Okay, so I can see how settings not getting written would cause this. ~/.config/QtBitcoinTrader doesn't exist, so am I supposed to change permissions on ~/.config/ ? Change to what exactly?

Also, this permissions issue is likely because this is not how preferences/application settings are supposed to be stored on mac osx. The correct directories would be ~/Library/Preferences or ~/Library/Application Support/

Tried beta 93 - still impossible to create a profile or save any API data on Mac (using BTC-E). Fill out all fields, hit ok - get sent to profile window asking for password (but my profile i just made isn't there, only default). Enter password anyway, jumps back to blank profile editor.

Is anyone using this on a mac??

first time using mac v1.07.92 beta-

open software, starts with api and secret fields , passwords for profile - I fill everything out (for BTC-e) and hit ok.

Then I'm taken back to the "Data Password Protection" screen, only profile showing is Default Profile (though I gave mine a name). When password is entered, takes me back to same api key and secret page, but with all fields empty again. Done this 3 times in a row. Fill all fields, hit ok, but can't get anywhere....

Would seem nothing is being saved?

Are we doing this again? You can't "hurt" people who have already received their products by shipping other orders on time or early. Everyone who placed orders for *any* batch took a calculated risk, not knowing the future. The prices reflected the opportunity, nothing more.

Hypothetically, if every August batch order had shipped exactly on Aug. 31st, but the October batch orders didn't ship until November 15th, due to typhoons disrupting Asian supply routes -- or a cockroach got stuck in a PCB machine, disrupting production, would you also claim that the October customers were "hurt" by the on-time delivery of August batch? Bullshit. You don't penalize one set of customers unnecessarily just to "spread the misery" because another set of customers had unfortunate luck.

I never said you mentioned terms about H-boards - that was *my* analogy, the significance of which has somehow escaped you (as you have not addressed the comparison). What you proposed (compensating August orders for earlier October deliveries) is not capitalism. And the terms do not state: no one who orders later batches are allowed to get theirs earlier. The terms for august orders are august delivery. End of terms. If october is a month late, has no bearing on august orders. Thus neither does any amount early. You keep trying to make it a question of "honoring terms". But your terms end when you take delivery of your product.

You are not making an economics argument, and I am not proposing any buddhist feel-good stuff. I'm saying if October shows up early, you have no claim (which you keep ignoring, instead playing semantics and making broad statements). That's capitalism. Someone gets a better deal than you, tough beans. Thus my example of the H-boards, which obviously are a "bonus" to the August orders, and no one else is complaining the terms have been violated because someone else got extra. You're selectively adding certain things (time gap) to your perception of the terms.

So you chose to respond to nothing other than a hypothetical suggestion about difficulty increase (**not given as a demand, but a conceptual reason, relevant given other companies "ROI protection" schemes**), ignoring the clear analogy to the extra h-boards. Nice. Forget the overriding themes of squelching success and entitlement mentality, as if early orders have any claim on later ones, or on what a business decides to do to improve things for customers who arrived after you.

Continuing with such bitter logic, Apple should compensate you if the next revision of the iPhone is released any earlier than exactly 365 days from the old one, because you bought yours expecting a full year head start, getting the maximum use for your $$, compared to the lucky saps who get additional features in their next-gen phone. You factored that year of use into your purchasing decision, and now, horror of horrors, Apple releases the new iPhone 30 days early. Clearly you have been robbed in such a scenario.

The essence of your position is that you lose if someone else benefits, whether or not what you have is altered in any way. That kind of attitude often resorts to protectionism when faced with progress and innovation in the marketplace.

What you propose is that Dave should sit on his hands, even if he has the ability to deliver early, to fulfill some imaginary obligation to the August orders, that the time gap between August 31st and October 31st be maintained. Where in the world is it written, once you have received your August Kit as paid for, that there is any continuing contract or arrangement between such a customer and the manufacturer? You paid, got your order, and if unforseen conditions change over time, where is the obligation to preserve the time gap?

You have no problem dealing with the unforseeable developments of difficulty increases, so why are unforseen shifts in component delivery and fulfillment any different? Why is it ok to be late delivering product, but not early?? No one is demanding compensation for being a few days past the end of August, so in what world does it make sense to demand compensation for a possible early delivery?

Disagree. Dave and all vendors are (and rightfully should be) completely free to overdeliver on what they promise. Such achievements are very good P.R., as they further differentiate between themselves and other companies which underdeliver (if at all). They demonstrate their ability to innovate and improve, and increases confidence.

You are proposing, however to extract punishment from (or compensate) one group or another based on later success. That's just ass-backwards. Penalizing success? exceeding goals? What exactly are you trying to motivate here?

Case in point - initial tests showed H-boards not hashing at their advertised 25GH speed. So additional H-boards were included for free to the initial customers -- and likely only them, as later batches should have tweaks made to achieve the advertise rate per board. This meant people who ordered a 25GH starter kit are now sitting on 40GH of hashpower.

Now, according to your logic, this is an unfair bonus given to one group (early orders) that later orders do not receive. Should Dave now "compensate" later orders that won't receive such extra hashpower with $$ to offset the difference? Didn't those later orders make their choices based upon calculations which weighed the cost of 25GH in august vs. 25GH in october? Have they not been wronged?? Hogwash.

Shipping october orders any earlier than the 31st would NOT cause to "harm" to earlier orders. They got what they paid for, and they worked with what knowledge was available at the time of order, like everyone else. You could even make a case that shipping Oct earlier would actually be more than fair because of the steep increase in difficulty rendering earlier ROI predictions to be way off, so the earlier delivery would be a move to compensate (as other companies have attempted various schemes to preserve estimated ROI).

Dave - ignore this guy and send everything out as soon as humanly possible.

Any news on how this might affect october orders? Assuming the priority of retail over 100TH mine refers only to the August orders...

THIS.

Bitcoinoarama (and all other cypherdoc haters) -- please go find another thread to beat a dead horse about what constitutes fraud when canceling an order (since your condemnation requires the proof of "thought crime" to distinguish itself from otherwise valid use of a cancellation policy, I imagine its going to take another 30 forum pages to "hash" it out).

Following these damn forum threads for new information is a massive chore already. However valid your criticism may be, you're not winning any points by choking this thread with endless bickering and hair-splitting, making the rest of us have to wade through it in search of relevant info.

Here's some free advice: Don't render giant blocks of text as an image. This is an embarrassingly amateur mistake, and it undermines your credibility. I haven't received an email from any company, large or small, in the past 3 years that has attempted to put the body text of their email as one big image. In your attempt to use some "alternative cool font", you created an announcement that is basically impossible to read on a mobile phone, and barely legible on a giant screen.

You should put a leash on your graphic designer, and keep him away from all text content. Let him go on making the pretty renderings and logos, but keep text as text.

nullspot

Order #24x - 14/07/2013 - 1x Starter Kit + 1x H-card (October)  -- USA

 

any chance of component tweaks between the august/october kits that might improve the situation? you know, lessons learned, etc..

I see what you did there ....  

To avoid confusion, please note this image and the specs do NOT refer to the same Bitfury 55nm ASIC H-Board being sold by megabigpower. This is a modified prototype board, with very different features from the H-Boards we've been discussing so far on this thread. In particular, this kit is a self-contained miner, not requiring a master board to plug into, and has different components which allow the overclocking (which will not be possible with the current H-Board out of the box AFAIK).

interested in bare bones open-air version, even self-assembled. Biggest concern is stability for all the H-boards wobbling in their slots.

correction: 0 left...  

Seriously though, was that just one buyer taking 395 (all but one??) at once?

I know this is cgminer - was just hoping you might have some insight. I haven't tried anything above 1000, but I imagine it would work from what I'm reading. With afterburner I am given the option to go down to 650, and it works. But cgminer fights with afterburner...

so an example - sapphire 7950 (reference):

auto-gpu is off
gpu-engine: 1100
gpu-memclock: 650  < OR > gpu-memdiff: -450 (i've tried both)
gpu-powertune: 10

but device monitor reports core clock 1100mhz, memory clock 1250mhz. Doesn't matter what values I put in the config, memory clock never seems to change. On my 7870s (tahiti LE), the memory clock defaults to 1500. Really need it lower...

If I use afterburner, I can manually set both clocks - but I've found some conflicts when both afterburner and cgminer are trying to modify clock.

I've tried setting the memclock manually (either with positive or negative integers) on the past four release versions, including this latest 1.1.5.1c, and when inspecting the devices, they never respect my memclock settings. Am I missing something? Would really like to underclock my memory for bitcoin, but it never works...

Mind sharing your config for getting 630 from these cards? I've overclocked mine to 1125 and max I get is 590...

Also, at that clock windows locks up after a little while, so not sure how you're getting even more...