Congratulations! With each chip working at ~337 MH/s, you must have now received somewhere between 15000 and 20000 chips in this batch to manage 6TH, right? I'd say you guys have your work cut out for you testing, troubleshooting and deploying all those - good luck! |
|
|
|
Update
1. Our wafers are already in the slicing and packaging service. Whether we could beat everyone else in early delivering, or we have to revise and redo the wafers, will be known within the next two weeks.
An encouraging update! It means the chips at least passed the QC at the fab, and that slicing+packaging+testing is already under way. I'm hungry for more info, please return soon and fill in more blanks: 1) Recovered the ~5000 BTC from GLBSE yet? (I would like to just stop worrying about it...) 2) Did the fab really process 12 layers in 7 days, or was it simply information delay?? [Dec 05: "There are 12 layers left", Dec 12: "we are now in QC"] 3) What is the reason for deploying the second half of the chips later than the first? [Genuine question, I'm simply not smart enough that the reasons are obvious to me!] I think I can say on behalf of all (at least many/most) stakeholders: Thanks, congrats, and keep up the great work! |
|
|
|
Look. When someone add 6 TH to existing 24 TH, there is 3600+900 earned each day. The adjustment comes no later than after 11.2 days.
A few more points to consider: (1) current network hash rate is closer to 18-20 GH/s than 24 GH/s, (2) the estimate of 12 GH/s was conservative and already considered that 1/3 of the chips won't work - if successful ASICMINERs hashing power could be anywhere between 12 and 18 GH/s, (3) the increase in difficulty due to ASICMINER could cause other miners to give up. Taking those into consideration, the estimates in the posts above could even be on the conservative side. However, this also opens up a very real possibility of a single outfit owning >50% of the network hash rate, which could cause a great deal of panic because the "51% attack" is widely misunderstood and feared. That could cause the exchange rate to tank. Would probably be a good idea to share the hashing power between a few different pools and do some self-mining, just to avoid a >50% panic in the beginning... |
|
|
|
From Block Erupter thread: Now people are seeing it as a threat as 50TH would be enough to take over the block chain should BFL fail to produce a single working chip.
But it would not be in the interest of the shareholders if ASICMINER became a threat to Bitcoin as the value of BTC would plummet.
Should BFL go bust then I think it is in everyone's interest if ASICMINER changed it's business plan to make sure everyone understand and sees it is not a threat to anything or anyone.
As it stands at the moment, ASICMINER will be the first ASIC around and small enough to NOT be a threat to Bitcoin. Doe sit suck for people that invested heavily with BFL, of course it does.... but does that mean that ASICMINER is a threat? NO !
Let's hope that we don't get delayed as well. In the end, we are going through *almost* the same process. Though I wouldn't call it a change in plan, because I don't think there is a plan yet. I guess at that point, everyone would want an ASICMINER device. But what if it's not convenient for ASICMINER to produce and ship consumer grade products, or somehow can't do it fast enough to counter its own hashrate? I imagine the second best option is to sell mining plants. As long as they are in a different location and under different management, we should be OK. The party that buys the plant can lease it out as well. If all other ASIC efforts fail or are delayed until the second batch of ASICMINER chips are ready, just imagine the profit margin that can be charged for those chips in a market without competitors - selling the chips/boards/rigs would definitely be a tempting alternative to self-mining. |
|
|
|
UpdateWe are still waiting for the payment and the shareholders' information from GLBSE. It seems that it hasn't made any further payments after the first two. This is the address after the payment of 5443 BTC, and the coins haven't been sent anywhere else yet: http://blockchain.info/address/17pzgcf1v7zwvQczw1WE3sv2u8LZtub2KzThe probability, we believe, that they refuse to pay and recover the shareholders' share numbers, is low. But we have to be more active pursuing the direct answer. A letter to the board members has also been sent. Best regards, friedcat Just out of curiosity [and possibly to lay dead the issue]: have the outstanding 5443 BTC been recovered from GLBSE? At least the coins moved on from the given address on Dec. 3, and I hope they went to the rightful owners... |
|
|
|
I'm glad nonnakip is holding off on donation distributions for now.
To clarify who is responsible for the coins in that address: you, nonnakip, or both? nonnakip owns the address. My only interaction with the site is as a fan, just like everyone else. I assumed that the address is where the payouts from mining go, is that correct? That address is where donations to nastyfans: the unofficial fanclub of NASTY MINING go. It's weird how the donation address has been receiving exactly 1 BTC at exactly the same time every day, down to the second. That does not look like normal mining profits to me (but could possibly be a string of coincidences) - what's the deal with that? https://blockchain.info/address/1EwtTKJaXAtctSFqCQKU3LiCg9dqYPEkxN |
|
|
|
claimed to GLBSE
I don't understand what that phrase means. Therefore, it is an action I probably never explicitly performed. A clarification, please? I'm not the original author, but I have no doubt that "claimed to GLBSE" refers to completing the claims process at GLBSE. Friedcat refers to (1) those that completed both his claims process and the claims process of GLBSE, (2) those that completed only his claims process, and (3) those that completed only the GLBSE claims process. That should just about cover everybody with a stake in the company, except for those whose shares were not even originally on GLBSE... Edit: And a big round of applause for friedcat and friends! |
|
|
|
Youmad? Sounds like the US want's their title of number 1 polluter back. This "Chinese crap" story is starting to sound like a broken record too, in the 60's and 70's it was "Jap crap" and the 3rd world is still getting around with the honda 50's and toyota corolla's that where going to "fall apart in no time". I'm not saying China's exports are 100% crap free but some of the highly stressed automotive and hydraulic components I've checked for quality and later assessed for wear have performed far better than their top of the line western equivalents and the quality/crap ratio's got a lot better since then.
Erm, except Toyota is the only major car manufacturer in the US. Ford, Chrysler, and GM do manufacture a few cars in the US but ship them over to Europe; the ones sold in the US are all Chinese made and Mexican assembled. Toyotas will not fucking die. Ask Top Gear. This thread seems to periodically derail into a nationalistic/xenophobic pissing contest. Not productive, nor interesting... *yawn* |
|
|
|
It seems our ASICMINER shares just got worth a little bit more. BFL announced another much anticipated new delay. Will be about 30 days from now until they get their chips delivered from the foundry. Then they need to turn those into mining rigs of course, which means BFL customers probably won't be mining before the latter part of January 2013. So if everything with ASICMINER stays on schedule that means we will be mining on a lower difficulty level for 3 to 4 weeks. With about 1/5th of the total network network capacity. Sounds good to me  edit: BFL update link: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/519-10-dec-2012-bfl-asic-update.htmlSo let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations here: on Dec 5, friedcat said there were 12 layers remaining and the rate is 1.1-1.5 days per layer, which brings us to chip completion date of between Dec 18 and Dec 23. Add another two weeks for packaging and shipping (estimate pulled out of thin air!), then one more week of unwrapping/assembly, which brings us to an estimated hashing starting date of between Jan 8 and Jan 13. Sound reasonable? And for BFL: chips delivered to their HQ Jan 11, unwrapping/assembly: 1 week, shipping to customers: 4 days, which gives us an estimated hashing starting date of Jan 22. Pretty close race, but it looks like ASICMINER definitely will win it. I even think it is likely that ASICMINER will move a little faster than estimated above, and BFL will move slower than estimated above. But these back-of-the-envelope calculations give us at least a week as the only ASIC gig in town! Edit: Anyone familiar with the bASIC and Avalon willing to make a guess at the date they start hashing? Both seem to have been giving mid-January delivery dates, but I don't know if that's the latest available information, or if it is at all accurate. |
|
|
|
If you want you can say what the Bitcoin address is and I will tell you why it is invalid.
The address I'm using is 12PLkshcHDxtUVNe5DseNmA78ngwFZW6eN. Seems like a perfectly valid address to me. You are correct. There was a error in the BItcoin address validation code. This is now fixed. Thank you for reporting. Doesn't seem to be fixed yet. The site is still reporting errors when trying to set an address: error
invalid pgp fingerprint
failed value test
invalid pgp fingerprint
invalid query
common.c:256
|
|
|
|
The list has been received! 98.15% of the seats are accounted for (24,538 seats held in 114 accounts). The final question to address is if we should proceed with this list, or hold off and see if GLBSE provides a more complete list before moving forward.
As far as I remember, there were only approximately 7000 outstanding shares around the time GLBSE closed, although 25,000 shares had been issued (but not sold), and I believe the dividends were being split amongst the 7000 outstanding shares. I'm a little confused as to how to calculate my own stake - if I have X shares, do I own 100% * X/7000 or 100% * X/25000? Can someone explain: issued vs. outstanding, and what it means for the average nastymining fan? |
|
|
|
Day 365: No more GPUs or FPGAs hashing. Bitcoin network hashing rate: 1250 TH/s. How did I work out the final network hash rate? Assuming we are currently hashing at 25 TH/s (ref. 2), with current equipment generally providing 20 (MH/s)/W (ref. 1), that means that mining is currently consuming 1250,000 W of power. BFL will provide 1 (GH/s)/W (ref. 3), so if the power consumption stays constant, we should see the network hash rate rise to 1250 TH/s. (However, many miners might just leave the game. However, many miners might join the game.) References: (1) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison(2) http://blockchain.info/stats(3) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114292.0I think that's not a bad way to estimate. This should work out pretty well in the long run (all else being equal, especially exchange rate). Or perhaps to put it an easier way: BFL promises a 50x rise in (energy) efficiency over current technologies -> network hash rate eventually rises by 50x.  |
|
|
|
Day 365: No more GPUs or FPGAs hashing. Bitcoin network hashing rate: 1250 TH/s. How did I work out the final network hash rate? Assuming we are currently hashing at 25 TH/s (ref. 2), with current equipment generally providing 20 (MH/s)/W (ref. 1), that means that mining is currently consuming 1250,000 W of power. BFL will provide 1 (GH/s)/W (ref. 3), so if the power consumption stays constant, we should see the network hash rate rise to 1250 TH/s. (However, many miners might just leave the game. However, many miners might join the game.) References: (1) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison(2) http://blockchain.info/stats(3) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114292.0 |
|
|
|
Just got off the phone with James, he said he's not going to be producing trading history for anyone. As for releasing shareholder data, he said that he's asking for the extra coins his script sent out to be returned, and it looks like he won't be releasing shareholder data to issuers until that happens. He said about 3/4 of the extra coins have been returned.
3/4 of the extra coins have been returned? That's the first time I've been impressed by the honesty and integrity of this crowd! Well done, everyone! |
|
|
|
I am interested if I can see what you have.
Thank you. I will be posting some screenshots. If you like, we can also schedule a time for testing the service live - just be warned that I have no other place to host it but in my home, and my internet connection these days is slow and unstable. So it would require a little bit of imagination from your side, imagining that it was hosted on a quicker connection. (Not exactly the best sales-pitch, I know, sorry!) |
|
|
|
I have recieved the double paiment, too. I had hoped as first that I had more funds in there as I thought due to some of my sell orders went through, but now that I'm reading this.  I will return the funds of course, as soon as I hear from GLBSE. Nefario has a mail address associated with my account. The double-payment chain seems to start here: http://blockchain.info/address/1NBtx9EiPKouwrnfCmPULbLSvxQctj11dA, that 1000BTC input was all spent in chained transactions made in about 10 minutes time. |
|
|
|
OTOH, he's paying job may be coming first, attending to the paying back task at hand when he feels up to it.
Wonder which kind of work he might be doing, given his modus operandi. We may find about it trailing a series of disasters. But since he ran GLBSE just for fun, as you say, he is justified in dilapidating the capital of hundreds of ppl who trusted him. Hey: he is giving them a free lesson on life and misallocated trust. He should ask to be paid for that. He did get paid for it, by the 10% he is pocketing and the rest of us that havent gotten our payouts. +1 Some people have double, others still missing payments https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118354.msg1281648#msg1281648. I see a storm coming. |
|
|
|
It looks like the rest of the payments has started.
The chain begins from tx 286b4172160ba21c8129e08dd43a9567ea55973be6038a54f8f35c92d6d34d20 of 975.8160973 BTC.
However instead of be paid the missing 10%, I was paid once again the 90% of my coins (31.05 BTC):
The first payout (proper): c1c3372e1bedd22afd5c55c381840ea2ef697fc44528a50da10291e04907d75b
The second (duplicated): 5264a57d8eaf761d81f7fe4507fbc3e21d53ebeb1f0095424e8794a6e1b85711
Maybe there is some charity giving the coins away to people, but I bet it's simple human error in Nefario's scripts.
Let's hope the error is single.
I'll return the excess to Nefario, to let him to be able to refund others completely.
I have to ask him by PM for proper address for the return. It may take a while before he answers.
I followed the chain a little and saw several duplicate payments too. (I suggest Nef stop payments and double-check, before half of the people get double-up and the rest get nothing...) Edit: Looks like all the payments made today were dupes of payments made on Tuesday (an additional example: http://blockchain.info/address/12NcPjtX6wjYLfmsTYvuTdXYwZ91tE1GFw) - Nef could actually have accidentally spent 975 BTC of user funds! (Pity I didn't have BTC there, I could have got back double!!) |
|
|
|
According to my understanding of killerstorm's approach(es), there is no reason to believe that the approach in this script should be incompatible. But it is difficult to be sure until there are actual implementations (or detailed specs), so in the end the script might require modifications to be compatible. |
|
|
|
|
Update
The source code has been updated in OP - the new version includes the functions to include a transaction fee from an (uncolored!) address in your standard/satoshi-client wallet when transferring assets so that the transaction is more likely to confirm more quickly (command-line option -w <fee>, where <fee> is the fee you want to pay in BTC, e.g. -w 0.005 for half a bitcent).
Also, the tracking of colored coins is now also believed to be compatible with other approaches for "order-based" tracking, such as the one used in killerstorm's modified Satoshi client (however, I still want to build up a bunch of test-cases to see if the clients interpret all the cases in the same way).
Next, I think it is time to create ample test-cases, and tidy up the code - it has turned into a bit of a spaghetti-ball.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
