At least that is what is fair and logical. It's only fair and logical to you when it means more money for you. If btc price went up I can guarantee you would be begging for your original btc. Also people have sued bfl and hashfast for their original btc payment and won. There is no easy way to determine the value of btc during time of payment and time of refund as there will always be debate if the price goes up/down or differs depending on which exchange. So without specific terms it is unreasonable to expect this. It is simply bullshit to impose your own special refund terms after you agreed to no refunds. And it makes no sense to attempt to smear a companies reputation through the ftc/whatever just because a product they sold was delayed. (which you agreed to no refunds) Especially when minersource is not at fault here and they have been working hard to make things right. Btc price went down since when i paid them, if those bullshit accusations you are trying to throw at me are true i would have asked for a lot more than my initial 2 btc back. It makes plenty of sense that if you operate a business in the UNITED STATES that you adhere to their rules. I have acknowledged plenty of times that minersource is most likely getting fucked just as hard as any of us. They wanna be the big dogs running their mining equipment business, they can follow the rules then. Did you even read what i said? Your fucking response is so far off base it is like you lack any ability to comprehend what was said. And this is why BTC isn't likely to ever make it as a virtual currency. Because everyone wants to slant in the way that benefits them. When Hashfast was talking refunds in dollars those that paid in cheap BTC wanted their BTC back in full and when those that paid BFL and BA etc. in pricey BTC want refunds in dollars now that the price has dropped. It's not a currency, it's a commodity. |
|
|
|
VeriSilicon, GlobalFoundries and the chip packaging company will all be able to give time estimates on their services. The evidence that Black Arrow lied about their February 24th shipping date looks solid to me.
I'm not defending BA but using the word lied would seem to indicate malice aforethought and without emails or other documentation I think that will be a lot harder to prove than mismanagement. |
|
|
|
BA better get a move on, it's getting real now. ASICMINER has said it will order the equivalent of 30,000 TH/s of wafers each month. Furthermore, the Avalon fourth-generation 28nm chip is set to tapeout soon and AntMiner’s S3 chips are projected to be out this July.
Beijing-Shenzhen company HashRatio actually has the first successful implementation of ASICMINER’s third-generation ‘Friedcat’ (烤猫) 40nm chip in a 768 GH/s unit and are ready to produce them in volume right away, without the need to take pre-orders.
Taken from: http://www.coindesk.com/private-china-meeting-bitcoin-mining-industry-leaders/If this is accurate and ASICMINER alone is going to be producing 30 PH of new hashing machines a month it's past time to get out of the mining game. They would nearly double the current hashrate in two months. No matter how many machines are withdrawn from hashing difficulty is going to go supernova. |
|
|
|
For some reason I can't take my eyes off this train wreck in progress. I am among the lucky who managed to salvage something through a refund (kudos to Minersource).
This ^^^ I feel for everyone who still has a stake in this. |
|
|
|
I've given up all hope and now only hope i can get a refund from minersouce or get them to ship me a S1 on the 15th.
I tried to get them to ship an S1 for my X-1 orders more than a month ago and was told they'd have to refund my orders. They couldn't swap orders like that. I ended up with a refund and an S1. |
|
|
|
Yea, really it's just Bitmain, the trillion Coincraft clones, and Spondoolies Tech at the moment.
Are Spondoolies really shipping product? I just looked at their site and I don't see anything available until May 1 at the earliest. |
|
|
|
I feel silly but how do I tell my ants to switch to second pool?
This. Is there any way to switch pools other than rebooting? |
|
|
|
I couldn't find a clear explanation in the thread, maybe I missed it, what exactly does it mean when an asic shows an 'x' instead of an 'o' in the gui. When I overclock my S1 one or two of the asic indicators will change to 'x'. If I leave it on the stock settings they all stay on 'o'. I'm just curious if I'm actually damaging the equipment overclocking it or what. And whether it's worth it to overclock anyway if my overall hash rate increases.
x stand for disabled core. Mean core does not hashing. So, as long as I'm getting a higher reported hash rate, as reported by my pool, I'm fine overclocking. It's not actually doing any damage, it just results in some cores being disabled due to an inability to hash at the higher clock. |
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find a clear explanation in the thread, maybe I missed it, what exactly does it mean when an asic shows an 'x' instead of an 'o' in the gui. When I overclock my S1 one or two of the asic indicators will change to 'x'. If I leave it on the stock settings they all stay on 'o'. I'm just curious if I'm actually damaging the equipment overclocking it or what. And whether it's worth it to overclock anyway if my overall hash rate increases.
|
|
|
|
Yes, no, maybe - they're all valid answers. You're going to be between 95 and 105% load depending on variance and that's much closer than I would personally run at. Well, that covers all the bases. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been covered already but is it possible to connect an Antminer directly through the ethernet port on a macmini running Ubuntu 12.10 and use the mini's connection to connect to the mining pool? The mini is serving as a dedicated computer for the rest of my mining equipment.
The macmini would need to act as a network router. To be honest; I don't think it's what you want, unless you have an Antminer U1 (USB type Antminer). The Antminer S1 has a built-in contoller (CPU) and it's already a computer dedicated for Antminer's sha-256 mining operations. All it needs is to reach (via network interface) the "internet" so it can reach a mining pool and submit shares per your mining worker's credentials. That was actually my intent, to use the mini solely as network access not to actually control the miner. maybe you can try, but imho it's useless and more energy expensive, the ant has both wifi and ethernet I'll probably end up using the wifi option in that case. I wasn't aware that it had any other options than ethernet. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been covered already but is it possible to connect an Antminer directly through the ethernet port on a macmini running Ubuntu 12.10 and use the mini's connection to connect to the mining pool? The mini is serving as a dedicated computer for the rest of my mining equipment.
The macmini would need to act as a network router. To be honest; I don't think it's what you want, unless you have an Antminer U1 (USB type Antminer). The Antminer S1 has a built-in contoller (CPU) and it's already a computer dedicated for Antminer's sha-256 mining operations. All it needs is to reach (via network interface) the "internet" so it can reach a mining pool and submit shares per your mining worker's credentials. That was actually my intent, to use the mini solely as network access not to actually control the miner. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been covered already but is it possible to connect an Antminer directly through the ethernet port on a macmini running Ubuntu 12.10 and use the mini's connection to connect to the mining pool? The mini is serving as a dedicated computer for the rest of my mining equipment.
|
|
|
|
Yep. If they want people's money to play with with these pre-orders they have to offer compensation that equals the loss in the event their dates end up being so much smoke on the wind.
if they hold up their end they get interest free financing and their customers benefit with new hardware that gives them an advantage. if they don't hold up their end they pony up to an extent that makes it a wash for their customers.
without that, or something like it, you're absolutely right, these pre-orders are a losing game for the customer.
Really though, we just shouldn't be doing business with them unless they have product in hand. Exhibit #1: Hashfast and their MPP. They are late on shipping the product and if they ship the MPP it'll be too little, too late. Taken as a hypothetical, the idea that any level of compensation, that wouldn't bankrupt the company and screw customers in the process, would be sufficient given the growth rate of difficulty is a pipe dream. The only real way to prevent problems with pre-orders is not to place them. |
|
|
|
That and technically they haven't missed the ship date yet, though they have said they're going to, and Hashfast was nearly 4 months late from the original ship date and they still haven't fulfilled batch 1 completely. So BA has a long way to fall yet, in spite of the disappointments.  Way to lower the standards, BA and others would LOVE to have more customers like you. ain't that the truth. I don't know why people are so quick to accept this type of behavior in this industry. I can see thinking there aren't many alternatives, although outright defending it seems tantamount to sticking yourself in the eyeball with a hot poker - and paying for the poker as an added bonus. delays are possible in any tech development effort, however, that is why any company with any experience moves on multiple vectors towards the goal, creating options for potential breakdown of any one of them along the way. just on a quality controlled basis these sorts of efforts require redundancies, normally, and multiple suppliers for any and all components is the norm. That this apparently isn't in place further underscores how nascent this industry is, but it also provides an opportunity for learning. Get your ISO certs, people, for damn sake. until the customers of these people stop just accepting it as some sort of unavoidable pitfall, which it is not, this will continue. people need to wake the hell up and hold these people accountable. the companies themselves need to wake up and demand better of themselves as well, as to this point their performance has been almost uniformly pathetic. , people should temper their expectations regardless of what the vendor says and make a decision based on that. It's not as though the industry doesn't have a track record with this to begin with. If you invest in a mining hardware pre-order without expecting them to be late, very late, you haven't been paying attention. I know that some, few, manufacturers have brought hardware to market without pre-orders but they've been in the minority. Of course, it would be best to patronize them and let the pre-order based concerns starve but there are a lot of people whose greed outweighs their good sense and they continue to try to get the jump on new technology. They will pre-pay for machines and pray that this time will be different. I think you're missing my point. it will continue unless people demand better. that's the market. as long as they're allowed to blow this off they have no reason to change. why spend the extra money on anything if they can just walk off with people's money either way? as consumers it is our job to demand better of them, not simply shrug our shoulders and take the reaming, time and time again. I know they can do better and I also know they won't bother until forced to do so. the only way to get some change is to ask for it. simply chalking it up as par for the course pretty much guarantees nothing will improve and there will continue to be no accountability. if that's what you'd like to do, that's your business, of course. everyone is free to make their own choices, naturally. when they've got my money, and they're screwing me, they're going to hear about it. that's my choice. No, I get it and you're right. WE should be spending our btc/fiat with companies that have product in hand to sell. Simply put, don't buy pre-orders, FULL STOP. |
|
|
|
That and technically they haven't missed the ship date yet, though they have said they're going to, and Hashfast was nearly 4 months late from the original ship date and they still haven't fulfilled batch 1 completely. So BA has a long way to fall yet, in spite of the disappointments. Way to lower the standards, BA and others would LOVE to have more customers like you. ain't that the truth. I don't know why people are so quick to accept this type of behavior in this industry. I can see thinking there aren't many alternatives, although outright defending it seems tantamount to sticking yourself in the eyeball with a hot poker - and paying for the poker as an added bonus. delays are possible in any tech development effort, however, that is why any company with any experience moves on multiple vectors towards the goal, creating options for potential breakdown of any one of them along the way. just on a quality controlled basis these sorts of efforts require redundancies, normally, and multiple suppliers for any and all components is the norm. That this apparently isn't in place further underscores how nascent this industry is, but it also provides an opportunity for learning. Get your ISO certs, people, for damn sake. until the customers of these people stop just accepting it as some sort of unavoidable pitfall, which it is not, this will continue. people need to wake the hell up and hold these people accountable. the companies themselves need to wake up and demand better of themselves as well, as to this point their performance has been almost uniformly pathetic. , people should temper their expectations regardless of what the vendor says and make a decision based on that. It's not as though the industry doesn't have a track record with this to begin with. If you invest in a mining hardware pre-order without expecting them to be late, very late, you haven't been paying attention. I know that some, few, manufacturers have brought hardware to market without pre-orders but they've been in the minority. Of course, it would be best to patronize them and let the pre-order based concerns starve but there are a lot of people whose greed outweighs their good sense and they continue to try to get the jump on new technology. They will pre-pay for machines and pray that this time will be different. |
|
|
|
There's no proof for that, but I'm pretty confident that that's how it would go, as well. They want it both ways. (As evidenced in the Hashfast refund issues)
I'm not trying to defend anyone against anything but I think we have a few months to go before we enter Hashfast Territory, in any sense, if at all. Yeah, at least we've got proof of impending tapeout. That and technically they haven't missed the ship date yet, though they have said they're going to, and Hashfast was nearly 4 months late from the original ship date and they still haven't fulfilled batch 1 completely. So BA has a long way to fall yet, in spite of the disappointments. That and technically they haven't missed the ship date yet, though they have said they're going to, and Hashfast was nearly 4 months late from the original ship date and they still haven't fulfilled batch 1 completely. So BA has a long way to fall yet, in spite of the disappointments. Way to lower the standards, BA and others would LOVE to have more customers like you. If you'll notice I'm not cosigning their "bullshit" I'm merely pointing out that they have, as yet, not crossed into Hashfast Territory. Thanks again for reading for comprehension. |
|
|
|
There's no proof for that, but I'm pretty confident that that's how it would go, as well. They want it both ways. (As evidenced in the Hashfast refund issues)
I'm not trying to defend anyone against anything but I think we have a few months to go before we enter Hashfast Territory, in any sense, if at all. Yeah, at least we've got proof of impending tapeout. That and technically they haven't missed the ship date yet, though they have said they're going to, and Hashfast was nearly 4 months late from the original ship date and they still haven't fulfilled batch 1 completely. So BA has a long way to fall yet, in spite of the disappointments. |
|
|
|
There's no proof for that, but I'm pretty confident that that's how it would go, as well. They want it both ways. (As evidenced in the Hashfast refund issues)
I'm not trying to defend anyone against anything but I think we have a few months to go before we enter Hashfast Territory, in any sense, if at all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
