Label 400 is a generic tracking label it can be used for first class packages, or priority mail, or any service where paid tracking is added.  Just because USPS also has specific service labels doesn't mean the 400 isn't used for those purposes as well.

THERE IS NO FREE TRACKING FOR FIRST CLASS MAIL PACKAGES IF SHIPPED RETAIL.
THERE IS NO TRACKING AT ALL (FREE OR PAID) FOR FIRST CLASS LETTERS.

Therefore if you have a tracking label on an envelope it it can not be first class mail. You mailed a priority mail letter with insufficient postage because you believed the nonsense in the OP.


http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm100/extra-services.htm

That is also an incorrect.  Note the specific pools I named.  If you don't know how they work well thats fine but it might not be a good idea to provide "corrections"

You are mad because you tried to rip off the USPS and get caught?

You used a tracking label only valid on First Class PACKAGES and Priority Mail letters.  The made recipient pay the difference for Priority Mail w/ free tracking.

You could always sell the order and reship the MPP when it arrives.  If someone doesn't trust you, you could leave the BTC in escrow until you reship.

The protocol docs indicate the thermal thorttling is handled by the GN processor in high level mode

What is the maximum operating temp?
What is the clock/core throttling temp?
What is the thermal shutdown temp?

64 random char can not be bruted forced.

1) The attack space is simply to large.

"64 char" doesn't provide a lot of useful info but if we assume it is something like base58 encoding the possible values are

58^64 = 7.3 * 10^112

Even if we are just looking for lower case (a-z) only it is:
26^64 = 3.6 * 10 ^90

In either case is more possible values then the resulting hash (2^256 = 1.16 * 10^77) so there is a higher probability of finding a collision than the original hashed value.    128 bit is considered beyond brute force and we are asininely way beyond that.


2) SHA-256 is sigificantly slower than NTLM hashes.

From your link


SHA-2 is generally slower than SHA-1

This is academic because the attack space is impossible but the throughput on a single 7970 is about 1 billion hashes per second.
http://hashcat.net/oclhashcat-plus/#features-algos


1+2)
So 1.6*10^77 possible hashes * 1% chance / 1 billion hashes per second per 7970 / 31.5 billion seconds per year = 5 * 10^67 GPU years.

With one HD 7970 you would have a 1% chance of finding a collision in 5 * 10^67 years.
With 5 * 10^67 HD 7970s you would have a 1% chance of finding a collision in one year.

TL/DR: not possible

The hope is a post-scarcity society.  If technology keeps advancing and we can avoid resetting the clock with something like nuclear war it will eventually happen it might be a century, it might be a millennium but it will happen.

Capitalism is simply a mechanism for allocating scarce resources.  There is no better allocation mechanism but when resources are no longer scarce it simply won't be needed (or it will be constrained to the few areas which are beyond post-scarcity).

No need to bother the mods (although they may move it).

For the person creating a thread/topic (you) in the lower left of the page there should be two links "lock topic" and "move topic".

Watching.  John K has always been a solid escrow agent and I have referred many a client to him (as escrow is too low margin and demanding for my tastes).   I hope this is only a situation of unexpected real world issues keeping him "offline". 

Even if everything does turn out "fine" it does illustrate that we really need easy to use multi-sig capabilities.  Before reading the amount of the escrow I was like "not a chance this is fraudulent" the amount made me doubt my first reaction if even a little.  I think 300+ BTC is pushing the limit of what I would trust to any single person in a single tx. Even a service like John's can be enhanced by multi-sig (Buyer, Seller, John, it takes 2 signatures to move funds).    

Standard caveat:  I am not a lawyer (although I have had to do extensive self research given what I do). The following should be considered educational only.  Always independently verify claims.  For those who may be reading this post in the future note the date and understand facts can and do change over time.   If you decide to move forward self research is no substitute for legal counsel.  Your situation may be unique and the response may not correctly address facts omitted, misstated, or misunderstood.   I have not had my morning stimulant injection and it is cloudy, I often give poor advice on days when it is cloudy.

FinCEN was silent on e-wallet type services for decentralized virtual currencies.  For centralized virtual currencies a wallet operator could depending on the circumstances be seen as an "administrator" but decentralized virtual currencies lack an administrator.  The only other class of regulated entity that FinCEN covers is "exchangers".    Practically speaking this would appear to be an area they would want to regulate, but they didn't cover it at all in the guidance and it doesn't clearly fit into any existing MSB category.  

      Guidance FIN-2013-G001 (March 18, 2013)
      Subject:   Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
      http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html



If I were creating a e-wallet service that did not exchange virtual currency for EITHER "real currency" or another virtual currency I would not register at this time.   Given that it does not fall into one of the existing MSB categories using a neutral reading of the reg and FinCEN did not address it in the guidance I believe that even if it is FinCEN intent to regulate such activity they have not created a scenario where lack of registration would be in violation of federal regulation or statute.

So if it were me I would operate without registration at the current time but I trust my own judgement and you probably shouldn't without your own research. Before you assume I (or any other response) is correct you should carefully review FinCEN guidance on virtual currencies (link above) and consider retaining counsel.   Also understand the guidance is just that "guidance" (very very poor guidance IMHO) on how the EXISTING laws/regs on MSBs apply to virtual currencies.   You can't get the whole picture without a good understanding of the MSB laws/regs/framework in general.  You are going to need to review and understand the MSB regs otherwise the guidance is incomplete.   If you don't feel up to it then consider retaining legal counsel.

The place to start:
http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/

One point of clarification, contrary to popular opinion FinCEN clearly did indicate EXCHANGING one virtual currency for another is a regulated activity so the "virtual currency only exchanges" are magically exempt because they don't deal with USD or EUR. So if your "wallet" service allows users to convert BTC to LTC for example you probably are regulated.  A wallet which holds multiple virtual currencies is probably no different than a single virtual currency.



I would also operate under the assumption that eventually there is a good chance FinCEN will attempt to "pull you into the family".  However the fact that they did not cover online wallet services likely gives you a legitimate "out" until such times as they do.   Also FinCEN does provide a 180 day "grace period" for new businesses that begins once regulated activity begins so you can do initial research now, and if you determine you are not regulated, open and if events change (future guidance, additional legal research, news events, update guidance) in the next 180 days register without being non-compliant.

If you really want to know what FinCEN believes (and that is more important that what I or your lawyer believes) you can file for an administrative ruling.  It sounds more complicated than it is.  You write to FinCEN outlining the scenario and ask them to rule on if you are regulated or not.  If they say "no" well that is your "keep out of jail card". You can find more information in the "Chapter X regs" (see FinCEN website section on MSBs).  In my opinion that is simply poking the bear with a stick.  They are obligated to provide you a ruling but you may inadvertently "regulate yourself".  You can't "undo" an administrative ruling and it has the possibility of killing any future defense that FinCEN didn't meet their regulatory duty in accurately defining the scope of regulated activity so be sure before you file AND if you do so please get legal counsel.   Poorly thought out or written administrative rulings hurt the entire Bitcoin community because it becomes a bad "precedent".

Lastly you may consider regsitering just to be proactive I would caution against that.  Many bank customers have had their accounts summarily closed without review simply by being a MSB.  Yes banks do periodically review the MSB registry against their client list.   If you aren't engaged in regulated activity registering is a very bad idea.  Also understand that registering is just the start you must also be COMPLIANT.  By registering you are saying "I agree with FinCEN that I am a MSB and my activity is regulated."   Being a compliant MSB requires knowing your customer, having a compliance officer, conducting periodic reviews, having an AML program in place, keeping accurate records, and reporting certain transactions to FinCEN.   Registering and NOT being compliant is just STUPID.  It is saying "I agree I am engaged in regulated activity but I am chosing to willfully violate the law".

You may also want to consider an online wallet like blockchain.info where the USER retains control of the private keys.  In the future if/when FinCEN decides to call online wallets "money transmitters" a good legal team likely could argue for an exemption for services like blockchain.info where it is the user in direct control of their own funds at all times  Yeah a lot of this is future proofing but having been "shutdown" by the government after 2000% annualized growth trust me there is nothing worse so you want to look towards a solution that keeps you running today and in the future.

Lastly this is US centric advice.  Understand that if you offer services to citizens in all 200+ countries then the regs/laws/policies of all countries apply.  So while you may not be regulated in the US you could be regulated in another country.  I doubt that is the case but you should consider how you want to handle this because if you aren't regulated in any country yet you will be eventually.  You can either exclude residents of that country or countries or comply with those regulations.

Best of luck.

PS you may want to move this to "legal" subforum as it might provide better responses.

Probably not.  Those don't appear to be high power components.  If you don't have a IR thermometer I would try the "finger test".  If you can put a finger on it for >1/4 second without burning yourself the component isn't getting hot enough to benefit from a heat sink.  The key is the time like checking a grill temp with your hand.   If you can hold your finger there for 2-3 seconds before it eventually gets hot enough you have to remove it that isn't "hot enough".

It won't hurt to add the heatsinks if there isn't enough power usage but it won't do much good beyond "nerd bling".

There are thermal adhesives.

Good stuff:  http://www.arcticsilver.com/arctic_silver_thermal_adhesive.htm

It is likely the heatsinks came with thermal adhesive not thermal paste.

That is not a correct statement.   p2pool and eligius are evidence of that.

IIRC KNC said they would be halting sales if every single other vendor did the same.  It was an empty promise.  No other vendor will be doing so and thus KNC will be shipping units every single month.

As for the size of future units well that gets interesting.  It is unlikely sub 28nm processors will hit the market before 2016 (maybe late 2016).  The hashpower of an individual unit is going to be capped by efficiency.  All current 28nm offerings are around 0.8 J/GH at the wall.  Given multiple smart teams ended up around the same place without undervolting/underclocking I don't think efficiency is going to get significantly better on 28nm platform.

So at 0.8 J/GH at the wall and standard US household outlet being limited to 1440W continual load that limits capacity to 1440/0.8 = 1.8 TH/s.   If efficiency improves to say 0.7 J/GH it is 2.0 TH/s and 2.4 TH/s at 0.6 J/GH.

Units will get cheaper but I don't expect individual units to get much bigger than Cointerra rig.  That is pretty much pushing what a non-dedicated branch circuit can handle.

Nonsense.   If someone doesn't like Bitcoin or feels it got it wrong they can opt out.  Nobody can be forced to accept Bitcoins, nobody can be forced to hold Bitcoins.   There is nothing insidious.  If Bitcoin "got it wrong" then people will opt out, the more that do the smaller and smaller the Bitcoin "ecosystem" it will be.

You opt in or you opt out.  You are voting with your actions.

It began with 0 miners and a source code and it can end when the last disillusioned miners clicks the off switch.  The source code will remain but being open source it can be forked to a project that does "get it right".

Hashfast can we get board dimensions and/or diagram/layout?

Uses for obsolete ASIC hardware (hint ASIC = Application SPECIFIC Integrated Circuit = "it only does one thing")
1) Stepping Stool
2) Door stop
3) Paperweight for a really big stack of papers
4) Improvised Blunt force weapon

Predicting mining 6 months out is like trying to predict today what the weather will be in 2089. However here is my guess.  

First I have always been in the "price drives difficulty but difficulty doesn't drive price" school of thought.  So all of the following is basd on price being relatively stable (say $200 +/- 20% long term with no more than +/-35% in the short term).  If exchange rate moves up or down significantly and "sticks" (i.e. falls to $100 and stays there for weeks/months) then you can expect the following to be pushed higher or lower respectively.

For Q1-2014.
I think we will see pretty aggressive hashrate growth in Q1 of 2014.  If the estimate holds and we are roughly 12 PH/s on 01/01/2014 my best guess is that will rise to at least 30 PH/s over the next three months.  As an upper limit I am reluctant to put one but if I had to pick a number I am fairly confident I would say less than 60 PH/s.  This is simply because there is a lag in chip ordering and thus hashrate growth is constrained by wafer batch size.  While in theory an ASIC company could order hundreds or even thousands of wafers I doubt any ASIC company wants the risk of holding a small fortune in chips in the event something happens to Bitcoin and/or mining.   So no matter how delusional miners are I think there will be cap on how fast (not how high but how fast) hashrate will rise.  

Without significant exchange rate increase I don't see mining companies being able to sell the amount of rigs necessary to push hashrate up another >20PH/s (for visualization that is >20,000 KNC Jupiters).   If we are looking at 20 to 50 PH/s added in Q1 at $10 per GH/s thats $250M to $500M.  I don't think there are that many rich people who are bad at math.   Even $4 per GH/s is $80M to $200M which is likely too high given the annual mining revenue and amount of existing hardware so my guess is hardware prices are going down a lot in early 2014.  I expect every major vendor to be <$3 per GH/s with prices heading closer to sub $2 per GH/s as the quarter progresses.  The vendors with the most aggressive pricing may be pushing up against $1 per GH/s.   I would be surprised to see <$1 per GH/s for complete "ready to mine" systems although raw ASICS in bulk (chips on a reel) might get that low.

For the miners who thought power doesn't matter and bought rigs in countries with high power rates (>$0.10 per kWh) we probably will see a lot of used hardware up for sales.  This will be a migration of hardware from high cost miners to low cost miners albeit at a significant price reduction.  This will be more frequent with lower efficiency rigs (anything worse than 1 J/GH).  This resale of hardware to lower cost miners will increase its economic lifespan and ensure difficulty isn't going down (other than minor fluctuations).  It isn't until an Avalon rig is paying more than the value of a BTC in electicity in low cost areas that equipment will be retired.   At current exchange rate that isn't going to happen until north of 30 PH/s.

I also think more than one vendor will go bankrupt, be exposed as a fraud, or simply exit the space in the quarter.  There might be a new entrant or two but net-net the number of vendors will shrink.  Margins will be falling and competition increasing.  The weaker players probably won't make it.  It wouldn't surprise me to see an OEM type arrangement emerge (i.e. AMD doesn't make graphics cards, they make GPUs and sell them to a dozen or so OEMs who make graphics cards) with one or more vendors simply supplying SHA-2 processors not complete systems to a handful of OEMs.

For Q2-2014.
Your guess is as good as mine.  To be honest, even the Q1 outlook should just be taken as my opinion but I think it is at least grounded in probable events.   Going beyond a full quarter out is just throw a dart at the board territory.