Re: BitBet incorrectly declares yes to a no bet. Stay Away from BitBet!!
Thanks. Edited my own post to try covering that a bit. If the boards can't fit in one unit, then it's not ambiguity being a problem at all, but explicit clarity which covered this exact kind of situation, right? The quote I posted shows punin indicating he was not (at that time) able to produce a 400GH/s unit, and that 16 boards make up a unit.
What is "fit in one unit"? To use more than 16 boards requires 2+ m-boards. All 400 GH/s orders shipped with additional m-boards.
I mean - maybe he's biased, but at least it'd give something to point to.
ETA: site:bitcointalk.org "quote from: punin" "unit" Nothing yet... 7 more pages to go. Wish I had something productive to do, instead, heh.
ETA2: Alright - how about this?
ALERT!! ACHTUNG!! HUOMIO!!
We've spotted a minor (potentially major) security issue with the image that was distributed with the shipped units. The user pi and root both have some ssh credentials set. You should remove these so that no one can access your unit. (This should not be such big issue if you're behind NAT).
(Again, I haven't kept up on this, so I don't know if this makes an indication) Is he referring here to one unit as one m-board? Can the m-board be accessed like that, or does it go through something else?We've spotted a minor (potentially major) security issue with the image that was distributed with the shipped units. The user pi and root both have some ssh credentials set. You should remove these so that no one can access your unit. (This should not be such big issue if you're behind NAT).