As far as wanting to read the kill-a-watt, wired just posted the full image with their review, reading 43.5, meaning a sightly higher reading around 50 may well just be current inter-unit variability. Future variability is anyone's guess though.

That may be an easier way to keep the links up to date and such since you can change the links present on that page more rapidly. Might have to look into making a site for anyone to use in that vein

Any options as far as overclocking go? And any news posted about the temperature it runs at?

I'd imagine you may have pretty bad luck right now outside of the existing bitcoin community, if nothing else return time before ASICs is pretty high. Sig links aren't bad and this thread is a bad place to try it. There are usually pyramining referral link threads around if you look through the forums, I forget what subforum though.

If/while you're giving the withdrawal code some love, would it be possible to request a way around the account reservation (to withdrawal all funds). I'd be perfectly happy adding an option to delay tx for a while and piggyback off a larger tx or something else to reduce overall/my fees.

While very possible it could also be the difference between measured at the wall and expected/drawn by each chip (although I would doubt a 40% power waste). Some of what they had mentioned about changes to the metal layer on later batches of chips (read also: not the ones shipping now) is that the later chips had improved power profiles. So these might be the early chips that eat more power. He may just have a bad unit or bad measurement, or there might be higher variability and/or power draw in the first units.

TL;DR - I would at least expect later units to draw less J/GH/s

My impression is that they're sorting out the chips that ended up lower speed than predicted and trying to figure out how to ship everyone their units without having to pay out the ass for their number error. Then they'll start selling the new, slightly slower, much more expensive units.

The new power draw figures aren't out yet (probably in case they have to change again) but it looks like the 5GH/s jalapeno is going to be 30w per the last thing I saw. For reference the new units support up to 16 chips on one board with higher power draw overall.

I think the intent is to be able to add this functionality to any wallet (the wallet could confirm the address you're adding goes to the correct person), and users of wallets that don't support this functionality natively can just use a standalone program or web interface

I want to link my Bitcointalk name with BTCJam's. Verification code: 60040be0-4f86-4a58-a9af-3bafbf3da1a2

To expand on this because I'm not sure everyone will understand what you mean, the only things that go onto the blockchain (where dust rules are in effect if nodes stick with the default configuration) are deposits and withdrawals, everything else is handled by the exchange locally in a normal database. Dividends are just added to the site's information about your current balance.

Just tried to sign up for one of the lower limit CDs, on submitting any request it's denied saying that I need a minimum 100 BTC balance for any of the CDs, including the 1 BTC minimum 25.5% CD.

Much less important I also noticed that each CD request triggered 4 total requests to the server, particularly on an error where no balance information changes, isn't that a bit high?

Pyramining said he would look into buying competitor's chips when one of them could ship an order in a reasonable time frame. Avalone and now BFL can make chips, and can ship them to you "eventually". Nothing solid yet.

Homebrew, as has been said a dozen or more times.

More generally, I think it's 10% of your referral's deposit converted back as a percentage of your deposit. If you deposit more after you get a referral your bonus % will go down but your total reward will still increase.

If he looked sane or it had any substance to it I might be worried. But it's just a business with moderate/high capital needs willing to share the reward with fairly minimal risk to investors. No complaints here

Found the function to lock things, but didn't see the unlock link until visiting the page again. Which is how I had expected it to be setup. Thanks

Bittorrent is great for large static content, kind of like a CDN. But to update it you need to distribute a torrent file to everyone and start over.

Freenet is probably closer to what you're looking for. Files can be uploaded anonymously by anyone and are stored even if the original host goes offline. However because people can only offer up so much hard drive space for free there's a limited amount of space and old, infrequently accessed stuff eventually dies. The short version is anyone can upload and retrieve files though.

Parasitizing off an alt-coin is just that though, you leech on it bloating the chain and just generally making other people put up with your extra cruft.

I was curious about this, because if this is the case then there's money left over in the account, if not you're shorted some relatively minor amount of money. I imagine if you only withdraw part of the total coin from an account it would be less significant.

As for locked addresses, is it locked for 14 days then unlocked, or does attempting to change the lock address start the 14d counter, or does the counter start when you try to withdrawal to a different address?  I just haven't seen any "unlock" button.

The blockchain isn't setup to store arbitrary data, so you end up with a lot more overhead than something built for the purpose. Additionally each person has to update the records anytime they change their password and for many general schemes this may require reinserting some or all of their data in addition to the changed data. Just to generate a transaction to store any data generates at least 10 bytes of overhead to transmit. Assuming you don't want to throw the coins into a black hole (which would allow you to put more usable data in the script), and assuming you want your coins back since you're not just buying a commercial service, you only really end up with around a minimum of 10% overhead, and more likely around 90-50% when you include gathering coins to spend again after encoding, preparing coins to be sent out, multiple transactions to do this quickly and cheaply, extra transactions for stenography/blending in with regular transactions. And if people set it up and never use it it's 100% waste.

I think it's an interesting concept in the more general case of storing data on the blockchain securely with minimal overhead, I also think there are other reasons it shouldn't be done.

Doing this with an alt-coin would probably be possible, but not an existing one, and there's not a good reason to do so really. Doing it on the bitcoin blockchain just adds bloat and probably wastes the coins you use doing it. Though it is probably technically possible to do, it's just not a good idea.

If you wanted to start up a peer-to-peer password storage (just a specialized file storage) protocol. That might be something more worth looking into. Or just look into an existing storage solution (Google drive, dropbox, rapidshare, Mega, etc), or pony up for the expensive service that's already made for what you're looking for.

You may also be able to expand upon a cross-platform computer keyring and backup to "the cloud" somewhere.

To be fair, pirate allowed withdrawal at any time until the end, however the interest promised is reasonable, subject to what can actually be provided, reasonable explanation for requesting loans, and there's a business backing it. Pirate was offering daily what is offered every two weeks here.