I have some valuable info that also connects him with some child **** sites. I don't have my linux box up but if no one will stop me I am going to grab some redbull and go to town. Thoughts?
I've highlighted the epic part  |
|
|
|
That is your opinion, if you find it cheaper elsewhere please go ahead and buy it else where. When we bought them we got them for $4500 each, so be happy that you are getting them for around $1800 or $1600 each if they buy the lot.
Actually you paid ~10 BTC and you want 8 BTC after more than 6-7 months of usage. |
|
|
|
I know those articles, but I only see predictions, simulations and lots of math. Nothing concrete. I want to see a real blocks on a test chain that have 20MB of gibberish to run full for one week. I want to see a test chain where we have a 1MB cap and 5MB of transactions. Simulations are usually done before doing testing it live. I'm waiting for the live tests. I know that most of the software companies have a couple of environments with different stages of the software just so they can spot the problems and to filter them from the production/live version. Why don't we have this kind of laboratory??? |
|
|
|
People have been projecting full blocks for at least as long as I've been around (circa 2011). We were hitting capacity in the Satoshi Dice days IIRC, and there were not terribly ill impacts.
There are 2 scenarios: 1) We maintain the 1MB limit and we are going down into an unknown path; 2) We raise the limit to 8MB and we go down to a path that we already know. I prefer number 2 because it's the most logical way from these 2 scenarios. You choice is not the logical one. To get real testing data, they probably had some kind of testnet. They probably even have several testnets for different blocksizes. It's obviously just me speculating, but I don't see how could they test this and present this solution (and numbers backing it up) without having some testnet for, well... testing.
I haven't seen this kind of tests. Mike Hearn was complaining that we have no idea what will happen when the backlog of the transactions will keep growing. I know that we have the testnet, but was this 1MB limit actually tested over there? I don't think so. Where is the blockchain that we can break as many times as we wish? |
|
|
|
Wow! I've only listened to a few minutes and already I hear blatant mis-information which is vastly below Mike's pay-grade. In other words, he knows it's bullshit. The one which triggered my post is that he claims that people on the 'other' side are saying that the block size should remain the same forever.
Is this the most important thing for you from the podcast? |
|
|
|
This is what I've posted on Reddit: I have a couple of questions after listening to this episode. Mike was saying that we don't know what will happen when the backlog will keep growing.
Why don't we have some sort of "Staging" blockchain where we can test stuff happening? Why don't we have a live laboratory for these kind of tests? Are we only using math to predict stuff? ELI5!
|
|
|
|
Man, I've thought that topic was about Gavin & bitcoinXT.
Same here! |
|
|
|
Instead of being engineers that weight every pro and con they went the marketing way aka BIGGEST/FASTEST ASIC CHIP EVER which caused them a lot of problem that could be avoided with a slower chip.
I don't remember exactly when it was off the top of my head, but wouldn't the HashFast chip have been really competitive if it went out immediately, even underclocked? HashFast could have been one of the original big 3. If I remember correctly I think the chip could do a minimum of 0.8W/GH (I may be wrong). If it went out in Octomber (as it was promised) then yes they would have killed it. Even in December a 0.8W/Gh was very good. But trying tons of board/substrate revisions just to get the maximum speed is utterly idiotic instead of delivering lower speed miners. |
|
|
|
I don't know what rock you live under, but the substrate contractor that made multiple revisions was less than intelligent, however management kept using him instead of replacing him until last revision(which didn't even happen if memory serves)
All the problems they had were due to crappy work and the shituation we are in is due to them trying to remake new/better revisions and just creating more problems... basically throwing our money away.
Of all the boards shipped and sierras shipped, i would assume around 90% failed due to power supply/damage from it going, the rest due to faulty board design, i can't image many boards are functional at this point.
The chips are just fine, they been proven to work on actual boards that were designed by someone with actual intelligence.
Well I see this as a design failure from the start. HF complicated itself by designing such a power hungry chip. If they kept the power consumption lower (aka less speed) they wouldn't have so many headaches with the board/substrate design. Of course retard troll icebeaker will say that it was just a failed venture and it is true. Because the path they started was the wrong path. Instead of being engineers that weight every pro and con they went the marketing way aka BIGGEST/FASTEST ASIC CHIP EVER which caused them a lot of problem that could be avoided with a slower chip. |
|
|
|
So I just came back to see what's going on after about a year...
It seems that all AsicMiner shares are now worthless and this turned into a scam?
Yes. AM is dead. So if AM is dead, who has the IP rights for the BE300? Re-vitalizing that development effort would be something we'd be interested in. I know more than one board designer that would get a serious woody given a couple of prototypes. Well the board (or whoever is left in this company) silence about this and other stuff makes you realize in what you have invested. Maybe there are some cultural differences, but keeping shareholders so uninformed about the company's leftovers is an ugly thing to do. But I am sure they got used to it since FC was treating them the same. Why expect more now when shit hit the fan? You should've pushed for information long before this. |
|
|
|
So I just came back to see what's going on after about a year...
It seems that all AsicMiner shares are now worthless and this turned into a scam?
Yes. AM is dead. |
|
|
|
Besides we should have stopped talking about 20 MB blocks long ago as it should be 8 MB. I've already pointed this out in several places, but people don't seem to like reading anything before posting (not to mention doing proper research).
As I've previously stated the best approach would be to increase the limit to 4 or 8 MB (depending on which is likely to get consensus) to give enough time for other solutions to be ready (e.g. side chains).
This! Bolded and colored the relevant part just in case nobody is aware of the news! Next time someone mentions 20MB they will get a retard star from me. It was stated so many time that the 20MB is off, but people are either stupid or ignorant. |
|
|
|
Yes good job. You have to be an uber retard to invest based on that fake video. THERE ARE NO CABLES and also the camera doesn't move/shake AT ALL. Are people THAT stupid? It seems that the self thinking is gone when it comes to making money wtf people. |
|
|
|
Hey Morons! 20 MB Gavinshittles does not scale! Offchain transactions do scale all you want! Fire the Gavin already! He's ruining it!
Ok Mircea Popescu. We got it! It's the same shit over and over again. Mircea and his band of shills need to stop the war against Gavin. Gavin is not going anywhere and there isn't anything that you can do about it.
He will never resign, end of story. The community has no power over this decision.
I'm starting to see this with a totally different perspective. This is turning really funny for me with this huge amount of work coming from one man. Even if he doesn't post he is coordinating this somehow and knowing that he puts so much energy into this while also knowing that someday we will have bigger blocks and this huge amount of energy put into this whole vomit would simply waste  |
|
|
|
FAILED-product!
" HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s" Did the HashFash ASIC meet the 400GH/s spec? Yes. Some could even be overclocked. Icedrill's are still mining. Did HashFast meet their power consumption specs? Did they meet their deadline? Nope! Also the Icedrill is still mining, not because of the great HashFail chips, it's because of the cheap power in Iceland. If HashFail was on spec regarding power consumption then you could mine with them in other locations, but considering the power hungry chips you can only mine with them where electricity is 0.04$/kwh. |
|
|
|
The company says the "environmentally friendly" chip, capable of 0.07 w/GHs, will increase the efficiency of its industrial mining farms by six to eight times. I call this a very big BS. If the specs are that good why aren't they bragging about it on their main website? Coindesk has the same people invested as in KnC so it's a nice business practice to support them, but I don't believe that power consumption. FUCK YOU KNC! |
|
|
|
Inefficient/expensive miner in everything = bad idea
Please share how do you imagine a decentralized network. |
|
|
|
So true! The only reason to buy an ASIC is because you want leveraged exposure to the price of BTC. As usual you live in your own parallel universe. I bought ASICs to support the network and to make money. I am sure that most got ASICs for the money. Nobody got ASICs to leverage their exposure to the price of BTC. Thanks for another retard quote. |
|
|
|
Decentralization is securing the network from a single entity controlling the majority of the hashrate. It's considered cost-prohibitive for any one company to build that much hardware, so overly popular pools are a more likely threat.
But if one company is able to put a few hundred GH in every household (paid for by said households) and controls the pool being mined at...
Why always assume only the bad thing that can happen? I think not allowing users to choose the pool would be a shot in the foot for them. They said that they plan to run some kind of p2pool. Chill. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
