provided reports of having received working devices that seem to validate the existence and plausibility of the devices belonging to the above 3
These 10 good standing forum members do not necessarily need to report on the same product (eg. 10 Single SC). It may be a mix of products (eg. 6 reporting on Jalapeno units, plus 3 reporting on Single SC units).
Examples
This statement is true if, for example, the Single SC achieves 60 Ghash/s at 171 Watt or less (60000/171 = 351 Mhash/Joule) as measured with a clamp meter on its 12V DC input and 5V (USB) input.
This statement is false if all Butterfly Labs products fail to achieve 350 Mhash/Joule, or if Butterfly Labs fails to deliver any product at all.
Positions
Micon disagrees with the statement.
mrb agrees with the statement.
|
|
|
|
Cool idea, casascius, I am a crypto nerd and I love the concept, but btcaddress-alpha is a Windows app and I don't run Windows (and don't want to)  It's a .NET app and will run under Mono on Linux and Mac OS X. Note: the print and save buttons in the escrow tools won't do anything. Just copy and paste the codes via the clipboard into somewhere safe. Ok, good. I will try to get it running with Mono then. Micon: yep, if it runs, let's use that. |
|
|
|
|
Merci ŕ 01BTC10 et ŕ un autre, j'ai tout trouvé!
|
|
|
|
Cool idea, casascius, I am a crypto nerd and I love the concept, but btcaddress-alpha is a Windows app and I don't run Windows (and don't want to) |
|
|
|
Voorhees declined to serve as the escrow (I contacted him by email). I am going to ask nanotube or a few other persons. Hi Marc,
Thanks for getting in touch. I'd prefer not to be the escrow for this. Are you aware of btcrow.com? I think the fee there is just 1%
Cheers,
-Erik
|
|
|
|
So you basically contradict yourself.
>Pirate didn't cause a decrease of Bitcoin's price
>Pirate caused a decrease of Bitcoin's price, but it recovered quickly
Pirate did cause an extremely short-lived (24-48 hours) decrease of the price, yes. But I was arguing with lucif who used the expression "killing bitcoin price". My point is that I disagree that a short-lived volatility can be described by his words. |
|
|
|
 the red circle shows the fall of the price after Pirate's operation shut down. the blue circle shows the fall after glbse getting closed. I remember the day of the event of the red circle: this was pirate placing a handful of very large sell orders (he was announcing them on IRC minutes before doing it). But as the graph shows, the market recovered very quickly after this day. So, again, I fail to see any evidence that pirate caused Bitcoin to lose its value on the long term. On the contrary, people were buying BTC to invest in pirate, causing the price to slightly increase for multiple months, until BTCST defaulted. As to the blue circle, it is not evident that this was caused by glbse. It just seems to be regular volatility. Even if glbse was the cause, this was not a significant event. |
|
|
|
I don't remember these 4 events causing a decrease of Bitcoin's price.
Then your memory isn't very good. See here re Pirate. MtGox hack destroyed bitcoin for three quarters, it went from 30 to .01 and the recovery is not complete to this day. Etc. You are wrong about MtGox. I reported on the hack: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=55 The price never went down to .01 as these were bogus trades that were later reversed. And you failed to read my explanation of the bubble popping: The reason of the price decrease between Jun and Dec 2011 was an popping of the valuation bubble, not the MtGox hack. In fact, BTC had already lost half of its peak value ($30 down to $15) before the hack had even occurred. I would even argue that the hack helped slow down the rate at which BTC was loosing value: MtGox suspended trading for a full week, allowing traders to cool down, and its rate managed to stay above $15 for a full 2+ weeks after trading was re-opened, a period during which anybody who wanted out presumably sold. It then progressively decreased over the next few months, but it was obviously a continuation of the popping of the valuation bubble.
Besides, why would the hack affect the price multiple months later? Some investor waking up in December after a 6-month coma, telling himself, "damn MtGox was hacked in June, I should sell now!" This makes no sense. If anything, the hack should have affected the price in the days (not months) following the re-opening of the market, but it did not. |
|
|
|
Actually what is killing bitcoin price?
1. Mtgox hack in June 2011
2. Bitcoinica hack/scam
3. Pirateat40
4. glbse
I don't remember any of these 4 events causing a decrease of Bitcoin's price. The reason of the price decrease between Jun and Dec 2011 was an popping of the valuation bubble, not the MtGox hack. In fact, BTC had already lost half of its peak value ($30 down to $15) before the hack had even occurred. I would even argue that the hack helped slow down the rate at which BTC was loosing value: MtGox suspended trading for a full week, allowing traders to cool down, and its rate managed to stay above $15 for a full 2+ weeks after trading was re-opened, a period during which anybody who wanted out presumably sold. It then progressively decreased over the next few months, but it was obviously a continuation of the popping of the valuation bubble. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
