|
Ummm. somebody set us up the bomb.
|
|
|
|
Posted a while back in the meme section:  Yeah, much respect for going 2001 ASO. |
|
|
|
I am starting to have a hard time seeing anything below $14.50 happening soon. It's very clear buyers are very comfortable with $15.50 so any time the price gets close go below that people are going to buy to get a good deal.
Believing in single digits anytime soon based on dumps/panic alone at this point is an awfully stupid thing to believe.
Unless an EA dumps us down to 5. That's what I worry about. Why would they do this? I'm not saying it's rational, but people have been known to do irrational things. |
|
|
|
In particular, you said that capitalism is not fascism. I agree if by capitalism you mean just free market. But then perfect free markets use to be a quite scarce commodity in world history.
I have already defined capitalism earlier in this thread, and don't feel the need to repeat myself. But the short version is that "capitalism" is not an "-ism" at all. That term was popularized by Karl Marx, and was meant to be derogatory and to equate the economic model that it represents to a religion. It was an effective smear that many people buy into even today. Words matter. Capitalism, in an economic sense, is nothing but the sum total effects of the many 'natural' laws of economics that express themselves whenever a society is predominately left alone to exchange naturally; therefore it's not an "economic system" or even an ideology in any sense. This almost never happens in reality, but instead we have varying degrees of freedom in markets. There is no exception to this rule though; that in every market, the freer that it is, the more beneficial for the consumer. Free markets are not always beneficial for the producers, nor for governments that need to restrict freedom in order to extract tax revenue; but freedom is always and everywhere a net benefit for consumers. I think that's a good definition of capitalism. Would you care to answer why the term capitalism, in some minds, can be such an "effective smear?" |
|
|
|
|
First Lance and now this. Too much ...head exploding.
|
|
|
|
...
It is important to know that is not possible to switch packaging after you have tape-out the chip.
...
Would it then be correct to assume that either 1. BFL had not taped out prior to Dec 12, or 2. BFL was forced in to multiple tape-outs, costing big money If only deciding in Dec 12 that a different package was to be used that a new tape-out and production cycle would require a minimum of three months to complete. My head is swimming in all of this BFL BS. This would mean at any given time any timeline guidance provided by BFL was completely false. Nice. |
|
|
|
...see many pseudo-socialist policies coming into play. This could serve to dampen the blow I like this debate! Ok, I define socialism as: socialism, noun: the economic theory that if we give all our money to a small group of "controllers," they will give it back to us fairly. Example: pirateat40 socialism, noun: stealing from the working class because someone else stole before, tearing down legitimate government because someone else created a mess of it before, and then killing anyone who says you are worse than the guy before. Example: Stalin socialism, noun: hedonists pretending to be progressives Hmmm. Wouldn't Bitcoin better enable socialism by facilitating a fully transparent distribution of wealth? I have a feeling the working title for the Satoshi whitepaper was 'Socialism 2.0'.  |
|
|
|
|
This is a serious WTF moment.
|
|
|
|
<snip - probably much re-hashed debate about real mining as vendor testing just above.>
In my mind this is the point where BFL lost some major credibility. Either they were lazy or they were greedy. Take your pick.
Bitcoin itself is still 'experimental'. I see twanging on the mining effort rates as a good thing. Any data it adds to the body of knowledge about the behavior of the system is great with me. I do remember Avalon's statements and thought they were stupid at the time. It counted as a _negative_ toward their credibility in my mind. BFL never had any credibility to damage as far as I am concerned. I understand your sentiment and we can agree on some things. But to extend the 'experiment' argument let's put AMD in BFL's (prior) position. Would it have been necessary, for experimentation reasons, for AMD to burn-in test the 7970 on main-net? It would not. It would not have been necessary. It would have given no value towards understanding bitcoin's behavior. Nothing that hadn't already been discovered during the CPU to GPU transition. |
|
|
|
think would you really want to start a trend of ASIC producing companies using their product and reaping the rewards first; increasing the difficulty while holding funds deposited by awaiting customers on a product that was delayed?
That is not good publicity and would NOT be good for bitcoin
Like I said, if the vendor wanted to they could discount the unit on the basis of any money generated during the burn-in period. There is a total amount of money theoretically possible to earn during a few days, and it is not a huge amount. Just does not seem like a big deal to me. As for damage to the Bitcoin network generally, what could it possibly do that is not going to be done several days later when customers receive their units anyway...assuming the units work? Anyway, there is every bit as much reason to burn in the first generation of ASIC chips and PCBs as there is to test a car coming off the assembly line. Again, I would almost demand that the vendor do this as one of the tasks I am paying them for (or would be if I were a customer.) Hmmmmm. TL;DR: ASICs and MCU's do not implement the complete block solving protocol - so burn-in testing of all units with full protocol is not needed AT ALL. The premise is faulty - so it's a non issue in terms of burn-in testing - but very much an issue in terms of vendor credibility. The Avalon people were correct when they blasted anyone who suggested that burn-in testing, a complete burn-in cycle, required a full reproduction of the block solving protocol. It isn't required. Main net testing is not required. Testnet-in-a-box is not required. As a proof of concept measure the first samples of chips would of course need to be confirmed by using a full reproduction of the protocol. However, still main net testing is not a requirement. And even then a testing protocol, independent of the full protocol, can be used (must be written) for large scale functionality and burn-in testing of specific purpose for which the ASIC and MCU was designed. BFL was initially going to use main-net for testing. Josh/Inaba said it himself. That is, full burn-in cycle for all units produced. I and many others blasted them for such a "silly" idea (I quote Avalon). BFL's argument was that: 1. "The dev's" frowned upon using test-net for such large QA activities. The consequence would be astronomically high difficulty that could interfere with the testing activities of others. 2. It was not possible to perform testing in other non-impactful ways, so main-net was the choice. Once this information was made public and was met with criticism BFL claimed that all profit resulting from burn-in testing with main-net would be donated to the miner app dev's. When this claim of donation of profits did not assuage BFL's critics Josh/Inaba did some blasting of his own by making accusations against those critics that: 1. Critics didn't care about the miner dev's. 2. Critics didn't care about the network's security. Bizarrely, Josh/Inaba twisted critics arguments (memory is hazy) in to one where critics held an irresponsible position and jeopardized network security by the fact that if BFL didn't burn-in test with main-net to establish an equilibrium the combined capacity of units where customers had taken delivery threatened a 51% situation. Of course, point 2 doesn't hold much water since, at the time, BFL's 1/3 shipping plan called for mass assembly, testing, and shipping thereby largely eliminating the risk of 51% in the hands of either one or a relative few customers. In my mind this is the point where BFL lost some major credibility. Either they were lazy or they were greedy. Take your pick. |
|
|
|
I preordered the bASIC because of these reasons, from most important to least: - All the good words about cablepair's transparency in the forums
- ...
I kinda remembered ~cablepair being something of a dick a long time ago before he became mister salt-of-the-earth in running his 'business'. The benefit of having been around for a while I guess. Not that it mattered much because I never was even close to buying any ASIC from anyone until I see one working and working well. Even then, if I buy any 1st generation stuff it'll be because the next gen made it a bargin. Yep, one of the only good plays right now is waiting for the price drops and re-evaluating. |
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: This is a general attitude and not based on defeating ECDSA with RIPEMD
It's sad and all too common to see reactive positions on problems or tweaks when it's relatively easier to fix them sooner than later. Particularly when system adoption is a few thousand vs. possibly millions in the future.
A good example of major change in a widely adopted, but loosely organized system is IPv4/IPv6. This transition has been dragging out for many years and has resulted in all sorts of intermediate protocols in attempt to overcome the sheer difficulty of wholesale replacement.
But, let's not forget what Satoshi said. To paraphrase: The nature of Bitcoin is that once it was brought online it's core would remain fundamentally unchanged. That's a broad assertion and I wonder what the boundaries are of his assertion.
|
|
|
|
|
Why is a clinical diagnosis of sociopath necessary?
Shouldn't the matter of most concern be a person's impact on society? So, I would prefer the idea of 'functional sociopath.' To the degree that a person is opportunistic in self serving ways might be proportional to this idea.
Using the idea of functional sociopathy a much greater amount of the population can be indicted for spreading misery.
|
|
|
|
Until someone publishes a grandma-easy Bitcoin client that makes secure backups, most old people with money won't know how to invest.
Most old people don't have any real wealth to invest. Their retirement plan is to have the government pillage the younger generations. I almost feel sorry for them. Not long now before they realize that their ponzi scheme is going to implode. I don't feel as sorry for them as I do the younger generation. People who have lived their entire lives under a lie of unfunded entitlements aren't suddenly at age 60, 70, 85 going to say "oh well guess I need to get back to work it is the fair thing to do". No they are going to use their considerable power as a voting block to ensure they keep as much of what was promised. The consequences to the overall economy, the future of the country, and the quality of the life for the next generation be damned. I am reminded of a TNG episode ( lol ) where at middle age all members of an alien race sacrifice their lives for their youth. On a more serious note I genuinely do not understand why prolonging life past a point where quality of life is sufficiently diminished is a good thing. The smart geneticists agree and focus on quality of life over longevity. But as long as we aren't turning grandma in to soilent green I think it's unlikely that working elderly is a realistic solution. |
|
|
|
Companies don't like to show off their failures, so they would (understandably) want to be light on details. Not if they burn other peoples money! Bingo! That is why there is secrecy. Nothing being said right now is a secret to an engineer with experience. Only the absolute dumbest people would believe that BS line. [My joke of an imagination is written below:) (BFL Engineer: OH SHIT! Josh: What? BFL Engineer: Our plastic covered ASIC just blew up with a puff of smoke! Josh: Wait, what? Why did that happen? BFL Engineer: Apparently plastic does not conduct as much heat as silicon? Josh: No Shit sherlock. Ahh SHIT.... Now I have to go make some shit up and downplay this. BFL Engineer: No wait, don't tell them anything. Our competition might find out about plastic not being a good choice we made when overclocking out chips from 40GH to 60GH. How could I possibly have known that? SHIT, do you think bASIC and Avalon and ASICMINER possibly know that?! Josh: No man, they have too little experience in physics. I will just have to write up a delay, but I don't know what to say... BFL Engineer: Well Shit, tell them something! Clock buffer! It was the Clock Buffer. (that also bad...he whispers silently to himself)Josh: What is a clock buffer? BFL Engineer: Hold on let me get my text book. Here it is....etc. Josh: Okay, don't worry about it, I will spin this shit so we can ship in the next three months. They are too stupid to know that any retard knows this stuff. Our customers are the best! BFL Engineer/Josh: Laugh about it over a cold bear next to a burnt and smokey ASIC.) That gave me a real lol. nice. |
|
|
|
...
It's not a scam. All signs point towards a company inexperienced in producing Bitcoin ASICs ASICs attempting to produce Bitcoin ASICs.
...
ftfy Heat management is not exclusive to "Bitcoin ASICs." Knowing a certain TDP will be problematic with a certain package and it's consequences to other components isn't rocket science, err, Bitcoin ASIC science. I'm really getting tired of hearing pedestrian engineering mistakes being attributed to the difficulty of the bitcoin hashing algorithm as implemented in hardware. |
|
|
|
Well $390K plus electrical costs but the larger issue becomes the 2nd round of Avalon, plus BFL first batch, plus any other competitors. You could see that $390K worst case scenario jumped to something more like $39M over the course of a year. Remember the first batch is the hard part. Once production gets ramped up the sky is the limit. Also it is a sort of sales race as each new miner reduces the value of future sales thus for all competitors the best option is to sell as many units and quickly as possible.
Still I think you may be right I think many miners will hold at least some portion of their coins but I also think you are significantly underestimating the worst case scenario.
Yes I did not count the BFL first batch. What is their total revenue? When all first batch ASIC are running, the difficulty will skyrocket and the price of subsequent batches have to reduce. $39M is obviously overestimated. With $14/ BTC and BTC3600/day, the ROI would be 773 days. However, 773 days is just an average: early ASIC adoptors may have ROI of 30 days, which means latecomers may have >2000 days. And electricity cost has not been considered so the actual ROI for latecomers could be >5000 days. No one will buy an ASIC like this. I think $3.9M is a more realistic total revenue of all first generation ASICs (including first and all sequent batches). The average ROI would be 77 days. This may extend the BTC3600/day dump to about 100 days assuming the price of BTC is not too low. However, please don't forget the R&D of first-batch ASIC is supported by free loans from pre-orders. The developers should keep a significant proportion of hashing power because the marginal cost is very low for producing extra units. They are less likely to join the panic selling because they are literally printing BTC for free. If the devs are keeping 50% of the hashing power, their customers will only be able to mint BTC1800/day, which is only 10% of average MtGox volume. Last but not the least, mine-and-dump activities always exist even before the arrival of ASIC, which means my "worst case assumption" is actually worse than the real worst case.^ this If the mining subsidy is such a small percentage of trading volume why is this issue a concern? |
|
|
|
augustocroppo - don't bother there is almost nothing in this thread worth reading except the latest update on the BFL site. I'm not vouching for it's validity, just simply pointing out that there is almost nothing else worth spending the effort to read even 20 pages of the crap in here  Yeah, agreed. Most of this thread consists of trolling from all directions. The latest update actually has useful and interesting information though: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status.htmlThis thread is clearly full of trolls trolling. Josh is one of them mind you. How is this BFL update not considered a f'ing troll post? It reads like they are experiencing delays so that they can exceed customer expectations. They are just fixing their mistakes. And yielding to the community regarding their dumb MCU logic for jobs. There are just so many ridiculous cliches that can be applied to this. I just want to strangle someone - where's MPOE-PR. /troll |
|
|
|
A little Propecia [finasteride] goes a long way toward preventing hair loss. Muscle tears are the result of irresponsible lifting, not steroids. LOL.
I disagree with you, flax. Or better said I don't believe you understand the point I was making. To put it another way, steroids give the false impression or false feedback to a person inexperienced with steroids. They could be on a tame machine at a weight relatively close to what they might be doing absent steroids and still blow muscles. The false feedback (false in the sense of whether a muscle is trained enough to to perform at a certain weight, reps or timing) effect might have a person do reps at 2x the speed they normally would under normal muscle feedback. While 2x rep timing can be considered safe for trained muscles the person is left with no clues that the muscle is reaching it's breaking point. It's not as simple as weight or technique and steroids will leave the inexperienced user lacking the normal muscle feedback. I wouldn't have come back here and commented on this if you hadn't left the 'LOL.' I really doubt you have any real experience in this domain. I do - and there it is. stfu. |
|
|
|
Another pile of verbal shit that can be condensed to a couple sentences. edit: ....blah Whatever. edit: Ohh, I forgot. Get ready for asicminer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
