When there is no actual product and no prototypes accepting orders is an "investment" not a purchase. It is basically a no interest loan especially if they use the funds to finance their production process. In this case yes the SEC does prosecute investment scams, because thats what it is.
Exactly. BFL appears to be crowdfunding without being straightforward about it, much less compliant with the numerous applicable regulations. Another delay we've had to endure is the fact that we have effectively tied the ASIC teams payment to the success of the chip. If the chip were to be a failure they don't get paid... so they have incentive to get it right but that has made them very cautious and slow to approve final masks (This is why we can refund all pre-orders we want and why we have the capital to do what we need to do without a failure putting us in bankruptcy).
Seems to me like BFL is using pre-order money to fund ongoing R&D & pay Josh Zerlan + other BFL employee salaries. It seems like they have shot some of that pre-order $$$ at China and China has not shot back ASIC chips. Who knows where the fail could be in such a complex machine. I wonder if they keep gambling: maybe they send more of the pre-order money at a different Chinese manufacturer that promises that can produce the chips, all the while using the huge pre-order bankroll for operations and weekly salaries. Apparently some of the funds are also used to buy CES booths with fan-boxes as a show of corporate strength, with instruction to cuss at anyone asking the tough questions: http://youtu.be/UlWrmIqGs3Y?t=2m38s From what Josh said, they are only using the pre-order money IF the chips work. Otherwise, the engineers don't get paid. Josh never said anything about paying anyone with pre-order money yet - in fact, he says "This is why we can refund all pre-orders we want". How do you get that they are shooting pre-order money left and right when that is exactly the opposite of what Josh said? Here is another thing that Josh said: http://youtu.be/UlWrmIqGs3Y?t=2m38s It involves cussing at me and handing me a quarter when I ask the start of what he knows would have been a very tough line of questioning from a skeptic. I wouldn't place too much stock in what this man says. Think about it logically: What chip maker would ever agree to such terms? Don't pay us *anything* until we show you a working ASIC that no one else has made yet? Based on what you had done the day before, I am not surprised. There are plenty of payment arrangements based on performance. If a chip maker has experience in custom ASICs, and believes that they can produce the product, then they very well may accept such an arrangement. |
|
|
|
OMG.... <table>-layout in 2013
Hey now, I still use tables! They're much easier to work with than divs in some cases. |
|
|
|
When there is no actual product and no prototypes accepting orders is an "investment" not a purchase. It is basically a no interest loan especially if they use the funds to finance their production process. In this case yes the SEC does prosecute investment scams, because thats what it is.
Exactly. BFL appears to be crowdfunding without being straightforward about it, much less compliant with the numerous applicable regulations. Another delay we've had to endure is the fact that we have effectively tied the ASIC teams payment to the success of the chip. If the chip were to be a failure they don't get paid... so they have incentive to get it right but that has made them very cautious and slow to approve final masks (This is why we can refund all pre-orders we want and why we have the capital to do what we need to do without a failure putting us in bankruptcy).
Seems to me like BFL is using pre-order money to fund ongoing R&D & pay Josh Zerlan + other BFL employee salaries. It seems like they have shot some of that pre-order $$$ at China and China has not shot back ASIC chips. Who knows where the fail could be in such a complex machine. I wonder if they keep gambling: maybe they send more of the pre-order money at a different Chinese manufacturer that promises that can produce the chips, all the while using the huge pre-order bankroll for operations and weekly salaries. Apparently some of the funds are also used to buy CES booths with fan-boxes as a show of corporate strength, with instruction to cuss at anyone asking the tough questions: http://youtu.be/UlWrmIqGs3Y?t=2m38s From what Josh said, they are only using the pre-order money IF the chips work. Otherwise, the engineers don't get paid. Josh never said anything about paying anyone with pre-order money yet - in fact, he says "This is why we can refund all pre-orders we want". How do you get that they are shooting pre-order money left and right when that is exactly the opposite of what Josh said? |
|
|
|
They don't have a working demo, otherwise they would show it. I thought this was a well-established point already? They have confirmed that the ASICs worked in QFN packaging, but then they killed the samples while stress testing them for harsh environments. Now, they are confident enough that the chips will continue to work in the new package that they are creating them all at the same time (without samples), and will probably showcase demo units days before they ship out to customers.
I've seen nothing solid which invalidates the hypothesis that BFL is 100% scam. At this point I lean to this hypothesis as the one which explains the most observations, and makes the most sense operationally.
...
Since when is doing a con job ever the "logical path"?? I would never consider scamming people as being a logical path no matter how much money is involved. My hope would be that the vast majority of the rest of the world would feel the same. Obviously, there is Sonny, but he is not the only one involved in operating BFL - far from it. ... I thought we agreed to dis-agree? But since we are here... If you expect scammers to be irrational, illogical, or stupid, I anticipate that you'll find yourself scammed repeatedly. There are a lot of adjectives with negative connotations which one may use to describe the typical scammer but these three are not among them. Maybe so - I've forgotten who all I am talking to.  |
|
|
|
got my chargeback today too.
Until BTC has more protection for buyers, I don't see myself ever buying any big-ticket items with them in the future. It seems scams are just too easy.
Ah, the lost art of due diligence... You don't need "more protection" - you can protect yourself by treating bitcoins much like you treat cash. You wouldn't just go to a strange neighborhood and hand a couple of thousands of dollars to a hand sticking out from a hole in the wall, the wall having a spray-painted advertisement "will build and deliver advanced, customized, integrated circuits"...? Or would you? Paying cash to the likes of Sony and Tom - even ngzhang and friedcat, who so far appear much more credible - based solely on the promise to develop and deliver a rather complex product. The best way to protect yourself when paying cash and cash-like bitcoins is to do research. Get to know the project, get to know the people. Are they trustworthy? Are they competent? Are there any red flags? Alternatively, just pay a nanny (credit card company) to take care of you: she will gladly do it for a fee. If you are smart, you won't even be paying the fee - they'll find less-then-smart customers to cover it for you. THIS. It's amazing how people are so willing to throw money at a company with a yet-to-be-created product and yet be unwilling to accept the risk of doing so.I have a preorder with BFL. If BFL were to go defunct, then that would suck. I'd be out $2,600. But I wouldn't be making rants about how Bitcoin needs more consumer protection, or that people shouldn't be preordering from companies who haven't yet produced a product. I have accepted the risk that BFL might not deliver a product based on my due diligence (I found the risk of this to be very low). If I am wrong? I will accept the loss and move on. It would be an investing mistake on my part. Oops. I'd view it the same as picking the wrong stock to invest in, or going long on Bitcoin when I should have gone short. Because I preordered, I am willing to accept the risk that I do not get a product. No one should preorder without being willing to accept the same risk. Likewise, I took that risk (instead of waiting until a company actually had a product to show) because of the potential for large profit for the first few who receive the miners. I weighed the potential for the company to go under vs the potential gain if the company didn't go under, and I decided it was a worthwhile investment. Bitcoin doesn't need any consumer protections. Consumers need to be willing to do due diligence research on products and companies, and accept the risk of doing business online. Bitcoin is like cash, and consumers need to put themselves in a new mindset to understand how to properly use it without losing their money. Now, certainly I am not trying to say that scammers should get away with it, or that we shouldn't be trying to throw them in jail (they all deserve to rot for a lifetime there); I am only saying that I think it is absurd that people didn't think things through when they first preordered from a company who didn't have anything to show for it, and are unwilling to take that risk accordingly. |
|
|
|
Well, if I were to put money on which group would ship an ASIC unit first, I'd pick the only one that's ever shipped mining hardware before.
Too many people holding their breath.
Does anyone who doesn't have any skin in the game still believe BFL is for real?
I have no money in this and I believe BFL is sincerely trying to build what they are saying they're trying to build. I also believe they have not the slightest idea what they are doing. seen nothing solid which invalidates the hypothesis that BFL is 100% scam. At this point I lean to this hypothesis as the one which explains the most observations, and makes the most sense operationally. By 'operationally', I mean that core perps knew that they had little hope of pulling off a real device, the logical path would be 100 % con job. Dumping a bunch of money into some hail-Mary chip fab efforts is just not a rational way to go. Since when is doing a con job ever the "logical path"?? I would never consider scamming people as being a logical path no matter how much money is involved. My hope would be that the vast majority of the rest of the world would feel the same. Obviously, there is Sonny, but he is not the only one involved in operating BFL - far from it. Also, who says they knew they had little hope of pulling off a real device? Everything they've said indicates that they have had MUCH hope (one might even say confidence) of pulling off a real device. Where are you getting this idea that, just because thermal limits are exceeded on one type of chip package, they would just throw in the towel and say it couldn't be done? |
|
|
|
But the rules you would like to see happen would discourage the economy from creating a quality environment. You'd have fewer people attempting to start up small businesses, less innovation (equates to fewer products improving our lives), less jobs available (fewer people who want to invest in a larger labor force when the risk vs reward ratio is lower and their loans cost more?), etc.
I disagree. First off, my tax rates over all would be less than our current system. Around 10-19% seem to be a range I feel would be acceptable and would meet the needs of basic services. You can't compare our current system to a new system in a 1 to 1 manner. There are many other laws that would be changed or thrown out. Overall it would be a much more vibrant environment and it would encourage new business. What it would focus on is established businesses that continue to trying and monopolize or corner any industry. Usually other business are the biggest deterrent for new entrants, not the tax code. Again I state, I would want to discourage large concentrations of wealth in rent-seeking and interest gather operations. So in your system, you get to arbitrarily pay the taxes you want, arbitrarily tax whatever companies you want (under the pretext that they are "trying to monopolize or corner any industry", which is naturally a subjective observation), and somehow this is supposed to encourage new businesses and a more vibrant environment? If I am an investor, and an entrepreneur comes to me for capital to build a housing complex (thus reducing rental costs for the area, as more housing is available), I might look at my potential gains (profit of $100k on a $1M investment), your 60% capital gains tax (or whatever it is you wish to raise the capital gains tax rate to), and say, meh, tying up $1M for a $400k return over 10 years isn't worth it. Whereas I might look at the current capital gains tax rate (what is it, 25%?), and say, wow, $750k over a 10 year span for a $1M investment sounds like a great deal! Meanwhile, because I've decided not to invest in a housing complex, the housing complex doesn't get built, people struggle to find a place to live, and housing rental prices rise until the calculated return on investment is worth it for some investor somewhere. What am I missing here? How would a capital gains tax NOT discourage investment? |
|
|
|
So the first shipment will be 10,000 - 12,000 chips worth.
Sounds like refunds are adding up. First it was 20k, then up to 100k chips. Now it's down to only 10k chips. Can you link that quote? I think you're getting confused, tho. They had ordered 100k chips from the fab. Only 20k of those would be available in the first round of shipments, and then the other 80k would come later. Idk about that 12k number tho, maybe it was how much will actually be shipping to customers? 20k would have covered all preorders as of some point in November or December (can't remember). 10k-12k is the first batch of chips from the first wafer, and it seems like Josh is saying those will make up the first shipment heading out of BFL. So, it looks like MOST of the preorders will be filled via the 1/3 plan in the first week of production. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so I am going to ask Josh for more clarification. By "shipment", he may just mean that the first batch of chips they receive will be from only one wafer, and will be that many chips. EDIT: Just saw this part of the quote again. It does sound like they'll be holding all preorders until those first 75TH/s are built, then sending them all out. Bummer.  The 1/3 plan applies to the first 10,000 - 12,000 chips. After that it's FIFO. 10k-12k chips won't be from one wafer. That would probably be the first 10 wafers, based on die size. Ah, I misread that quote..! |
|
|
|
Tell me, what is the difference between income and capital gains?
Income is wealth you generated with your own direct energy. Capital Gains is wealth you generated by investing it with another entity that invested on your behalf. The key difference is the 3rd party. You working as a clerk for an employer, income. Investing into a corporation or bond and receiving proceeds from the appreciation or interest income, capital gain. Put another way, income is something you expended effort for, and capital gain is something you accepted risk for, yes? So, you want to encourage (by not taxing) working for an employer and discourage (by taxing) investing. What do you imagine will be the result of that incentive set? Actually my goal would be to taxing anything that can be used to compound their interest. This features tends to concentrate control and influence over time and that type of central control should be taxed. What we don't want to a rent-seeking class. So presumably you would also have large property taxes, with breaks for non-commercial owners, yes? Thus taxing heavily hotels and landlords? And of course, interest on loans would be considered "capital gains," right? It would mainly depend on if you owned the building free and clear. If you were in the process of purchasing it, it would not be considered capital gains yet. Once you did own it, yes, I could see tax rates being different that a non-commercial property. Interest on Loans would be capital gains. I see profits from the sales of goods or services and healthier for an economy than profits from interest. So, you're discouraging loans. You're discouraging investment. You're discouraging commercial property ownership. By discouraging these, you're also discouraging starting new businesses. Do you see this as beneficial to the economy? You make it seem that people would not engage in these profitable activities, which is not the case. Economics rule#1: Incentives work. Yes, people will still do these things. But they will do them less often then without the tax structures. I say again, do you see this as beneficial to the economy? First off, just saying Economics Rule does mean anything. Yes I see this sort of tax structure beneficial to the economy as society. It will build a sound foundation to grow upon. It will also be beneficial for society because it will not create major imbalances that create social discontent that if left unchecked will hamper economic activity. Maybe you forgot that society and the economy have to work together to create a quality environment. But the rules you would like to see happen would discourage the economy from creating a quality environment. You'd have fewer people attempting to start up small businesses, less innovation (equates to fewer products improving our lives), less jobs available (fewer people who want to invest in a larger labor force when the risk vs reward ratio is lower and their loans cost more?), etc. |
|
|
|
Does anyone who doesn't have any skin in the game still believe BFL is for real?
It seems to me that the only people who believe BFL isn't some kind of scam are those with pre-orders, the same way that only those with large investments in BCS&T believed that Pirateat40 was for real towards the end.
BFL adherents, when will you allow yourselves to consider the fact that this is a scam. When the February deadline is missed? Or are you such chumps that you will allow a convicted fraudster to lead you through yet another hoop?
Calling names doesn't lead to intelligent discussions with any sort of desirable results. I would advise against it. As I've said before, BFL very much looks like a company inexperienced in creating ASICs, creating ASICs. They could be a scam, but I am doubtful, simply because they would have already run with the money if they were. The logical conclusion is that they have indeed had the setbacks Josh has recently written in detail about, and that they will eventually produce their ASIC products. |
|
|
|
|
What is the advantage of terracoin, again? (serious question)
|
|
|
|
I just hung out with your girlfriend, because Bitcoin.
I don't have a girlfriend, because Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
So the first shipment will be 10,000 - 12,000 chips worth.
Sounds like refunds are adding up. First it was 20k, then up to 100k chips. Now it's down to only 10k chips. Can you link that quote? I think you're getting confused, tho. They had ordered 100k chips from the fab. Only 20k of those would be available in the first round of shipments, and then the other 80k would come later. Idk about that 12k number tho, maybe it was how much will actually be shipping to customers? 20k would have covered all preorders as of some point in November or December (can't remember). 10k-12k is the first batch of chips from the first wafer, and it seems like Josh is saying those will make up the first shipment heading out of BFL. So, it looks like MOST of the preorders will be filled via the 1/3 plan in the first week of production. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so I am going to ask Josh for more clarification. By "shipment", he may just mean that the first batch of chips they receive will be from only one wafer, and will be that many chips. EDIT: Just saw this part of the quote again. It does sound like they'll be holding all preorders until those first 75TH/s are built, then sending them all out. Bummer. The 1/3 plan applies to the first 10,000 - 12,000 chips. After that it's FIFO. |
|
|
|
Just add "because Bitcoin" at the end of everything you say in this thread, because Bitcoin.
Terrible grammar. Should be "because of bitcoin". You are not following the rules of this thread, because Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
PC on and awake, monitor Off
push button
1.5 seconds
'ASUS, power and innovation'
2 seconds
black
1.5 seconds
normal OS screen
I've never seen any monitor do anything like that when turned off and on while it still has a video signal. Every monitor I've ever used just displays what it's supposed to immediately as soon it's turned on. Well then, you've probably got exactly what he's looking for! What brand/model are you using? I've never seen any monitor display anything immediately after being turned on - all the ones I have used seem to take at least 2-3 seconds before they display a picture. Personally, the Dell monitor I am currently using (a current model 23") stays black for 3 seconds after being turned on, then has the "source" information (DVI, etc) displayed over top of the actual video content for the next 3 seconds, which is moderately obnoxious. |
|
|
|
|
Just add "because Bitcoin" at the end of everything you say in this thread, because Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
This is an excellent way to further associate usernames with addresses (and subsequently groups of addresses unless one is careful to purposefully make themselves anonymous).
Interesting..! Not something I would care about, but I suppose some people would.
|
|
|
|
They did - it was in the first set of pictures they released showcasing the PCB. Pictures: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/butterfly-labs-releases-more-asic-photos/We made the decision to go with QFN in December. I can't really talk about our development process itself, but we have gone through extensive design and testing phases... at one point in early December we decided to look at a worst case scenario if the chips were in a really hot environment (you can see the bubbled chip in one of the pictures, I think someone pointed it out.). That makes no sense. Those photos were released in October and the worst-case scenario testing supposedly wasn't until December. Perhaps Josh can clarify, but I took his statement to mean they did their own self-testing as soon as they received the chips (which caused the bulging), then passed the design along for simulated testing in December. I think he misworded it, so that's my read "as he meant to say it". Then they would have known then that there will be severe delays untill they get the design ready. Any date after them knowing they had a design flaw would be bogus untill they had a working design in their hands. Only after testing the new package could they give the go ahead for mass production. They didn't think it would result in a severe delay to start - they thought they could redesign the PCB layout to prevent the overheating. So, no, I don't think it's safe to say that they would have known that there would be severe delays - they thought they could quick-fix it, and announced the next release date accordingly. Once they figured out that the quick fix wouldn't work, they passed it along to a design firm, who confirmed their initial findings, at which point they decided to go with flip-chip. EDIT: It's kind of like they kept announcing best-case scenario dates after each setback. So after the first setback, they attempted to redesign the PCB and said it would be ready mid-November. When that didn't work, they did more tinkering and sent it off to a design firm in December, saying it would be ready mid-December (the PCB's wouldn't take long to produce once they had a design that worked). That still didn't work, so they changed to flip-chip saying that it would be ready mid January. The ASIC designers were taking longer than usual to switch over to flip-chip because of the style of payment (only paid upon receipt of working device), so now they aren't ready until the end of January. |
|
|
|
Fees reduced down to 1 NMC / 1 LTC respectively.
I had raised the fees due to the considerable amount of extra efforts required to repeatedly maintain those NMC and LTC wallets. People are depositing tons of little amounts (often smaller than 0.0001 LTC or NMC). This leads to the problem that the wallet often needs manual follow up because the wallet is too defragmented and cannot generate the withdrawal.
In this case, I seriously suggest you to impose a deposit fee of 0.0001LTC/NMC A fee of $0.00006? So it takes 166 transactions to make a penny? That would be worth it... how, exactly? I agree with a deposit AND withdrawal fee (perhaps 0.5 both ways), but 0.0001 would just be pointless. |
|
|
|
They did - it was in the first set of pictures they released showcasing the PCB. Pictures: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/butterfly-labs-releases-more-asic-photos/We made the decision to go with QFN in December. I can't really talk about our development process itself, but we have gone through extensive design and testing phases... at one point in early December we decided to look at a worst case scenario if the chips were in a really hot environment (you can see the bubbled chip in one of the pictures, I think someone pointed it out.). That makes no sense. Those photos were released in October and the worst-case scenario testing supposedly wasn't until December. Perhaps Josh can clarify, but I took his statement to mean they did their own self-testing as soon as they received the chips (which caused the bulging), then passed the design along for simulated testing in December. I think he misworded it, so that's my read "as he meant to say it". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
