Maybe they do price-fixing and I'm simply unaware, but Amazon lists a range of prices for the model I have, both new and used, and I picked a sensible one on the low end.  In any case, I've also seen them on eBay for similar amounts.  So, regardless of whether people on this forum consider them to be "worth it", there does seem to be a market for them at said price.  What gets me, though, is why people feel the need to blow into this thread and spew garbage about being able to get an identical rig for a few hundred bucks.  What are they lacking in their lives that the only thrill they get is by undermining other people?  Is it some kind of leftist/communist mentality, that they think they are the ultimate authority on what my rigs "should" go for?  If so, it's weird that people like that would infest what otherwise seems to be a free-market-respecting board.

Thanks.  To be honest, I thought my post was just an amusing way to point out the illogical response I got.  I figured it would receive a "Yeah, we're working on that", not the rumblings of a potential flame war. 

Not everyone is rich enough to have a second computer available.  Also, perhaps you would care to explain how two computers in the same household, almost certainly running the same OS and browser settings, would have offered results different enough to circumvent the problem.  Oh, wait, that would require some actual thought, which, as the original posts points out, seems in short supply around here.


Yes, I opted to follow that route immediately after I regained access.  Thank you for the suggestion, though.


Bitcointalk itself is not the problem, merely the convoluted back and forth with Google's captcha.  Apparently Firefox's strictest setting in regard to trackers is what was inhibiting it.  Rightly so, though, I'd say.

My e-mail to Bitcointalk:  "The login Captcha won't show up, despite me enabling JS permissions for Bitcointalk, Google, and Gstatic.  I was hoping to update my sales listing with photos.  If for some reason this is a permanent issue, could a moderator help by posting the photos?"

Bitcointalk's reply:  "This is the hacked/lost accounts recovery email. Such requests should be made in the relevant Bitcointalk forum section."

So, I'm supposed to post to the forum, to inform them that I cannot log in... to post to the forum.  *facepalm*

Luckily, the problem turned out to be an issue with Firefox's privacy settings.

Thanks.  Your points may be valid, but you, too, are comparing apples to oranges.  Perhaps other 1080ti cards can be indeed had for a lower price -- and they probably function just fine -- but the particular ones in my rigs go for a higher price, and I would be a fool to sell them for less than that.  That's what irks me about all these monkeys coming in here and throwing poop -- they're trying to get me to sell a specific model of card, one that's more sought-after than the others, for far less than what it can fetch.  Essentially, they're swindlers.

No, I did not base my prices on new cards.  New cards on Amazon are $1,400 to $2,000.  Used ones are about half that.  Lying about it isn't going to get you anywhere.

Well, I finally got the first step done: pictures of the assembled rig, with closeups of parts and numbers, verified by the presence of a recent periodical.

I've also checked the Amazon prices for new and used cards, and set my "buy it now" suggestion based on those, in conjunction with the fact that it throws in the other hardware for free, and that it's already tested.

Buck, Fanatic, et al.,

I can certainly understand being wary of scams.  It would have been better if I had started my post with the exact specifications of the equipment, obviously.  Due to my own error, I lost the information months ago; I've tried to get the last two holders of the rigs to give me a list, but to no avail.  (Personally, I would rather keep mining, except that the current holder has become unreliable and I felt it would be better to sell.)

As for the high asking price, my assumption was that haggling would be automatically part of the method, and done via private message.  The figure of 2 BTC was simply an aggressive starting point, based on the realization that there are a lot of jerks out there who would try to publicly poo-poo the hardware and drive down the price, no matter how low I set it.  Anybody who acts shocked and appalled over me pointing out that simple fact is just being manipulative.

There were some suggestions as to how I might improve my listing, but I'm unsure how to implement them well.  I had originally avoided saying anything like "or best offer" because I didn't want to be obligated to sell to some joker offering only five bucks.  Clarification on best practices would be appreciated.  Thanks.

The first rig was built by Vosk at the end of 2017, and consists of four cards.  The second rig was built by Remote Mine (run by Corbin Pointer and Manraj Gill) in early 2018, and is half empty.  Both rigs were used about half a year, then shut down when Remote Mine closed with hardly any warning (refusing even to break down the rigs and sell them).  The rigs then got shipped to Utah, where a prospective host failed to make use of them since.

As for the price, there's nothing stopping people from haggling, is there?  However, it's inappropriate to come into my thread, make a bunch of faulty assumptions about the hardware, and then urinate on my suggested price for it. 

I will entertain counter-offers, but nothing so silly.  Thank you.

Pair of 1080TI rigs, built by VoskCoin and Remote Mine, respectively.

Six cards in all; used only half a year.  (See update, below.)

2 BTC for the lot.  (See update, below.)

Pick up in Salt Lake, or pay for shipping.

Further details and discussion:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109633.msg49748627#msg49748627
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109633.msg49885514#msg49885514

2019-04-17 update

Finally got someone else to store the rigs, and take some photos.  (Should I get pictures of the boxes, too?)

I was mistaken about the number of cards -- the total is eight, not six.  Six in a single rig (that pictured), and two in another (not shown).  I had thought that such was the case, but didn't want to mistakenly false-advertise, before.

Since the initial post, the BTC exchange rate has shifted significantly, so the previous highball of 2 BTC is now excessive.  "Buy it now" price of 1.3 BTC (~$6,800) for both rigs, or we can haggle about individual parts via PM.

First rig...
[6] GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G graphics cards (gigabyte.com/Graphics-Card/GV-N108TGAMING-OC-11GD)
[1] EVGA SuperNOVA 750 P2, 80+ PLATINUM 750W power supply (evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=220-p2-0750-x1)
[1] Hewlett Packard 1200-Watt power supply (#438203-001)
[1] open frame with motherboard, processor, memory, etc.

Second rig...
Not sure yet.  Awaiting further photos.

Images of rig, with closeups of part numbers, along with recent periodicals...

"User 'SuiMikira' has not chosen to allow messages from newbies. You should post in their relevant thread to remind them to enable this setting."

Thanks, all.

When someone of "newbie" status sends a private message to one who has disabled receipt from said class of sender, is the sender notified that his message will not be delivered?

Could you explain a bit more about that part?  Do you mean that only the fiat is being redistributed, and 'coin holders will still keep their original 'coin balances?

Yes, and that's the other concern I had.  Do you think it will apply only to the fiat-holding accounts?  (My concern is that governments are pressing for "registration" in order to know who's got which 'coins, even if those were merely moved onto BTC-e for trading, and never even interacted with fiat.  In other words, has the government effectively taken my 'coins hostage?)

I'm having trouble comprehending the Google translation of BTC-e's announcements.  What it sounds like they're saying is that the U.S. confiscated the dollars outright, and therefore BTC-e will "socialize" the loss by redistributing my alt-coins to people whose dollars were stolen...  Please tell me I'm misunderstanding this!

And if I am mistaken, then should I just wait until BTC-e eventually resurfaces (hopefully), at which point I will be free to access and transfer my alt-coins if I so choose?  (Or am I really not getting the point, and my alt-coins are truly gone forever?)

Is anyone else thinking, "They got to him..."? 

It currently takes roughly a minute to bring up any page on the site, so perhaps what I assumed was a downed service may not have been.  That a Tor-friendly "mom and pop" e-mail service is probably under attack really shouldn't surprise me -- government has the motive and the resources, and doesn't play fair -- but I still find it disheartening.  I wish that I were in a position to contribute to Rugged Inbox; but for the time being, all I can do is offer my moral support.  Just know that we're rootin' for ya! 

Yet, even though the webmail works, I'm still getting the "us2.pop.mailhostbox.com" certificate confusion/scam/MitM/whatever issue when using Thunderbird's account wizard.  Has no one else encountered this problem?

I'm still getting a warning when using the Thunderbird account setup wizard and selecting the POP3 option.  Yesterday, the certificate details listed some non-ruggedinbox URL, and now it lists "mail.ruggedinbox.com" but still claims it's invalid.

I've manually typed everything I saw, so there may be mistakes...

Thunderbird 38.5.1 over non-Tor connection...

Selected "Add Mail Account...".

Entered name, e-mail address (...@ruggedinbox.com), and password; kept "Remember password" checked; pressed "Continue" button.

Observed messages of "Looking up configuration: Trying common server names", etc.

Switched radio button from "IMAP" to "POP3"; pressed "Done".

Observed "Checking password" message, then window stating the following:
   You are about to override how Thunderbird identifies this site.
   Legitimate banks, stores, and other public sites will not as you to do this.
   Server: Location: pop.ruggedinbox.com:110 [Get Certificate]
   Certificate Status: This site attempts to identify itself with invalid information.  [View]
   Wrong Site: The certificate belongs to a different site, which could mean that someone is trying to impersonate this site.
   [ x ] Permanently store this exception
   [Confirm Security Exception] [Cancel]

Here's where I'm getting really confused.  When I click "View", it brings up a window with "General" and "Details" tabs -- sometimes showing one set of credential, sometimes another.

Result #1:

This certificate has been verified for the following uses:
SSL Client Certificate
SSL Server Certificate

Issued To
Common Name (CN): mail.ruggedinbox.com
Organization (O): (I inadvertently overlooked this entry.)
Organizational Unit (OU): Domain Control Validated
Serial Number: 0B:A6:AB:22:5D:CD:AF:C4:6C:9F:92:19:85:16:57:53

Issued By
Common Name (CN): COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA
Organization (O): COMODO CA Limited
Organizational Unit (OU): <Not Part Of Certificate>

Period of Validity
Begins On: 03/04/2015
Expires On: 03/04/2016

Fingerprints
SHA-256 Fingerprint: A0:59:AF:7B:A5:69:23:C2:93:23:7D:86:CC:30:E6:14:4B:9B:77:41:92:5E:E1:10:9A:0F:C7:B8:49:B9:EE:2D
SHA1 Fingerprint: FD:18:DE:8F:55:A1:01:4E:E8:A9:DF:8E:95:4E:92:BB:2F:75:FC:67

Result #2:

This certificate has been verified for the following uses:
SSL Client Certificate
SSL Server Certificate

Issued To
Common Name (CN): us2.pop.mailhostbox.com
Organization (O): <Not Part Of Certificate>
Organizational Unit (OU): Domain Control Validated
Serial Number: 1C:30:0E:C7:E6:FC:1D:49:D8:86:01:A3:24:1E:A7:75

Issued By
Common Name (CN): COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA
Organization (O): COMODO CA Limited
Organizational Unit (OU): <Not Part Of Certificate>

Period of Validity
Begins On: 09/15/2015
Expires On: 05/15/2016

Fingerprints
SHA-256 Fingerprint: CD:DA:B0:66:00:1F:4E:E7:67:EC:39:AE:FB:FF:9C:FB:FC:D3:7B:F3:DC:5C:BE:82:10:01:87:12:9F:82:C1:7B
SHA1 Fingerprint: 17:C3:65:17:2F:F7:D9:1E:C2:BA:F2:7D:C1:6E:C7:C6:92:5C:38:E0

So it was down for a week.  Then, when it came back up, things seemed to work fine -- until I tried to reconfigure my Thunderbird POP settings, and suddenly got a warning about the security certificate pointing to a site that wasn't "ruggedinbox".

Not seeing the certificate issue mentioned here in the days since, I've begun to wonder whether it's something flying under the radar, maybe slipping past those who continued "business as usual" under their previous settings.  So, in the interim, I opted to use the webmail interface.

Unfortunately, since yesterday, the website appears to be down again, at least for me.