You're dramatically oversimplifying the situation! Recursion, recursion, recursion! "Too dumb to read" is a subject, but read is itself a subject of that fragment.

"Some people are too dumb to spot a troll. Or counter-troll."

No. Check the bold text.


Some people here are very confused. How can one be "to dumb to" "simply retarded"?


I'm beginning to think that you have some sort of ass-obsession.

Um, do you even know what most companies show off at CES these days? Did you hear about the WiFi rifle? It's all "lol android tablet" and vaporware. Every booth is the same.

You said "not even one". This implies that there are situations where you would expect them to have only one working chip. You should have said "not even a prototype batch" if that is what you meant.


...Then they would have a couple hundred chips, and they would have done demos of prototype units and sent some to mining software developers to ensure compatibility. This would all have happened weeks or months ago. It would be all over the forums.

It's quite likely that they did a test run, found a minor issue, and corrected it for the real production run.


You always "lose" a lot if an ASIC doesn't work. That is the reality of ASIC development; you burn through a lot of cash before you can actually start making working chips.


Rofl. Calling someone a troll when your sig contains the word "Asshamster"... 0/10.

Um, you never produce "one" ASIC chip. If they had one, they would have thousands, and they would have already shipped. I feel like I'm repeating myself...

Hindsight bias perhaps?

It depends on the design. It's pretty standard to produce a pipelined hashing "core" that will indeed do 1 hash per clock, but it's possible to pack several on one chip. Also, I suspect that clock rates can be pushed way higher than 256Mhz with sufficient cooling.

Simpler scheme:

1. Announce ASIC and take pre orders
2. ??
3. Profit

Fun fact: hindsight bias is extremely strong, even when you tell people specifically to avoid it.


I disagree. There is one reality, and if everyone looks at the evidence rationally, they should reach the same conclusion. I'm asking for the evidence supporting "they lied" over "they messed up like most startups do" because I'm not seeing it, yet I'm seeing many claims about them lying.

Uh, common sense says that lying about delivery dates is only going to hurt the reputation of the company, resulting in losses of future sales. Therefore, the prior probability of "BFL blatantly lies about delivery dates even if it would hurt their reputation" is low, while the prior probability of "BFL makes mistakes because it's their first ASIC product" is pretty high. You would therefore need strong evidence which favors them lying over them messing up before you could rationally believe that they were actually lying all along.

What evidence do we see? We see a couple of missed deadlines, which would be consistent with both possibilities (hence the probabilities don't change; lying is still "low", messing up is still "high"). What, then, has "taken place" which dramatically increased the probability of them lying all along?

Your appear to have cast the net for a "scam" so wide that even if they deliver you could still consider it to be a scam. I don't understand; why do you use "scam" like this when you must surely know that that isn't how the other 99% of the English-speaking population uses it?

One possible answer is that you intend to mislead. Politicians do this, as well as lawyers and marketers. They stretch a definition of a word wide enough to cover whatever they want (which logically throws away most of the meaning; strong meanings come from specific concepts) but act like the rest of the meaning is still there. The result is that they can convey a false message without directly lying.

Eg. Politician A claims that B is "wasting billions", except A has defined waste to be "anything I wouldn't spend it on", but they hope the public will interpret it as "anything a reasonable person wouldn't spend it on" so that they think that B is a moron. It's not quite lying by omission, but I might call it lying by unjustified substitution.

You're not doing that, right? That would be bad.

Wait and see how the ASICs play out. In a few months we may have two or three vendors shipping.

Oh really? What makes you think that I haven't?

When you troll a troll you just make things worse.


With your vast intellect you should know that that doesn't work.

Can we get confirmation that this means no demo?

What is the expected utility gain from posting off-topic comments in this thread?

Yeah, I was blown away by this astounding revelation.

Yes.

They said they would start an ASIC mining operation - how could that silly little chip help?

It says "possible"! Don't trust it until there's 6 confirmations.

To be fair, talking about something being a problem in a particular country is more referring to the laws and culture of that country, and really does have very little to do with race. It has not yet been shown that he specifically targeted a race. It is a simple fact that a person's views of "right" and "wrong" are shaped heavily by the environment they grow up in, which indeed varies between countries, but he didn't even say that people raised in China may be more likely to violate the GPL (which may very well be true), he just made the point about it being difficult to (legally) do anything about such violations.

If you want a recent example: http://www.forum.lepanlife.com/showthread.php?tid=774