|
Dogie, the amount of BS you're capable of producing is simply amazing.
I came to the conclusion, probably a bit too late, that nothing good will come from further interacting with you. I see you now as a negative force in this industry.
I don't intend to post anymore in your threads and I request that you won't post in ours. I intend to delete your posts without warning.
Guy
|
|
|
|
What you omitted: ...
The system is weighted heavily on the immediate past
...
Nope. The first 3 sentences are in reply to Josh's "Delivered miners" questions, that's pretty obvious. - We didn't take pre-orders since November.
Irrelevant under the criteria because your business model can't support non preorders, as below. - We don't rely on pre-order for our next gen. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've said it. It's not our main business model. I even took the time to explain to you our business model for our next gen. Yet, you keep claiming that "you continue to do as your main business model". This is simply a lie and you know it.
Can you afford generation 3 without selling preorders, raising millions of $ or using 'investment' orders? Its a simple yes or no. If you're asking if we can afford our entire gen3 planned capacity without injecting more funds via additional investment or pre-selling mining capacity to accredited investors, the answer is no. The same goes for every other company in the space. For the last time, since you seems to have difficulties in understanding: we'll not sell our gen3 products to consumers without proving the technology first. Afterwards, we might, but then it won't be pre-ordering. It might be selling by batches. You're very tiring, I'm going to sleep.  |
|
|
|
Not really independently verified since Rossi was directly involved in the test. I don't believe the E-Cat is real, still a wow was the appropriate reaction after reading it. As in "wow, people still believe this guy isn't full of shit after it's been proven he's a snake oil salesman"? No, I must admit it's the first time I heard about it. Again, I didn't believe it, but my initial reaction was "wow". |
|
|
|
Not really independently verified since Rossi was directly involved in the test. I don't believe the E-Cat is real, still a wow was the appropriate reaction after reading it. |
|
|
|
Cool. If you still have some time on your hands, you can read about a week before and after this post to see that the criteria was not changed, was not changed just for you and that you were not even the first company for the methodology to be applied to. Uses preorders? Yes ... O Rly? BFL Hasn't taken preorders in months. Additionally we were and are selling off the shelf miners from the 65nm generation.
I'm not sure how you can argue you don't use preorders, you have done, and you continue to do as your main business model. 65nm (for the vast majority) and your monarchs were both sold as preorder products, delivered in 2 weeks. Unless you're talking about this split second at which point the only things you're selling are 10GH miners @ $5/GH - I can't give you a pat on the back for that. If you do sell in hand Monarchs once your queue is cleared AND then don't sell preorders on whatever comes after then you'll of course get your deserved 20 points. Heck, I'll even send you a prize in the post if I can get it through customs  Keep lying and BS-ing. LOL what? I categorically and irrefutably disprove your claims and you deny the posts' existence? Is this another conspiracy? Did Theymos plant pages of posts back in time? No, you didn't - categorically and irrefutably disprove my claims. Well, yes I did. You claimed: What you don't say is that you changed your own criteria especially for us.
At least you admit you cooked the criteria in December. "In December I added more descriptive text" ...
Show me a proof that you've posted an explanation about your "pre-order" criteria relating to next gen "business model" BS before December. Dogie, you're simply a lier.
That's okay, you can keep lying about not changing your ranking criteria specifically for us.
I proved all the above to be false. I evidenced a mirror image discussion with BFL about the SAME CRITERIA and the SAME IMPLEMENTATION in SEPTEMBER, 3 months before you claim I made them up from scratch for you in DECEMBER. No, you didn't. What you omitted: ...
The system is weighted heavily on the immediate past
...
Even by your criteria: - We didn't take pre-orders since November. - We don't rely on pre-order for our next gen. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've said it. It's not our main business model. I even took the time to explain to you our business model for our next gen. Yet, you keep claiming that "you continue to do as your main business model" This is simply a lie and you know it. |
|
|
|
Until your next round of lies.
Cool. If you still have some time on your hands, you can read about a week before and after this post to see that the criteria was not changed, was not changed just for you and that you were not even the first company for the methodology to be applied to. Uses preorders? Yes ... O Rly? BFL Hasn't taken preorders in months. Additionally we were and are selling off the shelf miners from the 65nm generation.
I'm not sure how you can argue you don't use preorders, you have done, and you continue to do as your main business model. 65nm (for the vast majority) and your monarchs were both sold as preorder products, delivered in 2 weeks. Unless you're talking about this split second at which point the only things you're selling are 10GH miners @ $5/GH - I can't give you a pat on the back for that. If you do sell in hand Monarchs once your queue is cleared AND then don't sell preorders on whatever comes after then you'll of course get your deserved 20 points. Heck, I'll even send you a prize in the post if I can get it through customs Keep lying and BS-ing. LOL what? I categorically and irrefutably disprove your claims and you deny the posts' existence? Is this another conspiracy? Did Theymos plant pages of posts back in time? No, you didn't - categorically and irrefutably disprove my claims. |
|
|
|
Until your next round of lies.
Cool. If you still have some time on your hands, you can read about a week before and after this post to see that the criteria was not changed, was not changed just for you and that you were not even the first company for the methodology to be applied to. Uses preorders? Yes ... O Rly? BFL Hasn't taken preorders in months. Additionally we were and are selling off the shelf miners from the 65nm generation.
I'm not sure how you can argue you don't use preorders, you have done, and you continue to do as your main business model. 65nm (for the vast majority) and your monarchs were both sold as preorder products, delivered in 2 weeks. Unless you're talking about this split second at which point the only things you're selling are 10GH miners @ $5/GH - I can't give you a pat on the back for that. If you do sell in hand Monarchs once your queue is cleared AND then don't sell preorders on whatever comes after then you'll of course get your deserved 20 points. Heck, I'll even send you a prize in the post if I can get it through customs Keep lying and BS-ing.  Going to watch house of cards. |
|
|
|
... @SPT - 35 USD to ship an SD card??
and if i were to pay using the 150USD coupon you will invalidate the remaining 115 USD??
Please keep it!
As to the burnt connectors, they were not 'officially reported' but extensively discussed on the forum late last year.
Can i use the 150 USD for replacing these? I assume they wont cost that much.
Although the shipping may make it a complete waste of time if 35USD for a 1g SD card is anything to go by...
We'll upload an experimental version of the recovery SD, you'll be able to test it yourself. I'll check about the connectors. You'll need to do the modifications yourself. The shipping will be probably more expensive. Thanks, An uploaded version is a much better idea! I've opened the SP20E to begin removal of the headers, and found both ribbon cables are damaged. Contact Barbara with what you need. |
|
|
|
this isn't about a "scam" its about your lies, per Guy. stick to the topic Guy is hammering you on.
The amount of BS and lies one person dog can write poop.
Yet I'm the one ignoring the topic, right?  I believe our NDA is actually doing you a favour. It prevents you from further humiliating yourself.
Then you'll have no problem releasing me from the NDA, right? Or are you going to hide behind it again? No matter how many times you'll ask, I won't release you from your NDA, which you gladly signed. That's okay, you're free to hide behind it all you like. That's okay, you can keep lie about not changing your ranking criteria specifically for us. Then we're cool then?  Until your next round of lies.  |
|
|
|
this isn't about a "scam" its about your lies, per Guy. stick to the topic Guy is hammering you on.
The amount of BS and lies one person dog can write poop.
Yet I'm the one ignoring the topic, right? I believe our NDA is actually doing you a favour. It prevents you from further humiliating yourself.
Then you'll have no problem releasing me from the NDA, right? Or are you going to hide behind it again? No matter how many times you'll ask, I won't release you from your NDA, which you gladly signed. That's okay, you're free to hide behind it all you like. That's okay, you can keep lying about not changing your ranking criteria specifically for us.  |
|
|
|
this isn't about a "scam" its about your lies, per Guy. stick to the topic Guy is hammering you on.
The amount of BS and lies one person dog can write poop.
Yet I'm the one ignoring the topic, right? I believe our NDA is actually doing you a favour. It prevents you from further humiliating yourself.
Then you'll have no problem releasing me from the NDA, right? Or are you going to hide behind it again? No matter how many times you'll ask, I won't release you from your NDA, which you gladly signed. You insist on keep lying about changing your criteria specifically for us, I keep insisting on the NDA. |
|
|
|
All of that, I believe, is because of our unrelated dispute.
Then you probably believe in ghosts as well. You're free to start a scam accusation thread but its becoming off topic here. this isn't about a "scam" its about your lies, per Guy. stick to the topic Guy is hammering you on. Also, appeal to mockery/ridicule is preposterous: claiming "believe in ghost" is a pathetic attempt on your part, appeal to ridicule is irrelevant to the issue Guy is raising. address the lie issue Guy has brought up and then you can talk about all the ghost stories you wish. man up already and suck it up. you will gain respect here by admitting mistakes and fixing them, ignoring them and continuing your style continues to negatively reflect on you. There is nothing to 'admit' to. He's suggesting that because he ..... [the issue HE is hiding behind an NDA on, not me]... that he believes: 1) I opposed spamming threads as marketing, which I did, and still do. For all companies. 2) Asked an incorrectly moved thread discussing said topic to meta so we could have an adult discussion about the above issue, which I did and would do again? If it was not appropriate then the thread would have died immediately, instead it grew to 7 pages and spawned important discussion between the mods. 3) Reported his posts, which is both untrue and irrelevant. As much as he wants to believe his 1 word posts were deleted as part of some conspiracy, I am not a moderator. 4) Reported someone posting 5 threads in a manner that should have just been one thread? Yes, and would do it again because I was not the only person to report them. And I reported one post asking for a mod to see what he though. The mod decided that it was inappropriate and there were multiple ways in which it should have been done in one thread. My reply in regards to he 'also believes in ghosts' is in response to that he believes the above are all in some huge conspiracy against him and his company, when it was and still is one of the highest scoring companies of all time, and is poised to be the first company ever to get a perfect score if he follows through on his word. He's still not revealed the reason why exactly he wants that to happen prematurely though, also hiding behind an NDA on that one. Anything else? The amount of BS and lies one person dog can write poop.  I believe our NDA is actually doing you a favour. It prevents you from further humiliating yourself. |
|
|
|
We'll probably sell single units as well. It's not a promise though. I believe that a much better model for a small buyers will be to buy some small percentage of a shared mine.
I believe that centralized model is not only bad for Bitcoin, but goes against the basic principles as well. It's disturbing enough that manufacturers are competing directly with their own customers by mining, but excluding the home miner all together is an absolutely horrifying thought. It would be really respectable if you had the exact opposite thought of, "we will ship all orders of 1 single miner before any multiple miner orders, including bulk purchases from hosting partners." I know you're running a business to make the most money possible, but there is something to be said for companies/people who put the community first. I full heartedly agree with your two opening statements. Unfortunately, I don't see how can we survive by implementing your suggestion. Your hosting partners would be against you shipping a set # of units before they get theirs? Surely, you shipping out 200 units for individual buyers the day before sending out bulk shipments to your partners wouldn't have much effect on them, but would do wonders for raising the bar for manufacturers. You have a great reputation here and I'd love to see you continuing to elevate it above the competition, as opposed to selling out and damaging network decentralization for maximum fiat profits like those before you. Anyway, I'm a supporter and hope that I will have the opportunity to continue supporting in the future. Thank you. |
|
|
|
We'll probably sell single units as well. It's not a promise though. I believe that a much better model for a small buyers will be to buy some small percentage of a shared mine.
I believe that centralized model is not only bad for Bitcoin, but goes against the basic principles as well. It's disturbing enough that manufacturers are competing directly with their own customers by mining, but excluding the home miner all together is an absolutely horrifying thought. It would be really respectable if you had the exact opposite thought of, "we will ship all orders of 1 single miner before any multiple miner orders, including bulk purchases from hosting partners." I know you're running a business to make the most money possible, but there is something to be said for companies/people who put the community first. I full heartedly agree with your two opening statements. Unfortunately, I don't see how can we survive by implementing your suggestion. |
|
|
|
All of that, I believe, is because of our unrelated dispute.
Then you probably believe in ghosts as well. You're free to start a scam accusation thread but its becoming off topic here. Revealing the reasons behind our score is not off topic. Anyway, I've posted enough for this round of lies. I guess we'll meet again in April.  |
|
|
|
...
Their saying the definetly WILL NOT produce consumer models for their next gen...
What I said was that our initial form factor for the 3rd gen will be suitable for bulk buyers. Please read my last messages. This is fine, as long as that grade is not required at a truck load to buy. I could buy a single 16kw unit. no issue, would like to buy from you and not from a third party, unless you plan to have authorized resellers? We'll probably sell single units as well. It's not a promise though. I believe that a much better model for a small buyers will be to buy some small percentage of a shared mine. From the marketing perspective-most people in US will not go for it (sharing small %). It's just not in our DNA (although i am not a native, but as they say in Texas-I was born elsewhere, but got here as soon as i could). Besides, i seriously doubt that the big iron is the way to go. We went through this in computers, and it is clearly not the most efficient way. I don't know what will be a winning combo: maybe heaters that could mine; maybe miners that could do other things, like trading stuff between each other; maybe 3D printers that could mine when not in use or internet/wireless routers that could mine. Dual purpose with low energy chips. A couple of things that SPT did not address: 1. Is this miner based on 28nm or 16nm (I assume 28nm)? 2. What real life energy efficiency it will have? 3. Although it is probably FUD as far as speed of actual machines being produced is concerned, competitors are claiming the tapeout of 16nm 0.07w/Gh chip. Even assuming that it will result in 0.1Gh/w, it is still 10Th/1000w. I fail to see the urgent need for a 16kw machine that would be difficult to deploy. Without getting into specific spec, I believe the following post reveal enough for now: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=521520.msg10597324#msg10597324I don't know if you're right or wrong regarding shared mines, time will tell. |
|
|
|
...
Their saying the definetly WILL NOT produce consumer models for their next gen...
What I said was that our initial form factor for the 3rd gen will be suitable for bulk buyers. Please read my last messages. This is fine, as long as that grade is not required at a truck load to buy. I could buy a single 16kw unit. no issue, would like to buy from you and not from a third party, unless you plan to have authorized resellers? We'll probably sell single units as well. It's not a promise though. I believe that a much better model for a small buyers will be to buy some small percentage of a shared mine. You would think, but I'm not one to trust someone else with thousands of my hardware, mining company folds and my hardware is gone. I could also run one of thoe big guys on my back deck all winter, no more snow removal. lol I agree that the counter-party risks in Bitcoin mining businesses is very high. We got burned twice. We'll work on ways to minimise those risks, both with technological means and proper collaterals. |
|
|
|
The criteria did not change, nor the way that I enforce it. In December I added more descriptive text to all the criterion so I didn't have to keep repeating myself throughout the thread - the descriptions act as an FAQ. For example I was asked what was company size about 20 times which you can search for in this thread.
Why not post the differences of the text for everyone to see it? Show us what was written pre-December so we can compare to the present text. Will you do it or will you chicken out? I'm not on trial here, nor do I have to prove my 'innocence'. Even so, I checked and the oldest version dropbox archived is 9th Jan 2015. There is an internet archive version here from October which shows the only description was: Preorders?
Preorders are a recipe for disaster and puts all the risk on the buyer. As I said, I added more descriptive text. Yes, your unethical behaviour is on trial here. Until December, your description for preorders was: Preorders are a recipe for disaster and puts all the risk on the buyer. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20141022200447/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456691When it was time to remove our pre-orders ranking (we stop doing pre-orders in November), the description was changed: Preorders are extremely bad for the industry and put all the financial risk on the buyer. This criterion does not act as a snapshot, but a longer term (both past and future) "does this company engage in preorders". A company who's business model relies on preorders to fund development and new generations is still considered to utilise preorders even if they intermediately sell some products from stock. Transitional scores may be used when companies have promised the exclusion of preorders but have yet to prove their business model can operate without them. Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456691.msg5035158#msg5035158I told, endless times, that we won't take pre-orders on our 3rd gen due to the design risk. It falls on deaf dogs ears. In addition: - You opposed the SP20 legendaries reviews we did for some reason, very loud - You asked a moderator to move a thread called "Spondoolies Spam" from trash to meta, after we launched the SP20 legendaries reviews - You've unjustifiably reported some of my posts in some of the legendaries reviews threads - You reported Philip's poll questions threads and tried to kill the hardware manufacturer's poll All of that, I believe, is because of our unrelated dispute. Guy |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
