This is a rather large generalisation;
They are essentially the same, but in different modes.

Bitcoind - Minimal interface ideal for using on a server (command line and RPC)
bitcoin-qt - Full GUI designed for using on a normal PC.

So they both implement the bitcoin protocols and can have a wallet and download the block chain to allow for sending and receiving of Bitcoins and more.

In a sense, bitcoind is playing it's part in the verification, since they are implemented in Bitcoin mining pools (example) as it receives data from the miners, that verifies transaction blocks. The block chain, which is available to both, maintains the "list" of transactions and their blocks.

That is a little weird, but that Power supply does have a rather unreliable reputation.
So it would not surprise me if that was the source of the problem.

I'd take a good look at all your parts, by disassembling the rig. There should be evidence somewhere, as there might be damage to another part in your rig, outside of the PSU.

i7 2600k - 95W
ATI 6850 - 125W
ATI 5850 - 150W

Your current power usage are already conservatively at 370W.

Putting a 200W GPU in there, would be putting yourself that bit closer to the max of that power supply.

Unless it's a very high quality one, it most likely will not cope with the power requirements.
You need more wriggle room, as power supply's are only about 85-95% efficient and over using one voltage line, will go over what it is rated for.

In your position, if your consider putting very powerful multiple GPU's, I'd only do so with more info about your power supply.

Replace the Power supply.

What power supply were you using btw?

"Hungry Dog"

Good luck with the business venture.

Now I'm a bit more awake, lets see how things went wrong for you in your numbers.

They ordered 150 boards and 10,000 Chips.
That is 66.6 Chips per board, and there is some 64 Chip board designs floating around if I remember rightly.
So lets make a little assumption here, what could they do with 64 chips per board.

If you used a 64 Chip design, for the board, that would be:
Hash Rate: ~18GH/s
Power: ~125 Watts *1
Board Design: Single sided PCB could fit 64 chips *2

*1 - A single molex connector makes sense at this wattage.
*2 - Klondike with 16 Chips is a 10x10cm design. Fitting 64 into 9x31cm pci-express board would be possible with some optimisation.

So in conclusion VPSguy, instead of getting annoyed that people are "trolling" you, realise you made a mistake in your numbers.
Which by the way, vary a lot through out your original post. That is why your being questioned so much.
A 64 Chip design looks rather close to your upper limit when you scale it down to being 100 times smaller. Oops.

Anyone hoping to getting the speed they promise, will be sorely disappointed. It's either a scam or their entire team, doesn't realise what they doing so badly that their "150 combined years of experience" didn't realise the math failure.

Don't try to explain to them any of the technical aspects of it - other than to say the security is more than your bank uses probably.
Don't explain to them Bitcoin mining - It is far too technical for this demographic.

First Step
Explain about how it is a digital currency, using as a exchange medium for instant transfers.

Second Step
Explain the benefits of how it can't be reversed & you control it, not a bank.

Third Step
Explain how you buy and sell Bitcoins via Localbitcoin & other exchanges.

Final Step
Show how this saves money in the long run on transfers that usually cost money. Also you can use it to stash money away.
You can actually make money just by holding it and waiting till price goes up.

Typically speaking for Buyers;
- Bitbargin prices are usually 0~2% of Mtgox prices in GBP.
- Localbitcoin (UK) prices are usually -2~0% of Mtgox prices in GBP.

Add in the fact those can be done with free instant bank transfers, fees and commissions are very reasonable, compared to exchanges.
I don't doubt, you might sometimes get a better price before fees, commission etc on an exchange, but it doesn't always work out best.

The numbers doesn't quiet add up to me, I'm tired so excuse me if it's off and using rough math.

1 Avalon Chip does about 280 MH/s and uses about 1.9W.

To have a board do between 1.2TH/s and 1.9TH/s, you'd need between 4000 and 4500 Chips.

With that many chips required per board;
You not bought enough to do about 2 boards (you stated buying 10,000 Chips).
Which apparently each one would need in the region of 8000 Watts
This is you ignore the fact your suggesting you can fit that many chips on a board (or even a multi-layer boards), designed for a PCI-E slot.

So simply put, your numbers don't make sense.

Why are so many suggesting paying in other currencies, when there is:

https://bitbargain.co.uk/
&
https://localbitcoins.com/

I've sold on both, very easily with minimal fees, which easily beats the fees that can accumulate when you starting buying or selling via exchanges and/or people outside of the UK.

I'm glad to just test the system.
Thank you for doing your bit.

An idea like Bitcoin (I don't suggest it is the same), started development (3rd party I beleive) for a few large banks working together, a few years before Bitcoin's Genesis block, according to a good friend of mine, who works in the banking sector.

It ultimately failed, due to disagreements in it's core operation between the Banks involved at the time, according to that same good friend in the industry. I don't feel overly inclined to mention her name, since I doubt she wants to answer your questions on it.

It never got off the ground or went into full active use, but it did work on the same core principle, of a very high encryption digital currency, that was traded directly between Bank A and Bank B, almost instantly, regardless of location with the data of those transactions stored in some kind of ledger by all parties using it. It would of help facilitate their IOU's on the international market of currency exchange.

This is a very profitable business for banks, international transfers and all those involved in it, so I'm sure they had a very good reason why not to reduce their bottom line, as this could of made a huge difference by cutting out all the intermediate banks.

Did they feel like it wasn't secure enough?
Was it still a financial aspect of it they saw a problem with?
or
Maybe, they just dislike change.

Satoshi brought about a great system, made it available to the general public at no cost, that I have no doubt would not exist in the dinosaur era that our banks still live in, if they controlled it.
It is now going to be a threat to the banking industry profits, rather than being something they could of used for their gain in my opinion.

Then would you be okay to leave that happy feedback:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=57180

Yes, prices were better for buyers last month.

Follow up: 1 Month on, is everyone happy with how the Auction went?

Let me know either way, always good to hear.

I'm sure the person who got paid 10,000 BTC for a pizza 3 years ago, if he/she kept it could retire happily on that.

So to me, getting to 5 figures of BTC like that, would probably be enough to say, I'll consider retirement.

Since you are rather persistent in putting me down, without actually being constructive.

http://pastebin.com/vRxmpFbc

Updated using DROP instead.

Guess this is why I don't give out quick example code, I should of learnt from last time.
To be clear I don't use just this in my production servers, so before you get judgemental, assess it for what it is, rather than assuming.
I'll keep my code to myself if I get this sort of reception.

I really believe the important lesson here is that rejecting packets instead of dropping them can help the surrounding network get a hint of what's going on and mitigate the situation, even though dropping the packets may superficially seem more effective (because it does not create any more traffic on an already heavily burdened network, REJECT does).

So I can understand some of your points, but the difference between the two in terms of resources in negligible. The benefit of being able to keep a good view on these attacks and know how progress is going and when to clear out the IP address' out ways it's negatives in my experience.

For me personally it helps me move large numbers of "Bad" IP address' to the 1st layer firewall if they are a persistent problem, which is after all designed to have a large number of IP's on it block list. If they are not, they get cleared out so most of my backend servers have a relatively clean list.

But we are all entitled to our own methods. Drop is a fine alternative, so why don't you suggest the simple change?

In my experience DROP isn't what you want in this case. DROP leaves the tracking burden on all the stateful gear between you and the endpoint - which doesn't fix the problem. But if you wish to change it, by all means. I gave a simple code example for easy tweaking.

This is a quick simplified version of what I have used on my backend servers (for if it gets past my 1st firewall).
http://pastebin.com/CzVfr27P

I modified it quickly. While I'm working on one for PFSense, I figure someone can enjoy the use of this regardless of what server setup they have (within reason).

Similar to this is also this one, which is a little nicer since it comes with a few extras.
http://deflate.medialayer.com/