This is a good point, but I think your missing the point of the ASICs.  If you invest in a high power consumption ASIC, it ceases to become profitable much faster than a lower power one.  You say that they will both be obsolete in a year, but that just doesn't make sense.  They become obsolete when they no longer have a positive ROI - so naturally, the one with the lower power consumption becomes obsolete later.  In the case of a 2x bump in power consumption that means your device becomes completely useless much sooner than a comparable device. 

I dunno about you, but I'd rather mine on a device for 3 years than 1 year and have to fork out more money to stave off obsolescence.  Not everyone can keep investing money year after year.  That's why power is the most important aspect of an ASIC device and it literally defines if the device is viable or stillborn.  Tom is basically the only hold out on the ASIC front as far as power figures go and it makes me question why that would be.  Either he or his engineers have a rough estimate (or at least I would hope so!), and putting that out there would be the transparent thing to do, even if it's with the caveat that "it's only an estimate and may change by 20%" or something similar.

Sorry squid, but you're incorrect.  Tom spoke up about the power, of which he knows nothing about, making seemingly factual statements.  I am here to correct him and get answers to the questions about his power consumption as well as what he means by "competitive." 

If he knows so much about our power, it stands to reason he knows even more about his power consumption, so again I ask, why is he hiding this information from his customers?  What's wrong with the power consumption on these boards that he has to hide even the estimates of what it might be?  Why does he say that the refund policy will change when he releases the power information?  He "guarantees" that the power will be competitive, but doesn't say what competitive is.  What is this "guarantee?" 

He leaves lots of open questions for supposedly being "transparent" and lots of wiggle room to back out and keep our money if he ends up with a board that has 2 or 3x the power consumption of the competing products.  I know, for my part, I would not want a device that runs at 200w at 60 GH/s - it would never see a positive ROI.  Even at 150w, your ROI would be measured in years, not months.

So I want to know if I can get a refund if it turns out his power is not "competitive," since he "guarantees" that it will be. 

Yes, trolling the bASIC thread by asking what his power requirements are going to be and also what "competitive" means.  Yes, that's certainly trolling alright!  And this only AFTER Tom invited me to comment in his thread by making statements about our power usage that are ... shall we say ... less than factual?  I wouldn't have even posted in the thread if Tom hadn't made the request.

At almost 1/2 of the price of an MMQ?  Yes, absolutely.  If the bASIC is 1/2 the price of the competitors at 2x the power, then yes it's absolutely competitive.  If it's roughly the same price and 2x the power, then no, it's not. 

But it's not about my opinion on what's competitive, I want to know what Tom considers "competitive."  I'm not making a statement on what's competitive or not, I just want clarification from Tom.

Where?  Right here:


I also want to know what is "competitive."  Is 2x the power consumption considered "competitive?" (Personally, I think 10 - 20% is competitive, not +100%, but I want to know what Tom's definition is.)

Again, I don't want to make this about anything but bASIC.  Stop talking about BFL stuff (besides, who says we don't have a prototype?  I've certainly not said that.).

Far fetched?  Really?  I think not, we are actually being conservative in our power announcements in case there is any unexpected difficulties.  Can you tell me how you arrived at your flawed conclusions?  Why are we talking about BFL again, though?  Lets talk about bASIC since it's a bASIC thread.

The only reason I am here is because Tom is lying about BFLs power.  I am responding to his lies, and since he seems to know our power situation better than we do, it must mean he knows HIS power situation and is not sharing it with his customers.  I would like to know why that is.

Then get busy and make a post on the BFL forums and I'm sure you'll get an answer.


I'm not denying there were some problems, I am denying this handy little fib from you:


I have never responded to anyone on the EMC (or BFL) forums with "How could you be so stupid as to post that" or anything like that in relation to problems with the pool.  I have no idea what you mean about "defensive reactions" either. Like I said, post a link to the threads where it happened or you're just making it up.


I'm not hijacking it, I have no wish to discuss EMC or BFL in this thread.  I want to know about the power consumption of the bASIC device.  Stop bringing up things not related to the bASIC device and the thread won't be hijacked. 

Again, for those that are having trouble with this:  I want to know a specific (even if it's just a ballpark) metric of the bASIC, of which I am a pre-order customer.  I have exactly zero desire to discuss anything else in this thread.  I simply want an answer to "How much power will the bASIC consume, roughly?"  also "What is considered "competitive" in terms of power consumption?  If it consumes 2w/GH, (2x the competition) is that still considered "competitive?"

Please provide evidence or it didn't happen.  A link to the relevant posts would suffice, thanks!  Cool story, bro.

It's not FUD, it's a valid questeion
Hey can you point me to someone who hasn't gotten a refund who's asked for one?  No?  Why not?

I'm not trolling, I'm a customer asking a legitimate question.  Or so I've been told hundreds of times by people in BFL threads, so it must be true, right?  

I don't have to defend it, our numbers are rock solid, thanks for asking though.  

As for pre-ordering a bASIC, of course. I'm pretty sure Tom has BFL equipment tucked away somewhere.


I beg to differ.  Can you show me where it's crystal clear then?  Tom has clearly stated that the refund policy will likely change.  He has also clearly stated he will not give out power numbers until he has the production boards.  That's pretty clear that there will likely be no refunds after he gives out the power numbers.  Please show me where I am incorrect.

I didn't miss it, but I think you might have (relevant part bolded):


Tom is saying he won't release power information until he has production boards... and his refund policy will change when that happens, meaning once he releases power information, you can't get a refund.  Seems a bit suspicious to me, but hey.  I just want to know if I can still get a refund if his power specs aren't competitive (and what competitive actually means).

Fair enough, so he can at least answer as to what he considers 'competitive' and if he'll offer refunds if he's not within that space.

As a customer, I feel that the power issue is a critical issue and I do not feel that it's unreasonable to expect an answer from Tom on the subject.  Every other ASIC outfit has put out power figures, except Tom.  It makes me wonder why he's so reluctant to put out power estimates, especially with the understanding that they may be off by as much as 20%.

But in any case, I would like to know what's considered "competitive." 

Seems like I touched a nerve with the power issue, hmm... I look forward to Tom's clarification.

As for BFL specs, we can discuss that in another thread. 

Normally I wouldn't be posting in your thread, but since you called BFL out directly I figured it was an invite.  I'm a little confused here, Tom, so maybe you can enlighten me.  You say you are far enough along in your process to have prototype boards (or was it production boards?) arriving in your hands this week or next week... yet you can't give any power numbers?  If your crack team of engineers that are designing this are so great, they should have some power estimates, within a reasonable margin (say +/- 10%? 20%?) that you could give out, right?  Why aren't you publishing these numbers with the caveat that they are estimates?  Do you actually have numbers or are you not as far along in the process as you'd like people to believe?  

You say you guarantee your device will be competitive with any other ASIC on the market.  What is competitive?  Can you define that for everyone?  Is it 2x the power consumption?  Is that still "competitive" or what does the value of "competitive" mean to you?

Here's what I think your customers deserve:

1. A power estimate, even with the understanding that may be off a bit.
2. A guarantee that if your power estimates are in fact not competitive with other products, you will offer unlimited refunds (Just like BFL did when the FPGA power consumption turned out to be wrong).

A power estimate should not be a problem if you have the excellent engineers you say you have.  They should already have pretty accurate power estimates and you should be aware of them.  Why not be open about it?   Maybe guaranteeing refunds to people if your power turns out to be non competitive would go a long way towards easing peoples concerns that you're hiding something in order to collect orders from the naive.  After all, once difficulty matures, the difference could determine whether reasonable payback is even possible or not.

For my part, I'm sure you have a competitive power envelope but the fact that you aren't stepping up to share estimates with the rest of the community while everyone else has may give people reason to doubt.  

Once again, sorry to step into your thread, but since you called us out directly, I felt it appropriate to respond.

I will have to get the exact figures later tonight, but it's about 95mm^2 x 75mm H

US1 was down earlier?

No, US1 should not have had any issues.

As soon as GLBSE releases the asset info, it won't matter.  I requested the info in case GLBSE doesn't come through.  Supposedly they are suppose to be releasing it.

I will also need the BTC address to send weekly payments to, which I don't think will be included in the GLBSE data.

I have the script mostly done to automate the weekly payments, so it shouldn't be much of a transition once I have the data.  As a side note, I will be selling more stake in the upcoming ASIC hardware, if anyone is interested in a large chunk purchase, I would potentially be interested in that.  However, I don't want to sell a bunch of small chunks, as it's just too much hassle, so minimum order would be at least 100 shares.  I haven't decided how much, if any, I am going to sell on the ASIC rigs yet.

US2 and US3 will be back up shortly.

I have the new hardware to move US2 to another DC.  Just need to get it built and installed.