BFL says Avalon is too "hot" and "irresponsible" in an eco friendly sort of way: So I have been very focused on our ASIC launch for the past few weeks obviously and have not given a lot of thought towards the overall climate / state of ASICs until this evening, whilest rooting a new Nexus 7 GSM model (it's still got that new Android smell)...
A few things occurred to me, after giving them some thought and I am just throwing this out here:
bASIC
The lack of information from Tom (which was endemic from the start, but people had blinders on for a number of reasons), coupled with the little bit of information he's given out points quite convincingly that he has basically gone back to the drawing board and is starting over from scratch, or close enough to it to make no difference. Why this has happened, only Tom can say, but one can make a few educated guesses. There are two likely scenario's I can see here, and I'm just speculating... but either the "team" that Tom had assembled never delivered anything but empty promises and Tom finally got fed up and switched teams, putting him at square one. Another possibility is that he did in fact get some boards back and things just didn't work out like he was hoping, which means he had to go back to the drawing board. I give equal credence to either issue, but the fact that he has absolutely nothing to show for the efforts indicates that he is either starting from scratch or never got off the ground to begin with. In either case, a mid-January launch from Tom at this point is exceedingly unlikely, and if he does manage to get something out by the middle of January, I suspect it will underperform and the power consumption will be much more than he's indicated at this point. I think he was basing his power and hashrate estimates off what his previous team was telling him, and he's all but admitted that previous team was useless... so any estimates coming from them are going to be suspect. Right now, I would say out of all the ASIC vendors, Tom is the most likely to fold up shop if anyone is going to fold up.
Avalon
Avalon is like the turtle... slow and steady and they will eventually get there. What you end up with is going to be large, loud and hot while it tears through kilowatts like a Silverback through a banana plantation. Will it perform at the hashrate advertised? Absolutely, I think they will nail that, but the cost to reach that performance at 110nm is going to be crippling to anyone but those with free power. The fact that the Avalon team has publicly stated that anyone not using free power should not be mining should be a major red flag when it comes to people who have to pay for power and what Avalon is going to bring to the table. This is to say nothing of the environmental cost and how irresponsible it is to advocate mining inefficiently and not caring about the power usage. Having brought up the environmental issue, I do realize how potentially hypocritical it is to be a bitcoin miner and talk about the environmental impact of mining, but that doesn't it isn't and shouldn't be a concern, especially when alternates are available. Even the bASIC as a worst case will be superior to the Avalon in terms of power usage and should be used before using an Avalon unit to mine... but the environmental impact is another discussion.
I think Avalon is going to run into some integration issues with their all-in-one approach that they aren't expecting - how quickly they will overcome them is anyones guess, but it could potentially signal a delay, but it's not something I would bet for or against.
ASICMINER
What's going on here? Last I heard they might have chips before the end of the year. Their hashrate won't really affect the network as a whole very much, so it's not really an issue.
----
I think that about covers the leading ASIC scene apart from BFL. That said, with Tom looking like he's either down for the count or severely delayed, the real race now seems to be between Avalon and BFL. We are still on target to ship before Avalon, so that is not really an issue... but I was considering what would happen if Avalon pulled a slick one and was able to ship much earlier and something interesting occurred to me.
Avalon has 300 units they want to ship in the first batch - ok, at 66 GH/s, that increases the network hashrate about 20 TH... That is less than half the current network hashrate, which is comprised of a large portion of GPU miners. Adding 20 TH to the network would knock many of those GPU miners out of the profitability envelope, resulting in a net increase in network hashing power between 5 - 10 TH by my estimations. So even if Avalon shipped tomorrow, it would not throw difficulty out of whack too far and would not be catastrophic for any of the other ASIC companies. If Avalon sticks to their timeline and is truly able to ship all 300 units in a reasonable time frame, the network hashrate would be affected only in a minor way before Avalon runs into Chinese New Year and everything is on hold for a month... That means the total increased network hashrate between now and March (at the earliest) is 5 - 10 TH if no other ASICs ship. This does not necessarily include ASICMiner, but the future of ASICminer is kind of murky at this point, so it's hard to predict where they will end up and what effect it will have. "Current State of ASICs (Not a BFL ASIC update)"Link: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/509-current-state-asics-not-bfl-asic-update.html |
|
|
|
Anyway, back on topic.In the FCC certification thread, Bruno is having a hard time finding the certification for your 4 devices. Could you please assist him in finding it?When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. I just finished looking at all the images on the FCC site for the past six months, scanning the list of 500 at a time put in alphabetical order and check every Kansas, Missouri and France submission, along with all those from China that were not a known brand, plus over a 100 from Hong Kong and Taiwan when the name of the company was foreign to me. Nada! ~Bruno K~ Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128840.msg1381506#msg1381506If it does not exist, does this mean it will take [a delay of] 6 to 8 weeks for you guys to get it done? what, you expect him to answer that? The question I would pose is, can a BFL rep actually avoid answering it? If he won't answer my question on the FCC certification, then another customer will. There is no way to escape the question itself. Especially if they aren't certified, it would imply multiple weeks of delays. (And possibly someone reporting them for producing uncertified equipment, implicit fines possible confiscation etc.) This is something that has been brought up before and he stated they were already on it. I am pretty sure most customers would want to know how long they will have to wait after the chips come in. Most likely the hardware (completed and assembled units) are already certified (somehow?). The BFL rep just needs to say so. |
|
|
|
Anyway, back on topic.In the FCC certification thread, Bruno is having a hard time finding the certification for your 4 devices. Could you please assist him in finding it?When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. I just finished looking at all the images on the FCC site for the past six months, scanning the list of 500 at a time put in alphabetical order and check every Kansas, Missouri and France submission, along with all those from China that were not a known brand, plus over a 100 from Hong Kong and Taiwan when the name of the company was foreign to me. Nada! ~Bruno K~ Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128840.msg1381506#msg1381506If it does not exist, does this mean it will take [a delay of] 6 to 8 weeks for you guys to get it done?
|
|
|
|
Aha, feigning ignorance? No. I am explaining to you the current state of events. You chose to disbelieve me, which is your prerogative. It does not, however, make you correct. You very rarely get ANYTHING correct, and this time is no different. I honestly can't tell if it's from mental incapacity or you do it intentionally just because you like to stir up trouble. So good on you for being so opaque that you are quite possibly indistinguishable from a monkey banging on a keyboard. Damn, I just lost my status of a human being. I had hoped not to lose it. How do I get it back? What "truth" must these monkey hands tap out on the keyboard for me to regain my human dignity? More importantly: Do you take BitCoins to restore my human nature? Edit: Actually, could you inform the community at large who you think is a (better than average) human being? An ideal and astute individual that you actually like from your customer base. Please call them out by their name so we inspect them and honor them in front of you.
I am extremely curious as to who exactly passes "the sniff test" in your eyes and what their written record is like. |
|
|
|
Haha, the idiots are out in force tonight.
Let me just sum up all the responses:
Syke: You're an idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
PuertoLibre: You, too, are an idiot. Everything you type is bullshit for the most part. These past few posts are ridiculous to anyone even partially sane, but I'm sure they make sense to you. Says one individual in the depths of delusions to another. To everyone else: BFL refunds anyone who asks. We always have. Yes, the policy on our website is CYA, absolutely, and I have always maintained that. If you want to sell your order, that's on you. We won't change the shipping address. We will verify that someone actually HAS an order with us. Whether or not they will honor your purchase is Caveat Emptor and if you do not want to assume that risk, ask for a refund. Thank you for that. It is "good enough" that you have at least come around. PuertoLibre's delusions aside, this has been the case for months, if there are instances where a CS rep has changed addresses, a) That rep did it improperly and B) I would like to know about it, as I am unaware of this happening since I came on board and started setting and enforcing company policy.
Aha, feigning ignorance? ( <-- See, it is posed as a question!) " Total Awesomeness ✓" from the guy who is on top of it all.  |
|
|
|
hm..
While I appreciate the technical prowess of the Avalon team, the fact of the matter is they simply don't have the resources or experience we have in this area.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *deep breath* ...oh shit. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA are they being serious? experience in what? delaying shit so many times? "IT POPS POPCORN!" -- Satoru Iwata, President of Nintendo of Japan I was wondering about that reply. BFL has more exeperience creating ASIC devices? I call BS.  No, BFL has more experience in making highly efficient popcorn poppers. Are you sure? 65nm is pretty cool to the touch, just saying.   |
|
|
|
|
Consider this,
When [original buyers] do finally get their pre-order, if you are one of those people who purchased an item indirectly by a [authorized/unauthorized] re-seller.....
You run the risk that this third party may not deliver. Your grievances may not be heard by BFL if it turns out this way. Why? Because they have no business with you.
They only (as of now) will confirm the existence of an order number to certify it is real. But delivery is the responsibility of the third party. If the third party leaves you high and dry (as the Rep said, in a High Scam scenario) then you are SOL. (Sorry Out of Luck)
-------------------------------
Rather than create a potential bubble of risk and create unnecessary liability elsewhere. The vendor should cut their ties to third parties and truly make it a third party affair. (A real gray market)
If not, there are gonna be at least a number of bad sales and scams going on by third parties who decide not to part with their rig.
I recommend they only offer refunds. Period. Full stop.
They should not provide any "assistance" to third party [authorized/unauthorized] re-sellers whom may start a massive scam on the community.
---------------------------------
If you buy the rig from someone else, make sure you fully understand you assume the full risk and that re-seller is not part of BFL. Not sanctioned, not certifying the re-sellers legitimacy...no not even in control of their supply of hardware. BFL should (IMO) not enter into the picture or provide any assistance with such a sale. Because it may create a false sense of security that somehow they are backing or legitimizing the sale of some goods produced by themselves.
Thats how I see it.
|
|
|
|
I like how you guys are taking an employee of a company who is quite familiar with said company's policies, telling him he's wrong and that you as an outsider know more about his company than he does, and then not even listening to him when he corrects you. Yes, he was an ass in his reply, but still....
Look at it this way: as a 3rd party just browsing these forums and reading your conversation with Inaba, who am I going to believe when it comes to BFL's policy:
A) The person who is not associated with the company, is not even a customer of said company, and is posting accusations? or
B) The long time customer and eventual employee of said company, familiar with their inner workings?
Implicit truthiness? In light of him confirming several points [irrespective of the conversation and tone] this is pretty straight forward. |
|
|
|
If a customer wants to sell their device, then they need to take responsibility for it as we don't have the man power, nor do we want to be liable for scams. Correct and true. Though you have the manpower for it before a certain date. I take it that refunds have skyrocketed and perhaps you can no longer keep up? Therefore the policy change? Hmm, I believe I am typing in a facetious way. Perhaps. What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing, False. A baby could draw the links between the two. yet in typical PuertoLibre fashion, you try to throw out FUD and paint BFL as somehow being evil and we are scamming by conflating two unrelated issues. You just admitted [did you not?] that the reason the policy changed *recently* was because you wanted to mitigate risk. This is a confirmation of at least more than one point. Not a denial. You go on to highlight the fact BFL "pushes the risk of the sale from BFL to the reseller and the buyer." Well no shit, Sherlock. Holmes, I believe he just confirmed the red paint on his hands. Apprehend him. What company do you know is willing to shoulder the responsibility for third party sales, especially in a high scam environment? You act like this is some revelation and that BFL is just crazy evil for doing this. Indeed, what company would?So then I ask, why did your company, until just now, change the shipping addresses for your customers who no longer wanted their orders but did find someone else who did? Again, I ask, did you lose customer service agents or did your refunds skyrocket beyond your control? Oh wait, you wanted to limit your liability...gee it almost sounds like you are confirming my speculative post....hmm. Strange. Do you seriously wonder why I call you an idiot?
Well, I do wonder. But perhaps that is because you are hoping someone else will be dumb enough to believe it as well? |
|
|
|
WTF? Seriously, how does it even make sense? They are two completely unrelated policies and situations. If a customer wants a refund, we issue a refund. True. End of story.[/b] False. It is a market where customers can turn in their spot in line for an extra percentage on their orders. If they are discontent with their purchase and have a sufficiently early order, then they can both A) sell it for more than they paid, and B) offload their risk. BFL used to assist them in this, just until very recently, they no longer do. BFL has [speculation] obviously chosen to eliminate their risk of the pre-order "resale" venue that some customers opt for. This keeps the BFL order filled (one way or the other) does it not? This ultimately also prevents BFL from having to transact a bunch of refunds. Often it does cost money to send people large volumes of cash (especially via electronic wire). So it is good business. No one (I think) will blame you for it. (at least right now anyway). ------------------------------- Does this mean that BFL rejects their customers approaches for refunds? NO. (this is why your summary of the 5th point is invalid) This just means they have figured out a way on how to push their risk onto their customer AND keep them from cashing out. ------------------------------- Now here is where I fish for information, and you keep your lips tight no doubt. Have your staff ever solicited the practice of reselling your items rather than obtain a refund? If there had never been such a case, then it's just smart practice.
If there has, then you know that you are pushing the risk of someone not fulfilling the order process unto the reseller (the original buyer) and to which the second hand owner would object. But since you have absolutely nothing (speculatively speaking) to do with that, you have no obligation to second hand buyers. So far on the BFL blogs on BFL forums there have been incidents of people selling false order numbers. I wonder where the scammers got that crazy idea? On top of that, in that same blog, there is evidence that BFL will go the extra mile to assist the resellers in confirming [for the second hand buyer] that that orders being resold are valid. (The fine print: Though we take no added risk in actual fulfillment of your pre-order [second hand buyer]. It is up to you, to get it from the original buyer!)------------------------ Why does a business even need to do that if they push the refund option first? |
|
|
|
I take it, that it was to prevent the money from flowing out of the coffers. If you tell someone who wants a refund that they can't sell their position in line, then they would have to give the refund.
For BFL it would probably have been marginally better to arrange the customer to hand it off to someone else and take on the risk that the customer will do a Chargeback. (as long as they don't tell them that, there is only a slightly possibility.)
Now that the risk is probably too big to keep doing, they changed their policy.
Now they likely tell the BFL customer that they can resell it on their own, but they will have to ship to the address of the original payment. Which pushes the risk of the sale from BFL to the reseller and the buyer. Leaving BFL's hand nice and clean in the event that the reseller steals the second hand buyers money.
You can't blame them for this change, it makes perfect sense.
If things were done "right" they would just give the original buyer their money back and they would be out 1 (or more) sales. Which is inconvenient of course cause they ordered all that hardware....
This just makes my head a-splode. Do you even read what you write or do thoughts just flow out of your head and into your fingers, like a stream of consciousness thing or something? Actually, yes. Lets boil down what you just wrote:
1. Customer wants to sell their order
AND
2. BFL won't change the shipping address
SO
3. Customer is advised to take delivery and send it to third party
BECAUSE
4. BFL does not want to be liable for scams
THEREFORE
5. BFL won't refund money because they would be out more sales. You missed like several paragraphs that outline the point, that is why you had a WTF moment. Point number 5 is invalid as you interpreted it. Learn to actually read and follow along someones speculative post. (And quote the whole thing!) Rather than read my post, you instead are doing a sort of psychological trick where you pretend to misread someones post and then proposition a false conclusion that makes no sense. In other words, your lame attempt to reframe my post [with your additive non-sense] and deflect has been "called out". |
|
|
|
|
[Speculative post]
Because they would lose a CC fight if they acknowledge they sent it to another address....every single time. (They couldn't easily prove they sent it to the legitimate address. This is why many companies won't ship to a different destination other than what is on file with the CC company.
They (BFL) are pretty unlucky they aren't contacting everyone they already arranged for a different address of delivery. It no doubt opens them up big time to large losses.
If those people (if any exist) did chargebacks on their CC as the rigs got to their doorstep they would likely get a rig for free. Why no one noticed this earlier at BFL is a mystery in itself. At least that is how I understood CC policy.
The change in their policy is really no mystery at all.
----------------------------
I take it, that it was to prevent the money from flowing out of the coffers. If you tell someone who wants a refund that they can't sell their position in line, then they would have to give the refund.
For BFL it would probably have been marginally better to arrange the customer to hand it off to someone else and take on the risk that the customer will do a Chargeback. (as long as they don't tell them that, there is only a slightly possibility.)
Now that the risk is probably too big to keep doing, they changed their policy.
Now they likely tell the BFL customer that they can resell it on their own, but they will have to ship to the address of the original payment. Which pushes the risk of the sale from BFL to the reseller and the buyer. Leaving BFL's hand nice and clean in the event that the reseller steals the second hand buyers money.
You can't blame them for this change, it makes perfect sense.
If things were done "right" they would just give the original buyer their money back and they would be out 1 (or more) sales. Which is inconvenient of course cause they ordered all that hardware....
|
|
|
|
So on the 24th what happens? They switch fabs and start anew? I see on Avalons contract they have all the data specified in the wording, including what level of service they can expect. It is becoming clear that Inaba is/was not the one who made the contract. It sounds like he is using a proxy. A proxy who is as vague as he is on what is apparently happening at that fab. They must get one helluva discount for them to put up with that for so long. Looks like a shaky foundation. |
|
|
|
This would make total sense. If your second shipment can beat BFL's first, a lot of people would switch, I'm sure. I for one would have to do some serious soul searching for sure after a bunch of layers of BS from BFL BFL has apparently designed a fab technique based on layering BS on their chip. That is why they can grow/deposit those layers so darn quickly. It will do everything (at lower power). As long as it is not seen by the human eye. |
|
|
|
It seems Inaba has been put on a leash by his bosses. He stopped posting/insulting people here on the forums I was hoping no one would notice that he does have a boss or his sudden silence. So I just copied his reply from the BFL forums. ...
1. while this wafer making process is going, you can't cancel it, or make adjustments, and if you wish to change anything, you will have to re-run this whole work flow all over again ( the large amount of the NRE upwards of 6 digits in USD is paid when you make the MASK). so anytime, BFL mention they are waiting for chips to come e.g. next week, but if they are still making adjustments, then this is physically impossible. In addition, fabrication company don't do chip packaging, if they are expecting the chips to arrive next week that means the production is already finished and they are probably in the chip packaging company (it is usually this time you find out if your chips work or not. which can also take some time since you'll have to test each of the chips for defects.)
...
BFL_Josh replies: "While I appreciate the technical prowess of the Avalon team, the fact of the matter is they simply don't have the resources or experience we have in this area. While the above may be true for them (and I have no doubt it is), what they are able to accomplish in a given time frame does not necessarily apply to our development workflow and process." https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/500-josh-plz-give-us-some-comments-about.html#post7363What does that tell us? Right. Nothing. Just more weasel comments. It applies, or maybe it does not ... there is, maybe there is not ... we ship, maybe we won't ... It just means that the BFL rep is an expert in the art of quantum super-positioning statements. It can be in more than three states at the same time. You can infer "does not necessarily apply" to mean it does apply, yet, it does not apply. It all depends on the observer. Making vague statements and keeping your distance is what you do when you can't say or have nothing to say in such a situation. Just hope the chips arrive and then start shipping. Oh, and the 11th, the rep said it won't be met. (later in the month is the next revision). |
|
|
|
Haha.. I imagine I'm dead to them already with how much I've criticized them the past few months. I'm just tired of putting up with their bull shit. If they would stop telling people lies and actually ship a product, then maybe I'll look at them under a different light. But until then... I will just sit back and watch the race for the first ASIC develop with a much lower stress level! What did you think of the latest Avalon statement on what they think is happening with respect to BFL and bASIC? |
|
|
|
I guess I can't complain about BFL anymore lol, I finally pulled the trigger. What am I going to do with my free time???  Now, lets find out how "fast and "flawless" those refunds are!  Good luck to those that are not going to jump ship! Does this mean the BFL rep will now downgrade your spirit and flesh to less than "useless"? Or do you still retain value as a human being and possible repeat customer? |
|
|
|
It is because we are so confident we will not be taking your money so early and not ship any goods, especially when it is some delay that is beyond our control.
That is a pretty damn honest reason. (Wish BFL would do the same!) When does the Chinese New Year Holiday Start and End? |
|
|
|
|
@ Ngzhang
Why does it say under one of the (online forms) that it failed the DRC check? (Design Rule Check)
Is that because you did something unusual with the chip that the DRC would fail the automatic checks?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
