pero

P645-MG, but any P645 will do really.

As someone who doesn't live in California, will this bill (indirectly) make available to me the service manual for my Acer Travelmate?

I've search high and low and absolutely can't get my hands on one.

no idea about PoE on either board but if i/o is a concern you might want to take a look at the $25 rock64 with gbe and usb3 - i/o on my neo1 maxes out somewhere just below 20mb/s but my rock64 has no problem doing 80mb/s with some ancient spinny disks and some armbian devs have done ~200mb/s with ssds iirc

os support on the rock64 is not quite there yet however but given the features@pricepoint i expect it to catch up

yes

i have some nanopi neo(1)s and they're rock solid - my rule of thumb with arm boards is that support is good enough if it has an armbian _debian_ (vs just armbian ubuntu) release

pretty sure it's just for its press releasibility but ok

is their real supercomputer 32bit? because if it's not then i'm not sure how they are validating anything

no it's not inconsequential

for one, why are _researchers_ using largely obsolete technology; for another, many high performance computing tasks perform significantly faster on 64bit (e.g., lmdb)

you do understand that 'better supported' in the case of the raspberrypi means that you are running a 32bit os? that's all they officially support - and have no plans to change

do you really think something or better and cheaper is impossible? the rpi is _the most overpriced sbc on the market_ particularly if you're not using it for raspbian (32bit only) and the module ecosystem

nanopi neo2 and rock64 are better and cheaper alternatives

if we are 'considering the ecosystem' then that means these are running a 32bit os, as mentioned in my original comment

you can buy at least 2 nanopi neo2's for every rpi3b - they have gbe and a non-gimped soc, and you can fit in at least 2 for every rpi, maybe even 4

there are also more powerful alternatives of the same footprint and at same or slightly cheaper price point (rock64)

i don't even know where to start understanding this remark

i am questioning why they are using immensely popular and commensurately overpriced but yet woefully underspecced components instead of something better and/or cheaper

is it just because 'raspberry pi' makes for a hot title in a press release?

waste of (taxpayer) money using the (overpriced) rpi's gimped (no aes, usb3, gbe) soc

the rpi value prop is the community support but that would mean that this cluster is running a 32bit os - so what really is the point of using these instead of something smaller and cheaper or same size and more powerful for the same money

What's the motivation here then?

I'd guess it's some sort of legal/accounting move, something beneath the surface. Doesn't really make much sense otherwise.

says debian 8.* and 7.* which i take to mean 8.1 and 7.1, expressly excluding 9

no debian 9?

Blockchain analysis investment perhaps delivering some ROI.

http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/labnews/articles/201...

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xz35e/us-law-enf...

Blockchain analysis can tie transactions with KYC'd identities.

http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/labnews/articles/201...

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xz35e/us-law-enf...

http://www.coindesk.com/elliptic-partners-with-risk-controls...

Intellectually and academically dishonest hitpiece by peddlers of a competing cryptocoin.

That this subset of transactions is not safe is not news, nor is it even original research - it was covered in research more than 2 years ago by The Monero Project itself - and is something the project has addressed since and is working to further improve even beyond the recommendations of this paper.

Lengthy discussion on reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/65dj7u/an_empirical...

As a little cherry on top, the CPU they sourced is also crippled with no onchip crypto. Even the half-price Pine64 has a CPU with crypto instruction sets.

The original comment purports that ridiculous enrichment schemes are a carpet necessary evil for initial and continued development of cryptocurrencies, which is simply not true - what you're pointing out is a different argument.

Not _all_ cryptocurrencies, no - it's mostly just the scammy ones of little genuine utility and/or technological merit.

Both Bitcoin and Monero have fair distribution; development of neither is done by for-profit LLCs financially supported by any pre-mine, miner tax, insider investment/ICO, or other fancy scheme paid out by either the underlying monetary system or taxed from the users and/or those securing the network, and while Blockstream Inc. does employ Bitcoin Core developers, Monero development is entirely decentralized without even a foundation to its name.

It seems like they might have somehow ignored direction from as early as February...

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2016-Februa...

Did you read the blogpost? It's basically a Zcash presskit - note the surely calculated title, and the omission of any actual "anonymous" competitor coins in the first paragraph as well as the entire article, all at a time when ZEC price is in free-fall.

It might even be worse if it wasn't as such - a security-oriented business that, motivated by Bitcoin's shortcomings, does due diligence on anonymous crypto and genuinely concludes that Zcash, in its current state no less, is the answer? Come on.

http://archive.is/wdNh3

http://archive.is/vnmkv

5 hours and almost 100 comments later no one has pointed out that Zcash and Keybase share the same investors.

I am relieved that 'Keybase chose Zcash' purely on merit after an exhaustive and objective selection process, and that this potential conflict of interest is transparently disclosed in the linked adverticle - wait, they did no such thing.

Does it concern no one that this security-focused company is shilling for other (fundamentally questionable) products?

The Monero blockchain is comprised of inputs and outputs - public keys/one-time addresses to power of 10 denominated amounts into which each transaction is split and mixed with past public keys of identical power of 10 amounts. There are no 'orthodox' addresses on the blockchain which can be linked to transactions or to an identity.

I don't think you understand how Monero works _at all_ - let me fix one of your arguments to illustrate:

When you spend money, you basically say "I am one of 2^256 people", where 2^256 is usually fairly small.

Disappointing/embarrassing level of insight from a crypto project leader - here's a good layman-friendly video https://youtu.be/GEVm1dMn5Ks?t=14m to bring you up to speed (the simplified example is continued at 20m).

ZCash has a myriad of fundamental issues, chief among them:

-ZCash is a US-based LLC, and given what is publicly known about the capabilities and past behavior of its intelligence apparatus I don't see how anyone can claim that such an organization can shepherd a 'truly anonymous blockchain', particularly one that is essentially a black box

-ZCash's blockchain is a black box and requires you to not only trust them with your anonymity, but also to trust them not to create coins arbitrarily - a successful attacker could also mint coins at will - as there is no way to verify circulation

-Anonymous transactions are optional and require tremendous resources to generate

-It is an innovative take on a pre-mine where insiders were given opportunity to pre-purchase coins at the expense of future miners

I suggest that anyone looking for a truly anonymous blockchain experience take a look at Monero.

Please do.