Depends on size of the tank and the rig. The waste heat from the rig is going to be your biggest problem.  The tanks water needs to stay constant temp or you run the risk of killing the fish.

Need to nudge you there - US circuits vary from state to state and what year the house was built in.  This is further broken down as per what is the wiring in the house used for (kitchen or washer/dryer units tend to have higher limits).  It is not uncommon for houses in the US to have a mix of 15 amp and 20 amp breakers.  My house is almost entirely wired up with 20 amp breakers (and I still overload them).

My 5 x 7950 rig fluctuates between 1575 and 1600 watts.  I have them load balanced between a 900w and a 850w.  

I have been told that this is a limitation of the OS.

I run 5 x 7950 on a couple of my rigs with no issue.  4 non powered / 1 powered via molex.  They are split between an Antec 900W and Corsair 850W PSUs.  No problems with LTC mining here.

I have one of these boards in my setup.  The board has no problem recognizing 6 physical cards.  There seems to be a quirk with this board I have found that prevents it from recognizing card #7.  Seems that the board disables one of the 1x slots when the the adjacent 1x slot is occupied.  Found a couple of YouTube vids confirming this issue.

Under that premise, I see no reason why you couldn't load this board up with 12 GPUs.  I do not have any way of testing this though since all of my cards are single GPU.  I'd love to see pictures of something like that.

I settled with 5 x 7950 cards on mine.

Edited for clarification.

It is about cost.  Milk crate was most likely free.  I've got one sitting in the card board tray the vid card came in. 

ranlo,

I think the actual number civil lawsuits required to be considered a class action depends on the state where it is being filed.

I am not sure what would happen then.  You are talking international law, jurisdiction of sovereign nations, and treaties.  Interesting question though.  I guess it would boil down to the laws of the nation the BFL representative and the company itself was operating in at the time of the legal matter in question arose.  I have seen some incidents regarding negligence where the individual and the company were named as co-defendants. 

Combining?  I am only aware of a couple of types of combining. - Enough civil suits are filed on a matter that it is turned into a class action lawsuit (example defective product or product with negative side effects causing the consumers harm.  See them all the time advertised on tv.)  A plaintiff can join an existing lawsuit if there is action for cause and the complaint is identical in nature (Only seen this happen on state versus federal cases.)  The defendant can petition the judge to combine multiple lawsuits into one (Saw Microsoft pull this one off in speculation that company was stalling for time and saving on legal expenses).

In response to jesse11,

I am talking matters of state versus a company regarding consumer and potential criminal; not individual versus company in a civil tort. 

If you as a consumer living in Florida (hypothetically speaking here) decided to sue my company (which is registered and physically located in Kansas) in a Florida courtroom.  More or less you can try and sue.  My attorney would file a motion for a change of venue bringing the case up to Kansas.  Which means you as the individual would be forced to hire new legal council as the majority of law practitioners in Florida are not licensed to practice law in Kansas.  While you are scrambling for another lawyer and the money to hire him, another motion to dismiss would be filed on the grounds that the case was brought forth in a jurisdiction that my company is not registered in, or physically doing business in, or has conducted any business transactions to.  If it sticks you are back to square one having to file all over again.  And to add insult to injury, I'd petition the court to make you pay my company's legal fees for inconveniencing my company.  I can see BFL doing something like this if it got ugly.

So if you want it to stick, you take case to where they reside.  Harder to pull legal trickery that way.  Truth of the matter is most civil tort cases never make it to an actual court room.  I have heard percentages as high as 80 to 85% of all cases never see the light of day.  Most are referred to mediation or are settled our of court so nothing enters public record.  Most settlements are for x amount of cash, court fees with the defendant moving on to conduct business as usual not having to admit guilt.

This is what most likely would happen if an individual sued BFL.  Settlement with the records sealed afterwards.  Even if you sued BFL and managed to drag them in court to air out their dirty laundry, they would just have the records sealed afterwards preventing the plaintiff and prying eyes from disclosing to the public BFLs inner-workings and dirty laundry.  Furthermore a smart lawyer for BFL would ask the judge to place a gag order on the case (most likely on the grounds of trade secrets) so the plaintiff and all other parties in the court room could not say anything to the public during the court case either.

The only state that I am aware of allows you to go after someone regardless of where they are located in the United States is California.  Apparently you can sue anyone there.  Seems there is no requirement on the defendant ever having to be in the state, visited the state, conduct business in the state, or even know that California exists for a lawsuit to go forward there.

It does not matter where the complaint originated from as long as the complaint against BFL has legal merit.  The matter would be dealt with in jurisdiction of Johnson County or at the state level depending on which office moved against the company as BFL has a physical presence here.  If they do not have a registered agent handling their legal matters, then BFL would be served at their physical location.

Place incorporated does not protect the company from legal matters filed against their physical location.  If their registered agent (often a lawyer) is located in a different state than the physical location then the company will have to find legal council in the jurisdiction of the physical location where the legal action was brought forth.

I agree with bassclef.  BFL is definitely worthy of the 'buyer beware' tag.  Hence the reason why my company has gone elsewhere.

Instead of complaining about it, do something about it. 

If enough of you file complaints on unfair business practices to the point that Kansas takes action, the news article resulting from this action would pretty much do BFL in far as the BitCoin world is concerned.

My suggestion to any of you taking issue with BFL over your pre-order is to get in contact Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, to file a consumer complaint.  http://ag.ks.gov/contact-us/file-a-complaint is where you can go to file one online.  Keep in mind that BFL is located in Johnson county when filling out the complaint.  You can also file with the Johnson Country Consumer Protection Division http://da.jocogov.org/sites/da.jocogov.org/files/CONSUMER%20COMPLAINT%20FORM.pdf

There is a lot of legal grey that I think BFL keeps trying to wiggle around in with all of this pre-ordering.  They say all sales are final yet option #3 on their automated phone system is for refunds.  While I did not go down this part of their menu system, I do find it rather odd they'd contradict themselves in this manner.

All sales are final are not in the state of Kansas.  I do not know where they are getting this idea that the consumer is locked in, but they are not.  In Kansas under statute 50-627, it could be argued that BFL entered into an agreement that is excessively one sided not in favor of the consumer.  Pre-order a product with no specified date of delivery that the consumer is unable to cancel said transaction with full refund of money at any point.  The term "all sales are final" has a very narrow scope with a product actually being delivered to a consumer and a transaction being concluded.  It typically pertains to buyer's remorse or consumers trying to return their product for money after they have used it.

Restocking fees won't come into play in this scenario as majority of consumers that have ordered BFL product have yet to receive them.

Now as you have indicated should BFL indeed be using pre-order money in a deceptive manner for financial gain and can be proven then they'd run afoul of statute 50-626.

I see no reason to insult.  This isn't person, just business far as I am concerned.  I'm just stating what I see, no more no less.

Yes, you have the right to say anything you want within the rules of these forums.  It does not matter whether or not your statements are posted in the New York Times or on these forums.  Should the preponderance of evidence show that your comments (proven false by delivery of product) caused harm to BFL, then under civil law BFL has the right to file a tort against you.  Would they?  Depends on their mood I guess.

This goes back to yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Customers by default are investors?  No  You have ordered a product via commercial transaction, nothing more.  Unless BFL makes it very clear during the order process of said product that you are investing in their company via stock or interest, you are only ordering product as a consumer.

Given that BFL is incorporated, to be an investor in the traditional sense would involve the sale of stock or investment agreement signed and witnessed by multiple parties.

Take a step back and consider some of the vitriol being posted on various forums.  It is one thing to write truthfully about your experiences with BFL, observations tied to those experiences, or those based on research of personalities/history of the company.  Some of what I am seeing here is a different matter altogether and could land some posters in legal hot water.

Disclaimer: My company and I do not have a dog in this fight as we have elected to go elsewhere with our resources after our conversation with BFL's Dave.  We play by the rules and expect everyone else to do so as well.

These are some of the red flags we see:

Ethics of this company has been called into question over business practices.
Our company found BFL to be in willful violation of state law and as a result may be playing fast and loose with others laws.
The company does a poor job on its public relations.
The delays, regardless of reason why, are wearing thin on the public and those that have pre-ordered. 
The time period from when the order was placed to actual delivery of ordered product is considered by many an opportunity cost that can't be made up.


The violation with the law is with the collection of sales in the state of Kansas.  Regardless of how your company conducts its business transactions, a physical presence in Kansas requires you to collect sales tax from any individuals and business entities physically present in the state of Kansas as well.  Conducting online sales only does not preclude a business entity from collecting sales tax from customers physically present in Kansas as the Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, has been extended to online retailers as well.  Forming said business in a different state does not exempt you from this either as the law very clearly mentions 'physical' presence.  Given the nature of product being sold by BFL, exemption from collecting this sales tax from entities physically present in Kansas, as defined by Exception Certificates Pub KS-1520 coupled with KS-1510, Kansas Sales and Compensating Use Tax, is not possible as it is a finished product destined for end use by the consumer and does not fall within the several tax exempt product categories defined in these publications.

There are fines w/penalties and interest and possible jail time in the state of Kansas under KSA 79-3615 in regards to this violation.  Worse case scenario would be the suspension of online sales until BFL incorporates a sales tax collection system into their online store in addition penalties listed under KSA 79-3615


Now ignoring what we have found so far, this violation would only inconvenience BFL at best.

Should BFL pull through and deliver their products to the masses hence fullfilling their legal obligation in these commercial transactions, those that have been blasting BFL with SCAM this or SCAM without any basis in fact could then find themselves on the receiving end of a libel suit.

Considering the number of Android based cell phones out there, I see Google Wallet catching on quickly. Google Wallet will certainly eat into PayPal's market share.  As for kill off PayPal?  Doubt it.  As much as PayPal is a dinosaur in some ways as long as PayPal is tied to ebay, PayPal will survive anything Google Wallet throws at it.

We tested the idea when we were researching bit mining deciding on whether or not to invest into the idea.  What would make a mess for graphic rendering works great for bit mining.  We tested nvidia and ati cards mixed in one box.  Another would have 3 different generations of AMD cards in it.  To date, we have found only one card that does not work at all with cgminer (or any other opencl base miner for that matter).

Now for the sake of simplicity, predictable wattage consumption, and overclocking with utilities like MSI afterburner, I'd stick with one card type per mobo.

The automated phone system is notorious at disconnecting callers we have found.

The price is not exactly favorable to the consumer to say the least.  Thinking about it, these guys pretty much have the field to themselves to charge whatever they want.  This pricing won't change until other ASIC manufacturers start putting product out in sufficient quantities to tamp down the rabid demand for them.

Sounds interesting.

People looking to get rich quick will be severely disappointed.  Bit mining is quickly becoming more investment in nature.