|
Retracting offer.
I finished my research on OP and though I do not believe there is anything foul going on here, I personally do not see enough trust for this amount of money. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this has caused to John or ragingazn628. Thank you for the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
I will be bound to the end then, but please note that my obligation of most of the funds is over once I pass this over to Avalon.(so if Avalon fails to ship or anything I'm not in fault although this is very unlikely) Agreed, and understood. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the responses, John, I appreciate it! 4) No, so far. I would be willing to hold his identity in escrow if he allows this. Personally, this would make me feel a little better. ~8BTC of collateral isn't much. 1) It would be binding with all parties involved up to when I submit the order (and the funds) to Avalon. Afterwards, it would be between the buyers and ragingazn628. I believe it would need to remain binding on you, since you will be holding a portion of BTC in escrow. So, to complete our participation in this group buy, each group buyer should: 1) Send BTC to the address John specified. 2) Reply (or PM?) stating the amount paid, expected number of chips, and preferably signed with (one of) the sending addresses. Is that correct? Shall we wait for confirmation by ragingazn628 to the agreement thus far before proceeding? Thank you again. As for the contract, please use the paste bin link, and CTRL-A CTRL-V it to notepad to verify it. The forum has spacing bugs which will invalidate the signature. Oddly enough, I downloaded the file for that very reason, and got the bad sig. After going to pastebin and copy-pasting it from there, instead of downloading, I got a good sig: $ gpg --verify asic.txt
gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory!
gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/faqs.html for more information
gpg: Signature made Fri, Apr 19, 2013 2:28:16 PM PDT using RSA key ID B3AAEEB0
gpg: Good signature from "John Koh (johnthedong@bitcointalk) <the.john.is.here@gmail.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 42B6 DC51 3D9D FDEC 4C28 7CD7 8353 E637 B3AA EEB0
|
|
|
|
I'm getting a bad signature when I check it: $ gpg --verify asic.txt
gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory!
gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/faqs.html for more information
gpg: Signature made Fri, Apr 19, 2013 2:28:16 PM PDT using RSA key ID B3AAEEB0
gpg: BAD signature from "John Koh (johnthedong@bitcointalk) <the.john.is.here@gmail.com>"
Here is the public key I retrieved for John: -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin)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=p6P5
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
|
|
|
|
Completely missed the point. The EUR or USD dont have 50-200% price swings in a months time. Im all for of using bitcoin to make purchases if it was stable. I, too, wish BTC was not so volatile. What we need is exactly what companies like Avalon are doing, though. The more commerce in strictly BTC, the lower the variance will be. As a Bitcoin miner, it only makes sense to do everything in my power to improve the value of BTC, and actually using BTC to make purchases is a great way to do that. Whether miners like it or not, they are buying their mining equipment with BTC. Mining equipment income is first and foremost in BTC. If a miner purchases equipment for USD, they are buying "X BTC over Y amount of time for Z USD." I will give a concrete example: Sally buys an Avalon for $5000, and sells all her income for $. Dave buys an Avalon for 80 BTC and holds BTC. They both make 200 BTC over the course of a year. In one scenario, BTC falls to be worth $1. Sally lost $4800, and Dave gains 120 BTC ($120). In another scenario, BTC rises to $200. Sally gains $35,000, and Dave gains 120 BTC ($24,000). As can be seen, buying mining equipment with USD, and expecting to trade the income out for USD, is margin trading. TL;DR: Bitcoin mining equipment is worth a constant amount of BTC, and buying it with BTC will yield a relative safe and known BTC return. |
|
|
|
|
John, thank you for taking the time to facilatate these transactions. A few questions, if you wouldn't mind:
1) Is that contract binding between you and ragingazn628, or is it binding between you and all parties participating in this group buy (Group Buyers)?
2) What will you do if ragingazn628 keeps the chips for himself?
3) Do I understand correctly that we (the group buyers) will deliver the full payment to you (John), including ragingazn628's 1% fee, and you will hold that 1% fee in escrow?
4) Have you done anything to verify ragingazn628's identity and destination shipping address?
I mean this with no disrespect to ragingazn628 or yourself; just trying to keep everything detailed and clear.
|
|
|
|
Secondly, stop charging in bitcoin that just screams greedy selfish asshole. You're right, Bitcoin is worthless and nobody should sell their goods for bitcoins. Should I call a European company greedy and selfish for charging EUR for their products? Of course not, and so it makes no sense to call a Bitcoin company greedy and selfish for charging BTC for their product. "But if I shop online, a European company will automatically convert EUR to USD for me!" That's because neither EUR nor USD is an acceptable online currency; neither currency makes sense across borders. Bitcoin does. Bitcoin is an international, internet-compliant currency. If I were shopping in Germany, should I expect to use USD to buy products? Of course not, I would exchange my USD to the local currency By the same reasoning, I should exchange my USD to BTC to shop online at a Bitcoin-based company. The only reasons a Bitcoin company should charge local fiat for their products are A) as a convenience to their customers, or B) they don't have any faith in Bitcoin. I agree that, right now, a company selling bitcoin mining equipment for local fiat will be more profitable. But, during these early growing pains of the Bitcoin ecosystem, we really need pioneers to take the bull by the horns and drive the point home that BTC is a currency too. I consider companies like Avalon more successful. |
|
|
|
So I need to figure out what additional logic exists besides the SHA-256 module, how do they interact with each other and how do they interact with the SHA-256 modules? First, please note that there are multiple "flavors" of the hashing code, and for the most part they are optimized for synthesis to FPGA targets. I would highly suggest you hire an ASIC engineer who can take the time to understand SHA-256 and the needs of the Bitcoin proof of work mining algorithm himself. Second, the SHA-256 hashing units do need a controlling unit. As you can see in the modules you linked, there are a few top-level signals that are expected to be driven by a controller. Most importantly rx_state and rx_input. And you need a controller to check the results, and talk to the outside world. This is the top-level module for one of the projects you linked to. In there you will find the code that controls the sha256_transform instances, and how they are connected together. |
|
|
|
I'll sell them to whoever offers 1.2 each first in this thread. I will pay for them at 1.2 BTC each. |
|
|
|
You started shipping very slovly yet no one received the tracking? Maybe you didn't started shipping or you are still shipping batch 1? BitSyncom already stated that they will provide tracking numbers for Batch #2 (Source).
When is the upgraded fab going online? Their newsletter said they expect it to come online towards the end of April. What will be the upgraded capacity? Double their previous capacity, and of course there won't be a CNY. Also, previously, Avalon stated that they wouldn't start shipping until a week after asking for trade-ins. (Source, "Batch One Shipping Status" newsletter, March 1st). Based on that timeline, they should start shipping on Monday next week (April 21st, 2013). This makes sense, since they plan to have all the orders confirmed on their website by Friday the 19th. I don't see a reason for an update right now. The machines will ship when they ship, and we'll get tracking numbers to know when they ship and arrive. |
|
|
|
|
If there are any leftovers I will buy 10 at 1.1BTC each; or feel free to auction the leftovers and submit that as my initial bid.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you still have multiple, working machines. Is there a reason you can't take the modules out of the two broken machines and put them in the other machines? If you've received 2/3's of your order, and still missing 10 machines, that means you ordered 30, and currently have 18 working machines. Plenty to slot the "extra" 6 modules into.
|
|
|
|
But our situation is different because we have myself, the pool of contributor, escrow, and Avalon. Yeah, that's why I pointed out that an escrow service isn't going to provide the same kind of protection in this case. The only thing John would be able to provide, is ensuring that the chips get ordered; he can't really protect them after that. If you personally had 780BTC, you could give that to John as collateral, but I don't know anyone who would be crazy enough to lock away 780BTC for a few months.  Check out the spreadsheet to make sure I didn't miss your name from the list please. Please put me down for 46.926 BTC for 600 chips, + however much is needed for fees (currently 2%).EDIT: Oh, and thank you for taking the time to put all of this together. |
|
|
|
How does that sound? NO BTC WILL BE GOING TO ME. Only 1 person sent me BTC so far and he will be refunded. I'm not sure why an escrow party would agree to a deal like this. There's no way for an escrow party to protect against failure to ship the chips once they are received. It's not like the escrow party can give people their money back, once Avalon has been paid. That said, I'm interested in ~50BTC worth (rounded out to 600 or 700 chips). I'll watch this thread to see how the escrow stuff works out. Question: BitSyncom stated that they would be willing to ship out early samples, for prototyping. He did not mention how many samples. If, for example, Avalon can provide 5 sample chips, would you be willing to relay those to the top 5 buyers or something like that? |
|
|
|
Back to the Linux machine option, did you try running cgminer instead of bfgminer? Also, from the wiki: About P5 jumper: close this jumper will supply 5V to the USB-B port. in this system, the controller board power the HUB and the HUB power the 703N. but if you connect the controller itself to a PC, you must remove the jumper. Emphasis mine. When you connected the controller (not the hub) directly to your PC, did you remove jumper P5? If cgminer barfs, remember to run it in debug mode to get more details: If your avalon does not mine properly, please run Cgminer in debug mode with -D --verbose option. For example: |
|
|
|
fpgaminer: is there any advantage using "{a,b,c}<={x,y,z};" instead of "a<=x;b<=y;c<=z;" ?
(My opinion is it only helps to make more readable code.) No advantage, no. As you pointed out, it would only be for readability. |
|
|
|
I wish FPGAs were a good long-term option, I have many and love them! Yeah  You are still looking at 30$/Ghash compared to ~5$/Ghash from a similar ASIC(avalon) system for the chip only. Hmm? At $70USD/BTC, Avalon's ASICs currently cost $19.85USD per GH/s, and require 3.63 chips per GH/s. And to be honest, with some effort, I think we can squeeze 1GH/s out of an Artix-7 200. Though Artix-7 aren't EasyPath chips ... On the other hand, FPGAs will always use more power than ASICs, so they will lose that war regardless. |
|
|
|
Sadly it is difficult to say FPGAs will be profitable in the long-term for new buyers. Short-term however, it all depends on the ability of Avalon / BFL to deliver on said chips. I completely agree that FPGAs will never rival ASICs in terms of profitability. Even when FPGA miners were being sold, their up-front costs were higher than GPU rigs. However, the most important role Bitcoin miners play in this world, above all else, is securing the network. The entire Bitcoin ecosystem will collapse without a hardy foundation of mining equipment and miners. Personally, I don't want the future of Bitcoin to be held only in the hands of a few companies that manufacturer mining ASICs, regardless of their intentions. Having FPGA-based mining software and hardware available is, as I see it, at least a "plan B." Diversity is a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
