Bitcoin Forum

Knew I'd find this eventually:

"An ASIC Design for a High Speed Implementation of the Hash Function SHA256 (384, 512)", Dadda, Machetti, Owen (2004)

These guys came up with a re-timing pipeline which increases Maximum Clock Speed on a regular SHA engine by 36%. No new algorithm - you cannot 'improve' the existing one, this is simply an exercise to reduce critical path delay on an ASIC (not an FPGA)

So to any of you that are prepared to swallow the shite that KNC put out: Beware.

I'm not saying they are scammers, but they are dishonest with their information, to put it mildly.

Read into that what you will.

It is simple magic, accept it ;)

Hi Peter, silly me. I'm just too old and cynical. Thanks for setting me straight.

Forgive me for my newbiness but... I'm lost as to how this makes KNCMiner look bad?

It's called trying to inflate the actual performance of your product and/or design knowledge. If your product is good, quote firm numbers based on hard, verifiable FACTS rather than allude to 'improvements' to a mathematical process which has data dependencies which cannot be changed or improved.

The academics who wrote the paper quoted are experts in their field - Dadda has an adder type named after him - and designed a method of reducing delay paths on an actual asic. They did'nt change or say they could change an algorithm. KNC claim to have an 'improved' algorithm, and that is just plain rubbish. Ask any mathematician.

Any respectable company would not make such ridiculous claims, if KNC have indeed used the methods from this paper in their design,then they should acknowledge it. Hence my annoyance.

Incidentally, Dadda and co. got their SHA256 engine to run at 'a clock speed of well over 1Ghz' on a 130nm process.

I'm not at all familiar with the underlying algorithms. What in that statement says dishonest? Maybe just a link to reading about algos so I can figure it out myself?

Sorry your last post wasn't there yet when I posted my question.

yes what is wrong with what they claimed? It sounds like they're basically just saying that they have a fast implementation of the SHA256 algorithm which is fair

Wow nice !!!

I meant... you should refer to what parts you're saying KNCMiner is lying about, :p. Especially in a newbie area, most people will have no idea what KNCMiner even is, much less what you're talking about.

So what you're saying is they are overexaggerating the ability of the chips/miners they are supposedly creating?

Interesting

You cannot "improve" SHA-256. You can however, improve the Bitcoin hashing algorithm. How is this possible? Look at the ZTEX FPGAMiner.
Also, there are many ways to implement SHA-256 in silicon & FPGA. How you construct your pipelines, loops, resets, etc, all matters.

At the end of the day, you cannot avoid most of the work done in the SHA-256 passes that Bitcoin uses, but you can make that work be done in a more efficient way.

While you may be right in saying this is the "magic" behind KnC:s algo, the way you express your thoughts reminds me of another forum dweller here...

Is that you, Josh?

The real question to ask yourself is:

What do I think an improvement of x% to the SHA256 algorithm means?

Most everybody will think it means x% more hash rate, yes? Inferring that their SHA is better than others,
yes? So their product is superior?

You cannot change the SHA256 algorithm or it isn't SHA256 anymore. A hardware tweak which enables a higher clock rate has nothing to do with the algorithm itself, so why try to claim otherwise? I don't even know if KNC have used the methods in the paper - I doubt it - and they have given no details about their mathematical wizardry. I would, if I was them, there is no shame in being genuinely creative, like the
authors of the paper. But to use these tactics?

So I am very, very suspicious. If you read my other posts about them in the Newbies section then you will
see some other rather serious inconsistencies about their Mars machine that I picked up.

I have nothing against them or any other wanabee asic company, but when you want people to give you a
lot of money on trust, you MUST be honest and truthful.  

And speaking of said, here are some questions you shouldask anyone wanting your money up front for any asic product:

1. Who is the silicon foundry?
2. Are you using a Multi Project Wafer service or a full mask set?
3. What is the chip size?
4. How many pipelines does it have and what is the operating frequency?
5. What is the target package type?
6. If you are using a full mask set ($1.6 - $2.3 Million for 28nm) who or how are you financing it and what are your contingency plans if you need a respin?
7. To get '90 day' production you need a lot of chips, meaning you need several wafers (costing 15 - 30k dollars each in a small geometry). Refer to 6 above.
8. What software tools have you used for development and if they are commercial ones like Cadence, exactly how have you financed them up to now?
9. What happens to my money/order if you miss the 90 day target?
10. Will you publish an order backlog summary for purchasers to examine?
11. Will you publish the invoice for NRE for purchasers to see? (ie to see that it really is x nm)

Feel free to add your own. There is absolutely no reason for any company wanting your money NOT to answer these questions.

No, this is'nt Josh, just a concerned citizen. I doubt that Josh has the time or inclination to worry about what KNC may or may not claim at present. In all fairness to him and BFL, they've never put out any technical misinformation about their products. 

I am sure KNC was talking about improvement to the Bitcoin hash algorithm as it pertains to mining not changing or breaking SHA-256. Improving the Bitcoin mining algorithm is possible, since you do not need to produce all 256 bits of the second SHA-256 hash. You only need to produce the part that is examined for difficulty. The ZTEX FPGA mining code has an example of this.

Also, they are talking about the algorithm as instantiated in silicon, not the SHA 256 pseudo-code algorithm. How many registers are used, how the adders are built and shared, how many loops are performed. There are endless possibilities for improving how SHA-256 is done in any language be it C, C++, Go, Verilog, or laid out in an ASIC.

There has been 2 open days at KNCminer. They answered pretty much all the questions asked to them. You could have sendt your questions with someone attending.

I am really not interested in Open Days, just plain old transparency. It works.

Got one on order, have you?

In addition to the previous arguments:

In an ASIC/FPGA it's not really only an algorithm, so another aspect comes into this: Creating a sufficiently optimal representation of the desired logic in VHDL/Verilog that lends itself well to chip layout / signal paths etc. -> This is what will allow you to either pack more parallelism into the chip real estate OR (tradeoff) utilize higher clocking. Layout and routing on the chip is nontrivial and using only the auto-functions of the design software might not give optimal results. If you are in a hurry to get a working chip in volume production, that's ok, but if you spend some more time on this, you might gain 15% or even much more in terms of attainable clock speed

Being able to clock 15% higher due to refinements in your chip design is a good thing, neh, if you can do it?

Date Registered:    June 02, 2013, 10:19:42 PM  OK!

Yep, pretty transparent attack on KNC. Notice how he has not addressed any rebuttals to his statements.

hoooboooy that's Josh right there

Err... here's a partial list of lies/omissions/misinformations about BFL products:

• chip power estimates
• chip production details
• estimated hashing power
• PCB specs
• all kinds of part delivery dates
• product specification changes
• production capacity
• shipping schedule

While not everything on that list is strictly technical, it does illustrate how anything that comes out of BFL "PR" machine should be viewed with suspicion. Anyone care to add more?

Open days is all about transparency.... Yes i got an order, KNCminer has been cool from day 1.

i dont know, but i think troll..

Well. That 36% speedup is likely "old" trick of balancing delay between EFGH and ABCD pipelines... I consider this as an old trick that everybody knows now :-) So nothing new and unusual.... I think today this is public domain and well-understood technique at least of those who deal with miners :-) Avalon has it for example.

Very important feature. There exists several ways to balance depending on performance of underlying cells, but idea is the same. BFL by the way seems not to implement it in their FPGA products that I suspected about 1.5 years ago when tried to benchmark my code with quartus estimations. There can be actually some invariant transformations of pipeline that however produce different timing balance. Best of course when you get equal delays.

Look carefully code below, it is what I actually use in last design. You should see extra subtraction for example. It may seem like unnecessary operation, but it helps to balance delays and get overall better performance. Trick like that existed already in my earliest bitstreams in end of 2011 :) So now there's more tricks but they are not related with logic models, but layout issues.

To sum up - if they claim they use such balancing - means that they worked really well and aware of details, unlike BFL did, good sign. I think they could disclose now more :-)))

I don't know what the precise language is which you're taking to task.  But if KNC or OrSoC's guys found, studied, and implemented this or another implementation scheme for SHA256, then it's semantics you're arguing.

What I mean is this:  there is only one exact square root that maps uniquely on a real number.  But if it mattered, and you had a way to make a value converge to full float accuracy faster than mine, could I take you to task if you said you had a better square root algorithm than I did, if we both got the same correct value?

And, no, I don't have a KNC box on order.  I don't have any hardware on order.  The mining ship has sailed for anybody that doesn't have their own unlimited supply of chips and the facility to build the boards.

What magic? What algo?

There's no KnC ASIC yet. It's just a promise. All this is just mental masturbation.

Glad to see some of you have actually started to think. I have actually designed asics before, and am well aware of what is real and what is not in device specifications and performance. I would advise anyone with an interest in the asic implementation of SHA256 to read some of the academic prior art available as I have done. Then let's hear your thoughts.

I have no alligience to any of the asic companies, but I hate misuse of data and bad 'technospeak'. I also think any company that wants your money should answer your questions without you having to ask them. If you think differently, then you're an idiot.

As for BFL, they dug themselves into a hole and did'nt try to get out. They need a good PR man to repair their tattered reputation,and to do something to restore the faith in their customers.

Problem is here, you all want to be rich - nothing wrong in that - but don't make the mistake of financing your future competition.

Good that you designed asics. Well in prior publications (prior to 2011) I haven't seen that such balancing was well covered. There's really MANY solutions like that, basically I have explored likely most if not all of them. These have different implications depending on underlying cell implementation... But - is it really something that would be published ? For me it seemed like good r&d job that anyone who would like to produce optimized algorithm should pass. And it was surprising that many developers actually ignored such optimizations. I remember that I got to them much much earlier than say I understood underlying low-level structure of spartan fpga. So not looks like something impossible complex. Especially for those who pretend to be experts.

I am not an expert and can not pretend to be. But I think there are revolution ways to break the balance of ACIS design.
Maybe the details of KNCminer ACIS design is not convenient to disclose. 
So No news is good news.
Just waiting three months to see the result.
So many thanks to your deeply explanation of different ACIS design.

perhaps, when they say they are "improving the Algorithm" they are refering to their implimentation of it. Perhaps their implimentation had issues and they improved them.

so where is Dadda's miner if he so supa??

Ya where is your supper miner, seems like you know everything about Asics ...

Believe me, if I had access to 400k$ I would get one built. But I don't and so have work for a living like everyone else.

I know of at least two groups that are actually doing this on 20nm technology at the moment, and they aren't planning on selling their product to the masses. Frightening thought.

As for Mr. Dadda, I suspect that because of his abilities and reputation he's paid extremely well and has other interests. Read some of his papers, you'll find it a worthwhile exercise, he's a very clever man.

it's finickiness. The wording seems this way, thereby  everybody is able to understand it without detailed knowledge .

Well, even if they do make a product (ASIC+what goes around), KNCMINER are still full of shit and your dealings with them should be carefully evaluated.

That said, if they ship and don't scam everyone, they'll just be like any other lame business you have to deal with in this "line of work".

@Brontosaurus: forget getting ANY financial info from them. They just magically used their 5000 EUR in company equity to get the project off the ground (oh, BTW that and the preorder money... - they hadn't even selected the foundry yet, they were to do it around Wednesday if the report is correct). But they don't call it equity, the seem to think it's some Gov tax ::) (at least that's what they want you to believe, justifying the fact they didn't put, say, 20x more in it...)

KS, it goes back to the basic questions I put in my earlier post. You have to select a foundry early on to get access to their technology design rules and cell libraries, unless you already have said or are using COT. KNC clearly don't have the first and are'nt using the second. So they are still at least 6 - 8 weeks away from tape out, and another 12 weeks to prototypes. That's end November by my estimation, so forget getting any product this year.

Can you see why I'm concerned about what companies say / promise? One lie leads to another and so on....

Increase in difficulty

I know exactly what you mean. However, I can't say what ORSoC is capable of but I'm starting to think they are also full of it. They were still working on the FPGA while claiming the ASIC was ready, but then the fab isn't selected yet. ::)

They said the fab or ASIC maker (so I assume the fab) will complete the ASIC design (so take the FPGA bitstream and convert it to an ASIC?), since they are not doing it themselves. So there is a possibility for slippage right there (trusting 3rd parties to keep your schedule - yeah right), then tape out in x weeks (say 10, to keep a tight schedule). No prototype, no testing, just production. If they are lucky, that'd put tape out sometime in September, then there is packaging, assembly, shipping, etc. It's "doable", but until their pipeline is not tested...

What puzzles me is the fact that Bitfury already has its chips, and they plan to ship in September as KnC.

KnC has no chips whatsoever, in fact they plan to receive them in August and send them directly to production. It seems that they want to do in one month or less what takes other players at least 2/3 months.

I have to admit that the fact that Bitfury's chips are already in the wild being tested as I'm writing makes me kinda uncomfortable as a KnC customer. We are entering very fast in very competitive times, in which every week is crucial and determines if ROI will be achieved or not.

Wow, the fanboi's have certainly been to town on this one. I'm going to side with brontosaurus as his questions 1 thru 8 are very pertinent.

As for the open day, from BitcoinOrama's report https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232852.0 the most telling fact that was disclosed was that KNCMiner's ASIC has a huge die size and they have absolutely no wafer or packaged device test strategy. They are just going to solder the chips on boards and hope for the best. There will be tears  :'(

Tears of joy :)

I concur, these are all really good questions

I'm a mathematician and I think you are splitting hairs.  It may not be acceptable in a mathematical journal, but in common usage it is acceptable to me to label an improved algorithm implementation as simply an improved algorithm.  Most people don't know the difference and it conveys the idea that they have some special sauce that makes theirs better than a naive implementation.

+1

this is what i already said...

Nope, not right. It's not because ppl are ignorant of the jargon that you have to lie to them. If you don't even have the integrity to NOT lie to ppl who don't know what you are talking about...

+1+1+1

Whoever does not believe in KNC do not buy. There are almost the only ones that sell asics. I understand that people wary of all manufacturers. Because until now only been hoaxes. Avalon except batch 1 and 2.
But there have been more than 2 days to ask them and expose them.

Huey, Dewey and Louie ::)

Get a life.  There are much bigger things to worry about than a marketing department reducing a phrase from 3 long words to 2 long words that convey the same exact meaning to 90% of the population.

float Q_rsqrt( float number )
{
  long i;
  float x2, y;
  const float threehalfs = 1.5F;

  x2 = number * 0.5F;
  y  = number;
  i  = * ( long * ) &y;
  i  = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
  y  = * ( float * ) &i;
  y  = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );

  return y;
}

... is the only magic I recognize.

Hooray for exploiting floating point notation!

I think we've discovered here why marketing guys use words that end in -ize (-ise for our friends in the UK).  If they said:  

"Our wizards use tricks only cool kids know to optimize the run time of the SHA-256 algorithm",

can any of the attendant word smiths take issue with it?

EDIT: Wait, I'm answering my own question.  "Optimum" is a superlative; there is only one.  To assert something is optimized implies there is no better way to achieve a particular objective.  Since that is difficult to establish unambiguously, anyone who would state such is certainly a charlatan.

Tomorrow, on Dancing with the Angels on the Head of the Pin, we'll be discussing the near-criminal practice of claims that various compliers perform "optimization."

Well, well. Seems my post has caused a little bit of debate and controversy.

In answer to some of what I assume are the adolescents among us, I did read the visit 'report' to KNC and I can only surmise it was written by someone who is a True Believer, much like those misguided souls who believe in UFO's and related claptrap. From the little factual content presented, there emerge further disturbing facts:

1. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the asic industry would tell you that silicon foundries are not
    at all excited at the prospect of possibly a few hundred k asics for 28nm. To suggest they will
    'compete' to get KNC's business is a very quaint idea, but totally untrue. KNC will have to convince
    a foundry to give them access to the technology, and it's not a dead cert that they will. I know for a
    fact that foundries have been 'plagued' (their words, not mine) by people calling them up with plans
 for
    Bitcoin asics,who don't seem to have the first idea what is actually involved.

2. Designing an FPGA is totally different from designing an asic. I'm not going to go into the details, just
    ask anyone who works in the industry. To think that you just take the same HDL code and out pops
    your asic is not the case. Any competent engineering graduate could write the HDL for a SHA256
    engine in an afternoon, and put together a compiled FPGA solution in a few days, at most.

    To do the same in an asic is a totally different ball game. Clearly the lads at KNC either have never
    done this,or are making some potentially fatal assumptions.

Sounds like the best they've done before is a 40nm hardcopy.

Shit, hit the wrong key.

To continue on my response;

3. I could not believe my eyes when I read that the plan is to simply solder the prototype chips straight
    onto the board without testing. This is an unbelievably stupid plan; any engineer worth their salt
    would be horrified. In asic design there is a well worn path for carrying out evaluation of new chips,
    and this isn't it. It's amateurish and totally unworkable. Plus, it suggests that they have no actual
    test strategy or production test program. But hey, who needs it? (Intel, AMD ............)

    But if you trust your thousands of dollars to these guys, good luck to you.

As regards some of the other comments about semantics, my initial post was about the fact that KNC were misleading potential customers by claiming they had something which they don't. It's dishonest, no
matter what spin you try to put on it. I've still not seen one solid piece of data from them or any of their
'fans' about their design architecture, die size or contingency plans if things go wrong, and if was giving
my money to them, these are not 'optional' facts.

What I did initially see was the specification of their Mars miner which seemed to be able to sold for less than a third of the price that the FPGAs alone within it cost. Bad marketing? Poor engineering? Voodoo?
Who knows, but if you want to be successful in building a complex device costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars in tooling costs, you'd better get your paperwork and specifications right.

The thought of these guys with millions of dollars of pre order money horrifies me - until I get some
straight answers at least.

But again, if you want to be a 'Believer', who am I to tell you otherwise? I've spent my entire
professional life dealing in facts, specifications and good solid engineering methodology. My 'belief'
in this system has always worked, and will continue to do so.

But greed blinds most people. Just look at what's happened to the financial fantasies of the BFL pre
order herd.

Or they wanted to build the boards, case, cooling solutions and integrate all of it (and test it) in parallel while OrSoc builds the ASIC (which is probably pin-out compatible with the FPGA). Yes, laying out an ASIC is different than laying out an FPGA and that is probably why they went with a serious ASIC design house instead of trying to do it themselves. However, there are quite a few "tricks" to be done while setting up a 128 stage pipeline be it on ASIC or on FPGA.

With all due respect
I do not understand, why not make a business / device? This wasting time, if you've always had good results on your projects with your methodology.

With all due respect, there is no place in my profession for deception, exaggeration, poor design, dubious methodology and 'try it and hope for the best' attitude.

Could it be that even Orsoc KNC do not know their work, and want to sell vaporware.

But you believe that a company like Altera with 40% market share & 2000 Million$ in 2011 sell VAPORWARE
HardcopyV product offers:
Design Environment

Prototype your system with Stratix V FPGAs to prepare your system for production, prior to ASIC design handoff. Hand off your completed design to Altera's HardCopy Design Center to implement the low-cost, low-power, pin-compatible HardCopy V devices.

Lower Risk and Total Cost

Working in partnership with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (TSMC) has proven to be very beneficial in the production of high yielding, highly manufacturable, and highly reliable HardCopy ASICs. In conjunction with the ability to prototype your designs in Stratix V FPGAs, Altera’s design methodology delivers lower risk and total cost.
Copy from: http://www.altera.com/devices/asic/hardcopy-asics/hardcopy-v/hcv-index.jsp


My question as I put here a few days ago.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232852.msg2508262#msg2508262
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232852.msg2511055#msg2511055

But still do not know why they said "A" and now is "B". When I told them it is better Stratix. They said save costs. Now the costs are not important?
I guess now enough money for a more expensive process

Sorry if you thought I laughed at your profession. Nothing is

And how does this differ from their statements? I'm pretty sure they have never given any explicit details except basically "we go it faster" which if correctly implemented they very well might. I think most people (I hope) understood they didn't actually claim to be taking shortcuts in solving the actual crypto. I for one give absolutely zero shits about exactly HOW a miner reaches a certain hash speed, just that it does it.

+1

How does this differ from their statements? Were you taught the meaning of percentages at school? Have you ever done any real engineering?

Another contributor was right - who gives a f*** for anything but the hash rate?

Except, possibly, if there is misinformation about one major thing, how can you trust anything you are told? For example, delivery times.

The more I hear about this project - mostly from it's 'believers' - the more I worry. Not for me, but for the hard working people that have bought into it (literally) and not been given the full facts about what might happen to their money and expectations. They deserve better.

I have nothing to gain or lose whether KNC succeed or fail. But I'd give any other company exactly the same criticism if they came out with shoddy or false specifications, misinformation or unachievable goals.

After all, I thought one of the major purposes of this forum was to watch each others' back? I'll bet you that with the response this post has had there won't be too many chancers offering their 'asics' anytime soon unless they have a proper ,documented plan.

Sorry, the point of your post is???????

At what point did you decide the debate had finished?

Why are you so cranky?

With due respect, you came at this the wrong way, IMO.  

Your theme is that some of the statements they've made around design strategy, as well as about supply logistics, don't seem to hold water.

That's a valid -in fact, vital- criticism of a tech startup vendor.  But to come in by accusing them of lying about the efficacy of their core process implementation in effect derailed your own thread, and covered an important professional opinion with a veneer of troll-like bullshit.

There will always be haters and people who argue for the sake of arguing. There are also people who are convinced that the way they see things is the only right way to see them and won't give up trying to convince others of the same.

Meh... their magic SHA256 algo is just one in a number of false claims.

Maybe the shills could come up with "factuals" instead of just "shilling"... It's hard as it is to try and stay unbiased with all the BS flying around.

So far the only thing that's staying true is they have a prototype that has been shown to mine (well, they showed a laptop, but I'll take the word of the people present at the open day it wasn't faked - and that's a big assumption). What other "facts" are there?

I do not want you to think I'm a KNCFAN, I was in orsoc, Mars was off and connected to the laptop. The watt meter is put 0w as logical.
When launched it takes a few seconds to be operating the 6FPGA of each PCB. Cgminer once operated 5.8-6.1 ghs with 400-450w. I do not remember exactly
I thought may be a video or any ruse. Logical doubt, if you buy something.
As in BTCguild were mining told that they should go on the web and should do the login.
I must say that out of respect look away when they placed the password. (Reflection type of informatic)
In a few seconds by pressing F5 updated one worker 5300-6300mhas. I do not remember exactly

I'm not saying it can not be a scam. Everything can be a scam to a marriage of years.
But if I have defrauded it worked very well.

Not prevent him to travel to Sweden to collect the debt ;D ;D

Like I said, the Mars miner is fact number 1 (on the positives, I won't recap the negs again, read the 120+ pages). Can't wait for more facts (& less wishful thinking/excuses/speculation).

Given that neither of the naysayers in this thread will admit that there is more than one way to implement an algorithm (and thusly demonstrate they are not engineers and in no position to judge KNC or OrSoc), the only thing that will satisfy them is a free fully operational Saturn from KNCMiner.
Lots of luck.  ;D

This way I see this whole thing right now is as follows:

1. KNC / OrSoC presented their concept with so much relative transparency and a base level of credibility that they were embraced, if for no other reason than in the Land of the Blind, the One Eyed Man is king.

2.  Some of the claims they've made trigger red flags in some of the Old Pros.  Often, old Pros are right about their instincts and what happens when things are presented that are out of synch with their knowledge and experience.  But not always.  Some of the Old Pros at IBM mocked the ridiculous personal computer as nothing but a Heathkit without the fun of building it oneself.

3.  There's a presumption that foundries see the bitcoin asics as a pain in the ass, and will piss on that business from a high distance.  While their meat and potatoes is the 3 million chips to go into the new Sunbeam toaster, which retails for 28 bucks,  there might well be suits upstairs who will pay attention, even to promoter-types who think ASIC is Latin for ASAP, when those guys offer to pay them 28 bucks a chip for a small run.

The bottom line is we don't know.  Kids are filled with grand schemes and irrational exuberance.  Often they don't think it thought or fail to acknowledge the small stuff that can kill a big project.  That could well be the case here.  

I wish they weren't taking pre-orders; Sweden has some vibrant financing, and some world-class product comes out of Scandinavia, from Saab to Nokia to ABB down to companies micro-sized relative to those.  

If people hadn't been so damned blinded by the greed that allowed this scammable vendor/customer relationship to spawn in the first place, this whole environment would be in a lot better place than it is today.      

For the record, there are only 2 Saturns for Bitcoinorama KNCFANS one for and one for me. Joking aside jajajajaa.

Never trust or distrust someone because of their nationality.

P.D Saab finally closed in 2012. Nokia had the good fortune of partnering with Microsoft to use WindowsPhone. They could amputate the gangrenous limb. Because Symbian was very good 8 years ago but was obsolete.

OK, 2 problems:

1/ they can't get a better/other algo, it's SHA256 or nothing.

2/ they're a joke on the BUSINESS side. (relates to false claim about 1/).

They're full of it, period. This is not about the SHA256 algo, it's about their continuous BS. ORSoC is not making those stupid claims, it's all KNCMINER's doing (which brings me again to the fact that ORSoC is NOT KNCMINER, so don't confuse the two, even if they are in close ties - it'll be KNCMINER losing your money, if).

Get the head OUT of the tech, it's only a small part of it. It's the business that will screw you (if).

Actually you're the joke. You are flailing away into trollville

creating ASIC miners is a cottage industry at best..  what cottage industries have the world class business processes you expect wacko?

If you took 2% of your anger and used it instead to be productive you might be able to make your own miner
What are you still stomping your feet here for?  The bets have been placed, and now we wait

Go hug your mother. [Yufi]

Autos.  

But see http://www.saab.com/

and re: "Never trust or distrust someone because of their nationality," for me to say world class products come from Scandinavia, I'm speaking to the infrastructure (contractors, vendors, universities, human capital) that implies, not the color of their skin or how hot the women tend to be (the answer to the latter, of course is:  really. hot.)

You obviously are not a software engineer. First, they never claimed to have improved the sha256 algorithm. You said that, not them. There is more to coding a usable ASIC than just the Algorithm, and there is always more than one way to code software. Saying that they improved their algorithm does not imply that they were referring to improving the SHA256 algorithm. They may have just been referring to their implimentation of it, or the code they wrote to support it. For example, if i code my asic to run 4 instances or SHA256, and then realize that there was actually room for 5. i could recode it to run 5. I've improved my algorithm without improving SHA256. I think this is a case of you not understanding what they meant.

You're right, I jumped the gun on the "SHA256" bit.

Here's their website quote:

"An additional gain of 30% more hashing when the advanced algorithms provided by ORSoC are applied."

30% more hashing than what then?

You're right about that at least.

^This +1
KS is also obviously not a hardware engineer.

Mars = 5.1 Gh/s stock. Mars at the open day = 6.8 Gh/s.

30% more hashing power = 6.63 Gh/s

Saturn = 125 Gh/s stock.

Jupiter = 250 Gh/s stock.

You do the math...

Shouldn't that be 175 / 350 stock

No, it was 250 Gh/s originally advertised, and they said they intended to over deliver. Then they said it was with a +30% improvement at 350 G/hs, and were introducing a mid-level price entry as they were splitting Jupiter into two units. Saturn was then born at 175 Gh/s, which one assume is 125 Gh/s stock, if Jupiter is 250 Gh/s stock. Mars was proof of concept which was why one of my first questions on the open day was, what is Mars' stock speed, is it 6 and you intend to OC, hence is the 6.8 part of the way there? but it was the case that Mars is 5.1 Gh/s in stock FPGA, and the coding has clocked it at 6.8 Gh/s stable Monday week back. Marcus aims to push it further currently, their improvements have more to yield. I assume any improvements now make it on further ASIC revisions in future, not this time round, but I maybe wrong...

It has been advertised with 350GHs with possible 30% more with optimization..

No it hasn't.

Must have misread, anyway i have not promised anyone more than 350 :)

sorry...but:

 +1

and this time KS is right, too:


have a look https://www.kncminer.com/products/jupiter

125 + 30% is 162.5
250 + 30% is 325

lol. I didn't actually mean you do th...

Correct. There is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn from the listings in their current form, namely, at stock speeds Saturn and Jupiter run at 175 and 350 Gh, respectively. Furthermore, semantically speaking, customers should expect a 30% improvement upon the given figures as well. In other words, customers can expect Saturn to put out ~227 Gh/s and Jupiter, 455 Gh/s. Of course, the safest position for a prospective customer is to take only the listed hash speeds at face value and assume no more, no less.

If the 30% improvement is indeed included into the given hash speeds for both devices, then that 30% statement on the product listing is not only redundant, but extremely misleading.

and this is the first time people with English as a second language have said something not quite right. heck, JFK said in german that he was a jelly doughnut. :-\

Marcus told me that their products worked without factory OC. What then if the client wanted to OC, at your own risk.

Was your sarcastic remark in response to my statement? I will not argue what may or may not have been lost in translation on part of KnC when they made their listings. I was simply pointing out there isn't any other way to interpret what is being stated on their product page and understanding it to mean anything else at all is assumption. Let's say the 30% increase is already applied in the 350 Gh spec given for Jupiter, then pointing it out later would be entirely irrelevant as well, would it not? To further reinforce the idea that the 30% is, in fact, intended to be applied in addition to the given figures, they also use the quantifier, "minimum", before the units' speeds. Lastly, if memory serves me correctly, Sam Cole is largely responsible for their website. Sam Cole is English. ...pulling from memory. I need to find the source to verify that last part.


From my communication with KnC, the box will come to them from the factory at stock. KnC will apply some overclocking themselves, then ship the miner to the customer. I was told the customer would be able to OC, but obviously would void the warranty in doing so.

Look, this is silly, because it's obviously a mistake and it's a very simple answer because most of you above have followed this the entire way through and when Jupiter was announced it was 250gh/s and the 30% upgrade info was already being touted, just not applied.

Then they introduced Saturn and revised figures, at which I point I know for a fact I asked and gave the answer in the main thread. So if it's worded otherwise it is an accident, as well most know, and that they are already breaking ground with what they are claiming to offer, which is unmatched.

I suppose if you don't want to dig or follow the communications published in the forum in their main thread, and prefer to argue semantics, you're always welcome to a refund...

EDIT: just looked at the product page again, irrespective of the additional 30% gain to the algorithm, the only thing that matters is the promised minimum 350gh/s per device.

Forget about all this speculative stuff. If I go to buy a car with a 100 BHP engine, that's what I get. Same with a 2TB hard drive, a 32" waist pair of jeans or a 400g tin of beans. If you don't get what you pay for you would be angry, and rightly so.

In real world engineering, we work in specifications, not speculation. Would you buy a car that 'might' give you 100 BHP? Of course not, you want the figures pinned down tightly as to what you are actually going to get. Yes, you could possibly tune the engine or use Nitrous oxide to 'overclock' it, but both measures might destroy the engine by overstressing it beyond it's design limits.

So demand a proper specification for any miner device - not speculation as to what it 'might' do. If the designers can't give you a proper answer to that question, then you should be very wary. Modern software tools from companies like Cadence can predict very precisely how silicon will behave once manufactured in a particular foundry's process, so as long as the design has been done properly there are NO excuses for not pinning down the specification.

BFL underestimated the power consumption of their asic by a factor of six. This should not have happened, but I suspect they based their figure on an asic process but effectively used an FPGA transfer, using up a lot more gates in the process. On the limited information I have on their device and die size, in a 65nm process they should have a single chip capable of around 11 - 13GH, not 5 -6.

Precisely Minimum Specification promised is 175 gh/s for the Saturn.

Minimum specification for the Jupiter is 350 gh/s.

First line on both respective pages. Only thing that matters.

The 'water-cooled' set-up bit should come off though. That is feasible and they will offer an option for those at home if they want that at a later date, but data centres have in no uncertain terms said absolutely not to housing any liquid cooling.

They really should go through these threads and update their FAQ on their site if they can find time - then these threads can calm down a bit :)

I know they're updating it all next week. There is a complete revision on all specs (positive revision), with a more accurate power estimate, which is why they said to hang back on picking up a power brick in that PSU thread yesterday...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=237745.msg2520109#msg2520109

Any news about knc miner ASICs chips? Or anything?

+1

Out of curiosity / devil's advocate, how does shit like 1.7% yields (Nvidia's famous blunder) happen then?

Then evidently technical accuracy is not a good metric for the probability of getting the hardware promised by the date promised.

Whoever told you that they speculate. They assured me that Jupiter would have a minimum 350 hashrate and less than 1000W.

If you are using a new process, sometimes the design rules have not been properly defined, and simple things like metal tracks being too close together can spell disaster. I don't know about this Nvidia incident, but I'll bet it was multiple issues that caused the problem.

Aside; predicted hashrate, power consumption, cooling, dimensions, shipping costs, ever increasing production costs leading them to double the retail cost for smaller units and completely remove their flagship product, and timescales as continuous dates of completion from missed targets forever being equal to two weeks, you are correct BFL have never 'put out', any technical misinformation about their products!! ;D

+1

The new 65nm chip consumes 3.2W/ghs. But MINIRIG power consumption 4.8w/Ghs  (+50%). That chip is inefficient. Compared to other 65nm (bitfury .7w/Ghs).
A minirig of bitfury have a 7 times less power consumption.  This means that working life will be less

Even then, it is true there is a lot BFL hasn't offered with respect to transparency, even at this late stage, which is very disconcerting as they have clearly hidden truths, whilst admitting half-truths; which is very much premeditated misinformation on their part. It's been months, and few are any wiser as to precisely what's been happening there. Whatever the reasoning, it does not add up. I'm not beating on them, just pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

I mean if they were so technically informed, and competent themselves, why on earth have they taken the irrational step of selling their proprietary technology in bulk unassembled form, instead of shipping their pre-orders complete, as promised and at the pre-disclosed promised specifications, on time? Odd, very odd behaviour for an 'engineering firm' that you claim hasn't technically mislead anyone (including themselves)...


True, so your beloved BFL should really have predicted any such errors.

KnC have run multiple simulations, created a prototype based on their RTL code and have multiple margins for error in place. They have done all the due diligence that can be undertaken prior to receiving consignment of their chips. Admittedly there is an element of blindness that is speculative, which as previously stated they have minimised risk, wherever possible, but this is a consequence of the state of play in current Bitcoin ASIC development and the respective time available competitively in this current environment, and not down to professional ineptitude. This is rocket science, and you cater for the unknowns, whilst building contingency for the unknowns. They have taken only the risk an engineer can comfortably tolerate at this stage in the game...

Couldn't it be an improved method of combining 2 SHA256 sums, since that's what bitcoin mining is?  It doesn't necessarily have to be an improvement to the core SHA256 algorithm.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the KNC statement, just this thread.

This a reply to Bitcoinoramo's post;

I'm not quite sure you think I 'love' BFL. They have indeed royally screwed up what should have been a technical and commercial triumph for their company and a financial one for their customers. I have my own ideas about what they did wrong, but I suspect that both they and their customers don't at this stage give a shit - they just want to get the products out and hashing.

But it's all too easy to get carried away with lots of pre-order cash and think you're some kind of Bitcoin or Silicon god. Technical history of asic designs suggests that such arrogance usually gets rewarded with humiliating failure, and your boys in KNC  / Orsoc are just about to go down the same sorry path. I mean, no chip testing methodology - just solder them to a board and see if they work? Love or hate BFL, at least they did try to get the back end right (eventually).

An earlier post suggested you might be angling for some kind of job with your heroes. Good luck to you, you are certainly defending them a lot which is your right, of course.

It's really a pity they won't put aside the pseudoscience and speculation and actually publish a proper datasheet for the product, just like any regular chip supplier. Something that tells their purchasers exactly what they are promising and - under European Law - they must then deliver (to buyers in the EU at least). It would certainly close off this thread if they did so, and might silence the skeptics, including me.

Perhaps you can help them with this?

They said they have a revised data set next week. Whether this is down to further refining Mars, or getting admin since the pre sales have been completed out the way so they can communicate more I don't know. Obviously we all expect chip foundry to have been selected and an order placed. Will have to see what next week brings, from a post on Wednesday in another thread Sam mentioned something positive.



EDIT: FWIW BTW I did forward your concerns and questions on in an email, and Sam said Marcus will review and respond, but they're not going to risk giving a way anything sensitive to competitors at this stage. So let's see what they come back with next week.

Not really, real engineers are not driven by sales figures.

Actually, its quite the opposite. Modern ASIC design tools employed by competent engineers usually produce working products. It is only in areas where you are pushing the boundaries of what can be done like GPUs and CPUs that is fraught with failure. SHA256 is not pushing any design boundaries. They are using a well established geometry at 28nm. It should be a layup. BFL pretended to have expertise in ASICs and you should not judge actual engineering firms (OrSoc) by BFL's track record.

Please prove that OrSoc & KNCMiner have no chip testing methodology. Links to posts where they say they are "employing no chip testing" would be sufficient.


The product does not yet exist. They are being careful about setting expectations. They don't want to "BFL" their customers.

I am sure after the product exists, they will document what it can do. Right now they are releasing estimates.
You confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence and post no evidence of your wild conjecture.
Please provide citations for your statements in the future.

Ok, now I'm not going to just drop this. I'll try to put this as plain and simple as I can for you once again; I'm not saying that their 30% boost is, or is not a part of the current rated speeds of 175 and 350 Gh/s. There was a post earlier from blastbob (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234969.msg2523754#msg2523754) saying, "It has been advertised with 350GHs with possible 30% more with optimization..," and to which Bitcoinorama (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234969.msg2524135#msg2524135) replied, "No it hasn't." The point in my posts were simply to say, "Yes, it has. And it's on the damn product pages." This shouldn't be speculation either. This should be a simple, confirmed fact that, considering a potential 30% boost, absolutely does matter.

You say it's a mistake, but as far as I can tell, it's based on assumption, Bitcoinorama, as I can't find any record stating clearly that the 30% boost is already accounted for in these currently rated speeds. I'll concede that yes, maybe it is a mistake, after all. However, I absolutely will argue semantics because if you think the language used in which to say something never matters, then you're a fool. In many cases, if not every, context matters just as much as does content. In this case, imagine a new customer, perhaps one new to the mining scene and unaware of the absurd amount of research already here on btctalk, decides they like the Jupiter as they see that not only is it comparatively highly rated (speed-wise) to other ASIC options, but KnCMiner are also promising a 30% increase to hashing power with the advanced algos applied by ORSoC, so they make a purchase. Now, are you to say KnC wouldn't be liable for the information they advertise about their miners? Before you say anything, of course, the customer should "do their homework" as you have so adamantly stressed through a great number of your posts, but the "hypothetical fact" it is an inadvertent mistake on the part of KnC is entirely irrelevant.

Are you able to provide where you did this as I certainly have not been successful at finding such a statement.

What bothers me most, Bitcoinorama, is you approach me with a condescending attitude and make numerous assumptions in your response regarding what I have and haven’t done, while giving no source to counter the position you've assigned to me, namely, that I think the 30% isn't accounted for in the current specs. Well, just for shits; I will accept that position and say, "yes, the 30% is absolutely not accounted for and any additional gain from the advanced algos from OrSoc will be applied above and beyond the currently given hash speeds." Now, show me how I'm wrong. I'll show you the evidence to the contrary.

1; See product pages of Jupiter (https://www.kncminer.com/products/jupiter) and Saturn (https://www.kncminer.com/products/saturn)
2; 125*30% = 162.5 ≠ 175 - - & - - 250*30% = 325 ≠ 350 (in order to make your assumptions correct, you'd have to increase those original specs by 40%, not 30%) Interesting how titomane followed your request (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234969.msg2531226#msg2531226) to KS to do the very basic math and when he supplied it, your response was, "lol. I didn't actually mean you do th..." Incomplete thought?
3; From your open day report, Q&A portion...
Do you think this other anonymous member pulled the number "420" completely arbitrarily? I understand it can be dangerous to begin quoting hard numbers before they're ready to commit to them, but why cut off the discussion there?

I'll finish by saying that I mean no personal jab at you, Bitcoinorama, and the information you've provided the community has unquestionably been a great value. You're willingness to attend the meeting, offer up your efforts in answering the community's remaining questions and report back is commendable. It's even possibly arguable that we've heard more information from you about all things KnC than we've heard from KnC themselves (which may be a little disconcerting, in fact). Ultimately, though, this 30% issue is something I'd honestly like to know, as do others apparently. If you can provide a definitive answer, I'd be further grateful. However, having said that, don't accuse me of being too lazy to dig up information for myself and say that my intent on sticking with this 30% gain issue is meaningless nonsense as "it's obviously a mistake" because most following already have the "very simple answer", and then expect me not to come defend myself. My last word; the promised hash speed may be the only thing that matters to you, but for me and probably one, maybe two other people, the Gh/watts ratio is rather more important, followed by purchase price.

My apologies for smothering the page.

I'm just about out for the weekend, and stopped in to update on this thread.

Gotta say, the discussion is overall so lucid, reasoned, non-ad hominem, and civil as to threaten to give bitcoin forums a good name. 

Have a good week end.

No look, it's cool, you just haven't been here from the start. Anyone here from the start (April time) is welcome to chime in on this, it's certainly within the main thread.

--

KnC pre ORSoC promised a machine for around $3k, no real specs, just a choice to;

A) pay upfront pre-order and be in the first 1-500
B) pay half upfront and half when proven and be 501-1000

This was purely to gauge interest and pich to ORSoC, who they admit if weren't on board this venture would never get off the ground. THIS is why they rewarded the first 500, their interest and attention sealed the deal.

--

Next we hear ORSoC have come aboard. This is where my interest was sparked.

Two units were announced

Jupiter ASIC at 250 gh/s at $7k

Mars FPGA at 6 gh/s at $2,795

No one really understood the point of Mars,  but they were promising to uphold the queue order unless you paid for mars so you got guarded early order on Jupiter and a $2k discount for Jupiter.

I wanted Mars as a Litecoin FPGA so that's basically how I got in contact and involved as I pushed an quizzed their motives there. You should be able to see all that from the OG thread.

Anyway they need Mars for the ASIC design and we are promised it will lead to at least 30% hashing optimisation.

--

A lower entry model is introduced

Saturn 175 gh/s
Jupiter is revised at 350gh/s

Optimisation included 250 x 1.3 = 325

--

Mars is dropped from sale and exists purely to abuse for Saturn/ Jupiter's gain, but there will be a Mars Rev.2, just different...


I know it still appears like the 30% isn't added, but it is.

but i could swear that the first announced miners were only
saturn with 250gh/s and the Mars. And about 2 weeks later they announced  the saturn again but with only  175 gh/s and the new "born" name and Miner Jupiter with 350 gh/s

Always been Jupiter and Mars from the start. It's in the main thread...

aaah sorry, you are right

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-11


have you asked KNC that the 30% are allready  added or  is it your assumption?

Nobody mentioned the B word.

It's kind of obvious from the above that the writer has never actually worked in any commercial company, or, possibly in any company at all.

Draw your own conclusions.

I am the "other forum member" who asked Marcus and Sam that, on the open day. To me it was clear that they meant a 30% gain on top of the specified 175/350 advertised.
I asked it on two separate occasions. And got the same answer. Anybody who speaks swedish, can even hear me asking it, at the end of the mars video that was uploaded by bitcoinoroma in the other thread.

The way i understand it, the raise from 250 to 350 wasnt related to the 30% "algorithm" speed increase.
It might have been just an increase in the ammount of chips they were planning to put in every miner, or just new, revised estimates of what speeds the chips will actually work at.

"This device is being designed in parallel by the ORSoC engineers and will offer industry leading performance and power consumption per GH.The final specifications for this device are being ironed out now but we can confirm the following.Minimum 175/350GH/s per device.28nm Standard ASICAn additional gain of 30% more hashing when the advanced algorithms provided by ORSoC are applied"

Those are the specs for the product that i bought, as advertized by KNC, and have gotten it verbally confirmed twice by both Sam and Marcus.
So that will be what i expect, and hold KNC to, come delivery time.

Wrong again.
All you have denials, innuendo, and scare tactics. You haven't linked to a single piece of evidence to support your wild claims. You created the brontosaurus account to post crazy sauce in this thread.

That fact that you exist is actually good evidence that KNC is not a scam. Otherwise, why would shills like you both spreading FUD about them?

Dude you 100% were there when I was pressing Sam as to what milestones we should hold them to, I asked exactly that, and he pointed to the banner with the specs and said, "minimum 350gh/s, 28nm, September".   I have this all taped.

You also know if you've done your research, and/or followed this thread; Jupiter was 250gh/s originally and the 30% increase in hashing power was offered then. 250gh/s with a minimum of 30% is a minimum of 325gh/s. This falls totally inline with the 350gh/s promised as a +30% optimisation of 250gh/s.

Just looked over some old emails now, and the only message where I had touched on the subject that I can find easily I was referring as to whether Mars had been optimised at 6gh/s, or not, but come on anything over 350gh/s is crazy! If this is something that's going to make you walk away, you need to clear this up with him, so you can get a refund.

Since I've made several posts pointing this out, I'll help out here ...


Possibly my post here was the origin of the "just solder chips on board" claim https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231739.msg2468261#msg2468261

And ChipGeek (who seems pretty knowledgeable on chip design) made the following observation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232852.msg2474760#msg2474760

I don't want to get too trollsome on this point, just pointing out the source of the rumour.

Excellent. I wanted the source of the material, not brontosaurus' warped view of it. Thank you for providing it.   ;)

It sounds like KNC are not doing binning. They are confident that the yields will result in a low number of completely dead chips.
If they were making products with 1 or 2 chips on them, one completely dead chip would prevent that unit from being shipped as product.
Since there are a large number of chips per device, it is unlikely that 1 dead chip would make the device undeliverable.
Even 2-3 completely dead chips would still result in a partially functional product, it might not meet spec but it could sit in the corner at KNC and mine, it could serve as a test bed for firmware, etc.

Obviously, chip binning would increase the quality of the product but by how much we don't know. Perhaps spending time and money to get a 5% increase in quality is not worthwhile if they are beating their specs by 30%.
Time will tell.

Chip binning can be done post hoc, to screen out dead chips of there is an unforeseen yield problem.

While typical SHA256 usage is for streaming encryption the fact that these scientists got a 1GHz clock rate is pretty impressive.


Whether this translates to a double SHA256 using nonce values - it may not.  This double SHA256 depends heavily on transistor density, which brings in to play all sorts of complications such as RI, voltage sag.


Bitfury's 'sea of hashers' approach might allow some use of this though.  Still, Bitfury is very competent, so he may have explored all options.

I was there and and im not dissagreeing with you on that last statement bro. But the potentential "up to 30%" increase was to be on top of those figures. Thats why i made sure to ask twice. hence my "could be around 420?" in the transcripts. Thats what marcus and sam answered me any way. Maybe i missunderstood theyre answer or they missunderstood my qustion. But two positive answers, and the specs the way they are formulated on the website makes me somewhat confident that im right. But it is a "potential, up to 30% increase", thats why they didnt want to commit to any numbers more than 28nm 175/350, september.  Hence the "could" in the transcripts from both marcus and sam. Sounds in accordance with "Underpromise, overdeliver.

Yeah, agreed. Though ChipGeek made the point that some chips will fail to a dead short across the power supply. These would have to be identified and the boards reworked. Hopefully a rare occurrence.

And just because there was no chip test strategy in place at the time of the Q & A, does not mean that KNCMiner are not working on one right now. Given that they had not yet finalised the foundry order at the time, perhaps chip testing was on the todo list to be worked on between tapeout and wafer delivery? An update on this would be useful.

Indeed, but that really would be some kind of voodoo, shamanic wizardry!! ;D

Next weeks update should hopefully end some of the speculations.*fingers crossed*
And set the scene for some new ones, i presume.  8)

Could it be that they are calculating with worse case scenario that about 23% of the cores in the chip will be dead, so the expected lowest hash rate in total is 350GH, with potentially 30% higher performance for all perfect chips ?
(in other words, 23% dead, 77% equals 350GH, and an unlikely 100% perfect chips will be 30% better, equals 455GH.)

I think it's hard to be that exact!

I'm not knc worker. But after visiting and ask Marcus and Sam. Their products have a 175-350Ghs hashrate. This hashrate includes all design improvements.
The devices can do OC under its buyer's responsibility. Loss of warranty.