|
Obummer was elected... :\
|
|
|
|
So is the lower the nm, the better?
so if someone came out with 20nm, that would be faster or use electricity than a 45nm chip?
Probably both. |
|
|
|
Altera Hardcopy is "65nm" too.
Of course they won't admit that they are using it.
You're saying they are lying about creating a full custom ASIC? |
|
|
|
The die size is 7.5mm^2
Where's the source for that then? |
|
|
|
The information is apparently in Bitcoin Magazine, and subscribers have reported getting the magazine already. A quick readthrough and post is worth 40BTC.
No, because the bounty clearly states (and has stated since the very first day it was posted) that it is null and void if BFL releases the figures. BFL has released the process node, which is 65nm, so that bounty is no longer valid. The die size bounty is still open. Didn't Josh say 3cm x 3cm, or was that external chip size, not die size? |
|
|
|
22? You're probably just barely too young to get that reference then.  But seriously, I love it because it is simple. Just start it up and run. And it's solid too - I've run it for months at a time without crashing. Screw command lines and trying to tweak for the extra 0.5MH/s, I'll take the GUI. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I love it. I love shopping for other people, giving them gifts, receiving gifts. I don't care that it's "commercialized", that's part of what makes it fun IMO. I do not like the traffic though, I'll agree with you on that one! And the Christmas music does get old, which is why I try not to listen to it until we're at least a part of the way through December.
|
|
|
|
|
Use BitMinter. It's a miner specially made for idi-, erm... mommies and daddies.
|
|
|
|
 I guessed right, 65nm, big surprise? The disturbing thing is they are using Full Custom ASIC, at 65nm process node, at 60watts. (@60GH/s) The competitor (bASIC) is using structured ASIC I believe and is below the 100watt mark on a 90nm process node. (@54GH/s) Some leaked pictures show that it might be at around 58 to 60watts. But the caption was removed so it is hard to figure out if true or not. Either way, for a smaller process node...not as efficient as it should be. Perhaps I am missing something....? I know that 60 watts is an estimated and conservative figure. |
|
|
|
|
Joel - show us an example where your thoughts regarding "common mistake" are upheld in any court of law.
|
|
|
|
I find it fascinating the volume of people that decline to report their orders on the forum.
A greater percentage do not report by a factor of 2x I believe.
I have to wonder about the psychology behind this. It only works to our, the mining community's, benefit to have a solid understanding of the coming network capacity increase.
Strange. Short sighted miners more concerned about anonymity than profit forecasting?
That's a good point. I hereby report my converted order of 4 regular singles to 2 SC Singles. Date Paid Order Number Trade-In (Y/N) Qty SC Jalapeno Qty SC Single User 6/15/2012 N/A N 0 2 SgtSpike |
|
|
|
|
Whoops - shouldn't have cleared your browsing history.
You could try one of those "recover lost files" programs, and see if you can recover the URL in your browsing history. But install it on a different computer, slave the drive you are using, and do it that way, else the installation of said program may overwrite the data you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
Bogart - that information is indeed in there. Punin must've missed it.
No, indeed it isn't. The interview refers to the future direction and processes but says nothing about the current chip. I won't quote it - I haven't received the magazine myself yet, and don't want to be responsible for "leaking" the information if you all are lying about having received it. But look at the last sentence on page 63. The copy posted on the BFL forums (with Bitcoin Magazine's permission) doesn't have the page numbers, but would the sentence you're talking about be paraphrased "BFL skipped structured ASICs entirely and went to the full custom approach"? Oh my... it appears as though I do not have the final revision (though I thought it was the final revision until now), and somehow, between the revision I do have, and the printed copy, the important part was removed. What the actual f... |
|
|
|
It comes down to a vote between Obama for 4 more years or Obama's policies for 8 more years.
Now there's an interesting way of putting it... |
|
|
|
Bogart - that information is indeed in there. Punin must've missed it.
No, indeed it isn't. The interview refers to the future direction and processes but says nothing about the current chip. I won't quote it - I haven't received the magazine myself yet, and don't want to be responsible for "leaking" the information if you all are lying about having received it. But look at the last sentence on page 63. |
|
|
|
|
Bogart - that information is indeed in there. Punin must've missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joel, your arguments are absurd. If a seller agrees to sell 5000 pounds of cherries, but only delivers 4500 pounds, that is on him. He either needs to make things right by delivering an additional 500 pounds, or renegotiate the contract (i.e., agree with the buyer to only sell 4500 pounds at a lower total price).
The contract in question with Patrick wasn't an agreement about "what to do with X number of bitcoins", it was an agreement whereby the buyer would give Patrick a particular number of bitcoins, and Patrick would "deliver" 1% per week back to the buyer, plus the principle at a certain date. Just like an agreement where a seller agrees to deliver a particular number of pounds of cherries to the buyer. It wasn't contingent upon whether Patrick's investments panned out or not. If it did, the contract would have stated as much. NOWHERE does Patrick and the other party agree that, if Patrick's investments default, then Patrick can default without giving his investors recourse.
Anyway, I'm done debating about this - we're just rehashing the same thing over and over. I'll just say that your arguments are fairly silly, and would not hold up in any court of law.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
