If it's a "legit" co-lo facility, security can be part of the package. How secure depends on the facility and how much you want to pay...
Paying for physical security and achieving a physical security always were (and are) two different things. I do remember working at one of those "secure colocation centers" which had armed guards and hand geometry scanners near the front door and a wide-open elephant door in the back where theft was going by the truckloads. Co-location was and still is full of completely fraudulent security theater. Since this thread has IBM in the title I also remember that IBM used to do "security ratings" for their partners. The suburban office with separate alarm circuit for the IBM-partner equipment room, no guards whatsoever and the receptionist and all employees mutually recognizing each other by sight would get higher rating than that "secure colocation center". Edit: Found the link to those "secure" co-locators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Communications |
|
|
|
For us lowly 'small' miners best we can do is the recycle yard or pass-it-down resale.
I was under impression that many of the 'small' miners are actually hosting/co-locating their mining equipment at the 'moderately large' mining farms. That would be an equivalent of the olden mainframe days where many 'small' mainframe owners were actually co-locating them at reasonably large data centers and frequently renting/leasing peripheral devices (like large hardware RAM disks) only when needed. Then the only remaining issue is the physical security: that the miners using experimental chips did not go missing in the night or the owner of premises for the mining farm repossesses/places a lien on the equipment for nonpayment of the rent or electricity bills. Edit: I remember seeing the photographs of the DRAM banks for the aforementioned hardware RAM disks. The DRAM chips were all in DIP packages and all socketed. To avoid the theft the DRAM banks were then cemented to steel plates on top to prevent individual removal. One of the "thefts" to prevent was actually not theft (chips goes missing) but unauthorized replacement (experimental chip replaced with an off-the-shelf equivalent). Apparently in the DRAM business seeing and measuring un-binned chips would allow detailed reverse-engineering of the manufacturing process. This includes not only taking the actual possession of the experimental chip and de-capping it but also a temporary removal from the original socket to run a battery of post-manufacturing electrical tests and then putting the chip back in the original circuit. |
|
|
|
To put it in short form, ja miner ASICS could make very simple handy process targets to tinker with. The companies researching 10/7 are not about to make the process targets as for-saleable items.
The fact that IBM and friends have already done a functional mammoth count 7nm test chip says that they are way beyond needing simple targets and have to concentrate on the process and materials basics to make the process usable on a commercially viable scale.
The "for-sale" problem is usually solved by leasing the new chips with mandatory return to the manufacturer after the end of the useful life of the product. I've learned about this trick a while back: hardware RAM disk (mainframe device) manufacturers would lease large quantities of experimental and not-up-to-spec DRAM chips to assemble their "disk drives". IBM (and others) were happy to just lease those "RAM disks". The general idea of leasing would actually mesh quite well with the Bitcoin mining business model. |
|
|
|
I suspect IBM will share the tech with their partners - eventually - but they have to get it working reliably first.
The last part of the above sentence is plainly wrong. IBM first shares the technology with the partners to debug it, then once it works reliably starts selling for money to the regular customers. This is why IBM is so picky when forming partnerships: they have to be reasonably assured that the partner relationship will provide them with truthful feedback required to achieve IBM's customers' expectations of quality. You seem to have this partnership relationship backwards. |
|
|
|
Ja. Silly question perhaps but how many hashing cores/engines do Bitmains chips have (or Avalon's, BitFury's)? In the 1385 data sheet they always refer to things as 'core'. Singular, not plural or more.
I believe the Monarch had 256 cores/chip or something like that. I know Inno/Bitmine.ch's A1 had "27 highly optimized hashing engines based on custom ASIC cells up to 1.6M" (quote from the A1 spec sheet). IF what they refer to as cells are actually gates (or if each cell is actually 2 gates) then that raises the count but even w/256 nearly 10x more gates it's a long way from the near 2-billion in the latest (affordable) CPU/GPU/s.
2112 wanna pop in on this? Should be right up your alley.
I really don't have anything important to add to this thread. 1) As far as core counts: I wouldn't pay much attention to the marketing blurbs. Technical accuracy isn't an objective there. The words and sentences are mostly meaningless, whatever sounds most impressive wins. Only trust sidehack's calculations or equivalent methods. "Custom cell" may mean as little as "standard cell" with JTAG/testing connections/circuitry removed/defeated. 2) As far as IBM sharing the access to the 7nm process with fabless boutique designers: I see no problem from the IBM side, IBM typically is quite good with sharing their technology with their long term partners. I see a problem from the coin mining entrepreneurs side: this niche doesn't attract trustworthy/stable people. IBM does thorough vetting of their prospective partners / developers / resellers. Even people much less skeezy that in the Bitcoin milieu fail to make an entry grade in the IBM Developer's Program. Even Spondoolies, the least weird company in the niche, found hiring full time hardware engineering staff impossible. |
|
|
|
|
They are now too tight and this site cannot be read on older Macintoshes with older OSX Leopard. Can you loosen it back a little?
Edit: Sorry for double post. Things seem to be working fine now, 15 minutes later. It seems like strange temporary routing change inside Amazon, probably related to DDoS or anti-DDoS defenses, I can't fully trace it right now.
|
|
|
|
Okeydokey, I hope that you finished your editing and I can reply. Side note: This forum allows unlimited editing of own posts. This doesn't mean that you can keep ninja-editing without clearly marking your edits. If you can't finish for some reason leave a note at the end that you will continue and when. At minimum ninja-edits are impolite, oftentimes they are just a symptom of a liar or a scammer. End side note. You should have started like this from the beginning. Your goal isn't "to fix Bitcoin". Your goal is "to fix the humanity, maybe with the help of Bitcoin". You would have found many more receptive and friendly souls on this forum if you were open and honest, both with yourself and with the readers. While I have nothing against your manifesto, I think it will not be well received. The majority of the current Bitcoin users/investors/promoters are not afraid that a whale could turn to a frog. They joined the project not because they could get "more". They joined because the project guaranteed that the other will get "less". They will just happy with "a frog" provided that the other get smaller frogs or other smaller animals. Anyway, I'm mentally filling your case under "Don Quixote of La Mancha" together with Bicknellski and his "Wasp Project Collective" (and some others). It will be the easiest to monitor your progress on the whole manifesto by focusing on item 6, "mastering the technology". Lets see if you actually have fortitude to get an FPGA development kit to test yourself and your ideas. 2112,
Regarding your latest question about my incentives for the 'propaganda'
Obviously I'm an Entrepreneur and activist with ideas about having my people and country involved in cryptocurrency business because I do believe it is a relief for both sides. Bitcoin needs balanced and distributed power and my country needs progress and development to avoid violence.
We ordinary people are like you: we make love, we cry we die. our children deserve better than we have right now, like yours. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency is an opportunity for all of us to make the world a better place.
I want to do this not by just milking my country's energy resources in the interest of myself or my friends. I have an idea and I have strong reasons that this idea works:
1- We have good resources of energy here and electricity is extremely inexpensive.
2- One good news about SHA256 ASIC is its simplicity. with a moderate (but confident and aggressive) investment we can keep our business almost up to date and competitive when combined with cheap electricity.
3-All we need is know-how plus (about say 2-3 million dollars) investment plus good business partners in technology field.
4-We can keep such a business running in a very competitive state and profitable. We can use our hash power to keep bitcoin safe and strong.
5- We will use our business as a focal point for propagating science and technology in the region. We will make our business an example in the region , an icon of descent development and science ( a new, resurrected science, this time born to be democratic, humanitarian to be a relief).
6- We should start by designing and mastering technology from the very beginning even with first few thousand bucks of investment. Every thing as always is about the start.
7- I am working hard on the theoretic aspects and attracting cooperations and sympathies about a DAO like institution to raise funds for my project.
8- We need crowd funding to have both sides' (my people and Bitcoin community) interests fulfilled, otherwise we have to go through endless negotiations with greedy dangerous people who want everything (the whale) just for themselves to swallow.
|
|
|
|
You are making every thing personal and it is off topic. but let's play your game:
I understand that it may look personal to you. The fact is that you aren't saying anything new, you are just another person who finally confronted his ideal of Bitcoin with reality of Bitcoin and it isn't happy with what he sees. You are however unique with your ability to quite clearly state objection and are doing the objecting with enchanting poetic slant that is new. 1- mining is not about efficiency! Who told you that? mining is just a mechanism to avoid inflation, it is all of the purpose behind 'proof of work' . The protocol is designed to act against efficiency by adjusting difficulty, simple and basic. As I have mentioned above the whole ASIC thing is a crack a kind of cheating and bitcoin is struggling with it and the popularity of Etherium and Litecoin and others, the main argument they have, is about their supposed immunity against this crack (being more memory bound and computation intensive to be economically feasible enough to be ruined by ASIC manufacturers, comparing to simple double SHA256 algorithm)
Baloney. Proof-of-work is just an approximation of "fair" initial distribution of bitcoins, for some definition of "fair" acceptable to some people. Your use of "crack" is just your anger showing up, nobody is trying to crack any ciphers in any of the PoW crypto coins. It is just a way to run a decentralized lottery, they more you hash the more tickets you buy in the lottery that distributes the coins.
2- Satoshi's white paper or Bitcoin source code are good stuff to understand something but not enough at all. See? you come here, claiming to be an expert but you do not understand the core idea behind the most basic concept of bitcoin: proof of work, and your reference is the White Paper and the Source Code. And why I am going so far? Look at you! You are here to argue with me against another most basic concept: decentralized nature of Bitcoin, denying (and/or totally not understanding) the only accountable threat to decentralization: ASIC monopolies.
There aren't any ASIC monopolies. There is some sort of oligopoly built by those who actually understand the logic design and semiconductor manufacturing. They fair and square outcompeted the much less efficient and more idealistic competitors who were against borrowing/financing or did it less efficiently. The nearest to the monopoly in the Bitcoin milieu is the Core Development team but it is slowly crumbling.
3- MW refers to Megawatts = 1000000 Watts and mW refers to milliwatts = 0.001 Watts and in the Middle East we learn stuff like this in junior high school.
Well, I give you A grade for this, you already have advantage over many fellow miners who are completely befuddled by that Systeme International d'unites.
2- I didn't make any claim about a degree in some science or tech field. It is my privacy and have not to argue about, but in the Middle East we have a lot of well educated brilliant engineers and scientists. It is 2016 and education is not an obstacle. Actually , because of social and political conflicts, here we have much more incentives to be armed with advanced technology (as a human being living in the danger zone), engineers here have nothing other than their expertise and they take care about it much more than what one may expect.
Yeah, I don't want to violate your privacy. But can you speak in some more general ways that would still convey your predicament? You claim that there are many native engineers and scientists in your region. How came you didn't avail yourself of their advice? I mean no official contract, but something informal like discussion over lunch or breakfast? There must be some acceptable Middle-Eastern way to get informal advice. In Europe, where I had most of my education, such door-opening and lips-loosening helper would be a bottle of decent alcoholic beverage (for better or for worse). So, how come you ended up with falling deeply for the propaganda? And doing that despite your education? Can you describe that in some non-specific (maybe even poetic) way, without doxing yourself or your school? Edit: Pasting the ninja-edit for posterity: You are making every thing personal and it is off topic. but let's play your game:
1- Mining is not about efficiency! Who told you that? Mining is just a mechanism to avoid inflation by limiting the supply of bitcoin. It is very important to understand that the whole mining thing is an artificial, unnecessary waste of computing power, do you believe it? from a pure programming point of view you don't need more than a few hash calculations to keep blockchain working exactly the same it is working now just you (theoretically) can have tens of blocks per second and a inflammatory coin issuance situation. It is all of the purpose behind 'proof of work' . The protocol is designed to act against efficiency by adjusting difficulty, simple and basic!
As I have mentioned above the whole ASIC thing is a crack a kind of cheating and bitcoin is struggling with it. The popularity of Etherium and Litecoin and others, the main argument they have, is about their supposed immunity against this crack (their proof of work being more memory bound and computation intensive to be economically feasible enough to be ruined by ASIC designers and manufacturers, comparing to simple double SHA256 algorithm).
And it is ruining not only the Bitcoin but the environment as well, you love numbers? check these:
We got some 4.55 XHS total hashing power at the time of this writing. Let's estimate the average power consumption of miners to be 0.5 W/GH (very optimistic)
using my high school level knowledge: 4.55*10^18 * 0.5 / 10^9 = 2.28 * 10^9 W = 2280 MW
with current technology you need 378 kg coal to be consumed (producing CO2 and releasing it to the atmosphere) for each MW/h of electricity. It means we burn 862 tons of coal each hour for what? absolutely nothing! The dramatic increase in the difficulty and the hash rate, means nothing other than an invasion against the nature and wasting valuable resources. ASIC does not make it more efficient, it just escalates it.
Satoshi's white paper or Bitcoin source code are good stuff but not enough ... See? you come here, claiming to be an expert but you do not understand the core idea behind the most basic concept of bitcoin: proof of work, and your reference is the White Paper and the Source Code. Look at you! You are arguing with me against another most basic concept: decentralized nature of Bitcoin, denying (and/or totally not understanding) the only accountable threat to decentralization: ASIC monopolies.
2- I didn't make any claim about a degree in some science or tech field. It is my privacy and have rights not to disclose my education level, but in the Middle East we have a lot of well educated brilliant engineers and scientists. It is 2016 and education is not an obstacle. Actually , because of social and political conflicts, here we have much more incentives to be armed with advanced technology (as a human being living in the danger zone), engineers here have nothing other than their expertise and they take care about it much more than what one may expect.
|
|
|
|
God! again? another legendary?!  First of all as a 'legendary' you shouldn't post off-topic! Bitcoin is not about 'reality', it is about 'change', it is a 'paradigm shift', and yes it is sort of a religion, and I'm not anti-Chinese I just have not enough trust to their communist party not 'socializing' mining firms and monopolizing some 2/3 of total hash power of the network, ruining up to 8 billion dollars of people's assets and a promising future for humanity. About economics: come on! Have you ever been studying an economic paper just for 1 continuous hour? Most of the people are used to messing with economics and other branches of science by their media-driven common sense . Thanks for responding. This is 100% on-topic because everyone here is interested in who would invest in mining and what is their motivation. So I gather that the feel on the Middle-East is that Chinese are monopolizing mining. My take is that Chinese were amongst the few who really understood that mining is about efficiency and real technical advantage gained by investing in efficient semiconductor implementations. No need to read any economic papers: to understand Bitcoin concepts and mining it is sufficient to read Satoshi's paper and browse the source code. Everything else is just a commentary or propaganda. Proof-of-work is a technical equivalent of might-makes-right. What else is to say? Blame yourself for signing into a project that you didn't understand. I guess I overestimated your educational background. It seems to be purely words-based, no sign of understanding numbers. Do you even understand the difference between MW and mW? I still wish I could somehow learn what kind of school one has to graduate from to have such superficial (but nicely-worded) outlook on Bitcoin as you've exhibited in your posts. From the very little I know about Middle-Eastern technical schools the most students there are purchasing grades either directly or by hiring tutors and consultants. |
|
|
|
All right, I'm so fascinated about this poster that I can't pass this opportunity. It is clearly somebody reasonably well educated but also somebody completely dissociated from reality. Is it drugs? Is it education in some closed private school? What could that be? I see more than a smidgen of anti-Chinese sentiment. Is it some sort of religious fervor? The wikipedia reference points to somebody with extensive humanities education but without comprehending mostly basic numeracy and economy one would expect from a bazaar trader. God bless this topic, I enjoyed a lot. I am from and live in a Middle Eastern country. We have good electricity fees here for industrial sector. But industry is f*d up, business is f*d up , politics is corrupted, government is ruined totally, .... the worst corner of the hell, the Middle Hell.
I think btc is (or can be) a relief and mining is a door, the right one for us to begin entering to the btc world. We (millions of educated people here) need bitcoin community's help and you need ours as well:
We can and must take part in the decentralization agenda of the bitcoin community, by our energy, by our money, by our knowledge and human resources.
We can beat Chinese or participate in beating them, they subsidize electricity? We own the source of their electricity.
We should start and for this we need help. We can't pay 2K$ to buy an already retired off-the-shelf Chinese miner hardware and wait for the halving , the difficulty to raise or some btc price drop to set us up. I can't convince people here to invest in the darkness, they won't. We need a certain minimum level of mastering and enough options and space to maneuver. We have to customize, to have the ability and the option to customize the technology.
For the moment I am deeply interested in this 'sidehack project'. Unfortunately I couldn't be able to put together a good conclusive answer to my following questions (a lot of slang has been used, not a good practice for an international forum, though):
1- How can we define the ultimate, big picture target of the project today, after all discussions and improvements?
2- In what specific stage are we at the moment?
3- How can one contribute (financially, technically, ... )?
I am deeply familiar with Blockchain and bitcoin/altcoin technology and terminology but It would be highly appreciated if somebody please give me brief answers (from a technical/philosophical/social/economical/... perspective ) to the above questions using a formal plain language and literature. I need to know about this project's potentials to be hired as a platform for my plan to start a campaign for coordinating people's knowledge and financial resources here to take a role in the btc movement.
ASIC has ruined everything and decentralized philosophy of bitcoin, struggles to survive. ASIC mining hardware manufacturers are crawling to top while (at least some of them) showing fake sympathies about decentralization.
Recently I have been involved in a negotiation with Bitmain for having access to their bare hashing board samples for an immersed liquid cooling project of mine, witnessing how their official policy of giving their products out to public is fake. Making a technology public domain is not just about selling off the shelf products with enough delay to take all of the advantages of being the first. People have rights to be more involved in details and have access to the chips, the pcbs, etc ....
Bitmain is the worst player because of cheating and being a hypocrite but no other ASIC mining hardware producer is honorable. They are all the same fools who do not understand the paradoxical nature of their strategy (swallowing a whale which becomes a frog when swallowed).
The main, generic problem with this dirty hardware industry is its 'money intensive' characteristic. If it was about Google or Microsoft trying to monopolize software, no problem at all and an opportunity for devs to have fun. But it is, this hardware shit, all about the money.
I am thinking of a DAO like institution to raise millions of dollars with a pure nonprofit philosophy to back community oriented hardware development projects. Is it feasible? Have you any alternative plan?
By the way: I'm looking for bare hashing boards (at least 10 pieces) for my immerse liquid cooling project. I prefer the boards to be of the most recent technologies, any help available? Any recommendations?
I have to apologize too. I overreacted. But really, guys here do not pay a shit to newcommers. Bad attitude! But it is about mining and I am in the right forum. I have plans to make money but my plans are fair and transparent and are green in terms of enhancing the decentralized nature of bitcoin. But I am under attack by bullies and I'm not alone: every single miner is aware of the threat, ASIC is basically a crack it is historically known to be a crack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_hardware_attack We have to do something and it can't be a patch to the algorithm it should be done in an organized way supported by the Blockchain technology itself. You people (being legendary, or elder fellows or so) have to lead us, encourage us. Bitcoin is beautiful. We need it to make life better for ourselves and our children. We have to do more about this ASIC shit. For the moment I am proposing a streamlined public investment for making this technology public domain in a much higher level than what it really is. Meanwhile we should not be fooled by companies like Bitmain, people, ordinary people like you and me, have not access to this shit. This is not access to the technology at all, their "directly available to public' thing is just a sales discourse and a sophisticated shield they have devised to protect themselves against decentralization incentives among the community. They want to co-exist with their host until foolishly accomplishing their mission: destroying it. Got it? Destroying their host! Capitalism is self-destructive, not my innovative discovery but ... think about it ... making a machine to crack a business to take over that business ... fuck! |
|
|
|
|
IMHO not at all an improvement. It is just a translator layer (namely assembler) and it generates just native instructions of CPUs with already existing hardware implementations. Thus it completely lacks execution layer (presumes native hardware execution) and the associated tools like linker & debugger. Good smart contract platform would also have some sort of static analysis tool capable of verifying certain properties of the code to be executed without actually executing it.
I still think that the future optimized Turing-complete cryptographic platform will have special cryptographic instructions and data types. It would be an extension from ALU (Arithmetic-Logic Unit) and FPU (Floating-Point Unit) to perhaps something like CGU (CryptoGraphic Unit). My bet is on something similar to IBM's AS/400, which although introduced in 1988 already had 128-bit addressing. Just narrowly thinking about Bitcoin such a cryptographic platform would have 256-bit registers and addresses with direct support for secp256k1 arithmetic.
|
|
|
|
You make money from the sale of chips; with the exception of providing technical information to a very few technically competent people there is no customer service required on your part.
He can't do this because it is too risky for him. It is possible that your design would be better than his. That would mean a "loss of face" or loss of respect (and self-respect) for him. That's why he can't and wont risk doing what you propose. |
|
|
|
I understand you want to make money , but having your chips in other peoples designs would make you money not cost you money.
This is your mistake. It isn't about money. It is about respect, and by "respected" it one from the Occident should probably think "feared". My shortest explanation is that ngzhang belongs to a class of people for whom having 90% of $1000 is more than having 10% of $100000. It isn't about getting more money, it is about getting more respect. It is a fundamental difference in motivation. |
|
|
|
Request for clarification: is your "maybe obvious generalization" serial power idea any different than what Bitmain's done for string power on S4+, S5 and S7?
I don't know the details of BitmainTech's PCBs layout nor for the fact details of any other company. I can't really answer your question. All I've seen are some prototype designs with Bitfury chips, which were parallel connections of strictly serially connected chips. The more general layout is serial connections of groups of parallel connected chips. In the simplest case of four chips: +--- C1 --- C2 ---+
Vdd Vss
+--- C3 --- C4 ---+
is parallel-serial a.k.a. "string" +--- C1 --+-- C2 ---+
Vdd | Vss
+--- C3 --+-- C4 ---+
is serial-parallel. The 2nd is more general and easier to control and stabilize. |
|
|
|
A brief email conversation from last fall.
Oh, so I presume some internal/unpublished document from Spondoolies. My take on this is that it may be true with their implementation only. The general implementation shouldn't (or needn't) have such limitations. Or maybe there's some additional trade-off included in their design that wasn't disclosed or covered by the patents. IIRC the SP50 drawings released showed large number of small power supplies, so my speculation about power distribution optimization was not really well-grounded. |
|
|
|
"To achieve those power numbers (actually a bit better then the published numbers), in addition to full custom design, we're doing some pre-computation per job, which needs the cooperation of large number of ASICs. Hence, the ASIC isn't suitable for usage in small machines."
"For now, we decided not to share more info abut the design, due to a patent we're implementing."
Could be something else, but it's completely unrelated to power supply changes.
Who do you quote? Edit: I mean, which document do you quote? |
|
|
|
Assuming Spondoolies NDAs are no longer effective since they're closed down: I wonder if that lines up with something I heard from Guy about last September or so. When they announced the new chip for SP50, I talked to him a bit about availability and was told they had changed something in the design which gave them the efficiency boost when many chips were utilized together. So a single-chip or probably even SP20-scale miner would, I assume, not approach the 0.16J/GH efficiency given for the 800-odd chip SP50. The conversation about chip sourcing ended before any real information changed hands in October when he said they were patenting the innovation.
I doubt any of those patented "boosts" involve any inter-chip data sharing. I think they are all limited to intra-chip inter-engine sharing. The obvious inter-chip efficiency "boost" is just a different name for "string power supply", which indeed would be new for Spondoolines. Or maybe obvious generalization: serial power connection of small parallel clusters (2-4) of chips. Much less finicky that strict serial power to properly stabilize. |
|
|
|
There's apparently a fraudulent domain misspelling the world "silicon" in the "siliconangle.com" with two lower case "ll". It is currently being used on the main discussion board here in the thread "BREAKING NEWS: SATOSHI FINALLY REVEALED!" Can some moderator go there and obfuscate the HTTP: link to avoid spiders from increasing the rank of that fraud? Unfortunately I slightly worsened the situation by not obfuscating the http link in one of my quotes. I'm posting over a bad connection in a pizzeria that is closing shortly. I'm going to delete my bad posts in that thread and paste them here. Thanks in advance.
{{Citation needed}}
How about hxxp://silliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.html This is fraudulent website that misspells the word "silicon". The correct website doesn't have this post: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.htmlPlease quote my post for posterity. Edit: Also, you may want to obfuscate the fraudulent link so it doesn't get spidered by the search engines
How about hxxp://silliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.html
Was hoping for something not made up by an author. This is fraudulent website that misspells the word "silicon". The correct website doesn't have this post: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/05/03/Craig-Wright-faces-criminal-charges/index.htmlPlease quote my post for posterity. You should probably also obfuscate the fraudulent link so it won't get scanned by the search engines. Why would it need quoting?
I want to be out of this thread as soon as possible, so I will delete my original messages. At the same time I want everyone to be warned against referring to that fraud. Please re-edit your post to obfuscate the working http link I accidentally left in the open. I will delete this message to once somebody quotes it. |
|
|
|
...are you kidding? Perhaps, I misunderstood, or it is true in chip design, but it (what the prof said) makes absolutely no sense in other sciences, like physics, chemistry or biology.
Yeah? In which science you will get recognition for publishing a paper that would effectively say: "we worked hard trying to improve previously published results, but failed"? It is a common problem that gaining a negative knowledge doesn't get you promoted. The only way to get promoted is to improve or falsify somebody's else results. And falsification may brand you a spoilsport. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
