Do you guarantee certain performance on a per hashboard basis or per backplane connection?

Error %?
Hashpower ?
Possibly at a default frequency? (It appears they are clocked at 328?)

That is, are all your machines clocked at 105 gh/sec or are there a number in the high 80's low 90's range?  Therefore, not all machines are running 105 gh/sec but that is clearly a peak.


On the server picture it appears you have 62 red cases.  Eligius indicates 31(+ partial unit{s}?) miners running.

31*8*4*10= about 10k chips.  Are 31 of the cases empty cases in that photo?  You've indicated an order of only 10,000 chips.  If so - why?  Was there a 10k chip order that was refunded and you have an interest in G2 Avalon chips?  If so, what information do you have!

Curious

Also, grats.

It's a dog eat dog kind of world  

 























 

I know what they're supposed to pull ...  Looking for a measurement though ;/

What's the watt pull (measured, not from box, by a 4 module) by the PSU at the wall?

I think there's a lot of interest for "open source hardware" chips ... Your general idea, to me, looks very on-track (Then again, so did Avalon's "No Bullshit" policy ... no insult meant in any way towards you though.  Just making a distinction that Idealism != Reality) .  I'm uncertain though of specifics which sort of would make something like this work or whether it'd even work.  To me it seems there would be a lot more interest / support for an 'Association' supported somehow (?how?) that provides blueprints for ASIC chips so that 'Members' (defined ?how? at what ?cost?) can run with them to a factory ... this can be enforceable in different ways that would make ensure the longevity of such an 'Association' so that someone can't 'steal' (how can you steal something ?open?) and negatively impact such an association.

I'd be curious on a private and/or public discussion bouncing ideas if you're interested.

My problem is unique to this thread and similar 'sale' threads.  Not sure where you read about a Zefir problem?  Enlighten me.  If you can make a distinction between 'group buy' and this thread I'm sure you can make a distinction between 'this thread' and Zefir?

Just a shame that this forum is not separate from a (I'd say 'the' but I guess since it's limited to only 'group buys' which probably wasn't the exact limitation in the spirit of that 'group buy' subforum) group buy / resell / sale forum (i.e., anything sales / advertising related).  Topics that seem interesting on this forum, to me, are the technical ones / vendor announcements, etc ... which is what brings, I'd assume, most people here.

This is more of a sale/advertisement and not really something that should not be on this forum.

Shouldn't this be in group buy subforum?    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=137.0 ...

Shouldn't this be in group buy subforum?    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=137.0 ....

https://klondikedesign.com/?product_cat=klondike-16

Right from the source ...

This.  Also one of the Avalon devs, I believe, noted that installing fans there would actually worsen the cooling due to how having fans on, both, the front and back would affect the airflow.

The best option, I believe, would be a more powerful fans in the front ... though those are already pretty powerful.

Yup.  I'm curious on what exactly does that mean.  They did note a Github update which does imply some kind of change - though based on their wording an insignificant one?  Possibly a bitstream update - though possibly more involved.  I'm hoping to be enlightened with details earlier than later.

... wow ...

I'll add another theory to the list of theories on what Avalon did:

1)  110 nm Chip orders opened in April.
2)  April - June use 110 nm Chip orders to fund 55 nm chips / sign deal with TSMC using 110nm chip order money as a loan to get 55 nm chips.
3)  Order, with whatever is leftover (as an afterthought), 110 nm chips at a later date than the order should have been done (Hence them receiving their 9/4/2013 batch of 400,000 110 nm chips - if those were received at all).
4)  Act like they've had their well being threatened all the while they were busy working on 55 nm / signing contracts with TSMC.




---> 5)  Expect people to fall on the 55 nm chips because, apparently, they're compatible with 110 nm chip designs?  Therefore, even if people refund from 110 they still get the money on 55 ...



Does this seem like a somewhat valid theory?


*weilds his tin foil hat*


Edit:  On another note -->  Would it be possible to know what modifications, if any, would be needed for 55 nm chips to work on the 110 nm design presently provided on Github so that decisions can be made?  As in, are the PCB designs reusable with the 55 nm design or absolutely not?  Also, some hash numbers per chip?  Currently the newsletter implies no serious modification (serious modifications as in re manufacturing the PCBs vs minor such as different resistors / capacitors.) necessary other than maybe a new bistream for the controller board?

This would be an interesting project if the community could keep it open source and any contributions to the design would be open sourced and not kept proprietary.

Basically, it would lead to a open source ASIC chip that anyone could contract to have manufactured ... would really make bitcoin distributed ...

Those inductors can go up to 125 degrees C ... they don't need heatsinks.  

Also, those inductors aren't mosfets (http://www.vishay.com/docs/34123/lp50fd01.pdf).  There's 3 mosfets (depends on hasboard being used) and 1 inductor.  The tallest of the 4 is the one I'm assuming you connected the heatsink to.  That'd be the inductor.  

There's vias for the mosfets to dissipate heat onto the heatsink on the reverse of the PCB.  Those mosfets are designed to dissipate heat to the board, not the other way around.  Adding heatsinks is not a good idea.

Not only would litigation cause issues for the community but a mere refund for the chips does not address the main problem:

A community of people (Burning, BKK, TerraHash, etc) developed themselves and invested around Avalon.  Now this community gets screwed by Avalon.

Not only will this result in legal action against Avalon but fighting/litigation within said community as many of these community members will not be able to offer refunds.

Therefore, 'refunds for chips' are not the same as 'refunds for miners'.  Not only is Avalon screwing a community that developed around their product but they are alienating it.  I highly doubt that said community will likely support Avalon in the future unless a better alternative than a refund is offered for chips.

A refund option the instant Avalon KNEW the chips were late would have been acceptable.  A refund option with regards to chips so delayed when there has been a significant investment by the community alienates the community and, in reality, is unacceptable.  I doubt people will be buying Avalon products in the future if this is the best they offer to their customers.

This isn't about greed.  This is about righting a wrong and the 'no bullshit' policy that's become 'pure bullshit'.

Newsflash:  Something 'overdue' 2 weeks is not 'overdue'.

Per your explanation I'd like shit to happen on your plate - irrelevant of circumstance or issue because clearly shit needs to happen on your plate, not on someone else's, for you to 'rage a hell a lot'.  I'm curious whether said shit is to be served 'on purpose' or 'be incidental'?  'Without good reason' ... do you really take people as fools with regards to such empty and subjective words?

This is not about whether he did something criminal intentionally or not.  Shit happens - everyone understands that.  This is more about making a promise, failing to deliver on said promise, and keeping the community in the dark with respect to said promise and, as far as everyone is concerned, deceiving the community by a lack of communication.  Furthermore, this is about him making decisions that treat his customers unprofessionally.

As far as I'm concerned I won't be doing any business with Avalon utilizing bitcoin.  Absolutely not.  You'd need to torture me indefinitely to make such a decision again.

P.S.  If there's an ignore list and I bother figuring out the time how to use it then you've been put on said list.  You're a hypocrite.



Are you really that obtuse?

100% agree on this.  Dogie has contributed the weirdest posts (tape up you Avalon for better air flow?  ... ok!  selling B1/B2 Avalons for 150+btc? ... ok! B3 with B2/B1 'incompatibility'? ... ok! there's more but not worth the effort of noting) and is borderline ignore-list worthy.

The only reason this user is defensive of Yifu appears to be because of his receipt of B1 Avalon(s?).

With regards to Avalon I'm unhappy with their 'no bullshit' policy.  By offering refunds Avalon (BitSyncom LLC) is admitting that the 'no bullshit'  policy was a bunch of bullshit.  It's not that chip refunds aren't acceptable; they are just borderline acceptable (At most you'll make 750-800 btc from mining now using 10k Avalon chips -- that's before you start to mine for 1 btc per week ... so unless btc value increases you're not even breaking even btc wise due to power costs - if Yifu disagrees with this assertion I'd love to see his explanation.  The 750 btc was aa very fair price when they were on sale with the 9-10 week deadline.).  For most people, as far as I'm aware, the chips are 40-60% of the cost.  Everything else is the other 40-60% of the cost.  The weakest link here is Avalon - can they now call all the other suppliers for everyone to offer refunds?

Furthermore, as superduh noted, Avalon has provided no evidence of what went wrong nor has provided evidence to disprove other's allegations.  All we're hearing are excuses after excuses and a 'no bullshit policy' becoming 'pure bullshit'.

This:




and this:

Ummm ... it is 135.  Unless 135 means 24 in which case the world is less sane than I thought it is:

http://www.track-shipments.com/track-trace.aspx?pref=AWB&awbno=87150508076

(http://thegenesisblock.com/latest-shipment-of-avalon-asics-could-increase-network-hashrate-by-500/)