Ah, well, thanks.
Maybe, they should have asked more of your advice.
It (bancor) is being criticized, justly or unjustly.
Good luck with whatever you do these days.

resuscitating this thread for a sec.

Guy was listed as a blockchain advisor for Bancor-they raised $159 mil in 2 hr, congrats!
One controversy was that they had a hidden cap of 250 thou ethers, but summoned this cap by sending a tx which got stuck, so they overshot the mark quite a bit. While it is good for those extras who got in, but might be considered as an unnecessary dilution from a point if view of those who got in as intended (by 250 thou or about 2hr).

I am curious, Guy, who came up with an idea to use just 100 Gwei price for that pivotal tx?
It seems that it was almost designed to get stuck just a little  .
It wouldn't if Bancor would have given it more juice (200 or even 1000 Gwei-a 1000 would still cost less than $100 for that stopping tx. Mind you, i don't really care, but some people are talking harshly about this mishap.

Comments?

Also trying to change the rules of a system as a miner (aka no technical skills and pretending to control stuff when in fact you are just providing a service) for own well-being is bad for the ecosystem, but that is more subtle than the ones you have mentioned and they are easily ignored.

Great North Data is pleased to offer $52/kW hosting including taxes and fees (except a one time $40 account set up fee) for S7s. We've had a really good experience with S7s, so we're offering a special rate just for them.

We're coming up fast on our third anniversary and will be rolling out our second facility in the next few months.

Contact me at james@greatnorthdata.com

What about the SP45 Newton 16 Th/s miner?
http://spondoolies-tech.co/products/sp45-newton-shipping-from-stock.html

edit: I guess this was a scam as well?
Because your domain use to be http://www.spondoolies-tech.com and not the one above?

Another interesting proposal is Cuckoo hash by John Tromp:
https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo

Lulz, so since joining Bitmain, you've been dumbed down to a '+1' level poster who knows nothing about what his company is actually doing?
Why not provide some information? Or you don't know what your company is doing so you shouldn't be posting at all?
You should also update your sig, you don't work for spondoolies

The original firmware of the early S9, before they were sold to the public, included a change to the stratum protocol to support the document I posted in the S9 thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1493601.msg15634328#msg15634328

The S9 didn't work on ckpool due to a stratum connection mode incompatibility.
Yes pre-sale S9s were tested on ckpool.
They 'modified' the stratum change so it works without failing to connect to ckpool.

Of course as mentioned above, this is verified here also:
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

If they were using the 'Overt' method, you'd see it in the block headers.
If they were using the 'Covert' method, it would mean a power saving, so not a direct hash rate increase of each miner, but an overall hash rate increase due to more available power.

Most likely they are using the 'Covert' method.
Their blog pretty much implies it by not denying it, and confirming it's in their miners, and saying they have paid for the rights for it in china.

so let me understand: asicboost essentially is an added logicgate at chiplevel that determines whether a specific nonce is worth hashing, and if not, the chip doesnt do any other work for that cycle (hence the savings). So its not any faster at mining, it just saves some power??

if thats the case, it actually serves to decentralize mining by making minimal savings for the big (cheap-power) miners but significant savings for smaller miners who have more expensive electricity. ie: someone paying $0.03/kwh saves maybe $5/month, while someone paying $0.10/kwh saves $15/month

Which makes their violent reaction to a BIP proposal that makes asicboost not work somewhat baffling. I guess they were more objecting to the intent in the move's aggression rather than the actual BIP, but it made most of the community convinced they were using it covertly.

Thanks for that Guy. I wasn't convinced they were using it anyway but that adds much useful data.