NOTE: I don't have an FPGA miner, yet, so I'm asking from general interest.

However, question, what about if you have a Quad XC connected and a BFL Single (or one of the other FPGAs currently available) connected?

Does fixing the Quad with this tweak break the other(s)?

Before resending, I went and searched the filtered/spam directory.

I had received a response within two hours of sending the purchase request.

Nice work, guys. And apologies for *my* negligence to check in the first place.

I have received no response to the email I sent them on Saturday. When did you send your purchase request email, please?

IOWs, how long was the time between your first email and the confirmation?

That is the risk of buying pre-production hardware.

If you want safety, wait for the final/proven version before you buy.

Of course, the purchase cost is 50% higher at that point.

I hear what you're saying. However, for their transaction with me directly they are not in default until they fail to meet the committed delivery date.

I also agree with your assessment of the odds that they won't default. 

After he receives a sufficient quantity of pre-paid orders he will announce tentative product ship dates.

Of course. And also SOP to pay full cash in advance for something to be delivered <at some indeterminate time in the future>.

But that is just 77 days. Don't get antsy.

Yeah. Perhaps.

Regardless, their commitment was delivery in 4 to 6 weeks from confirmed order or your money back.

At 6 weeks + one day I start the refund process.

I trust their competition to get the performance ramped up on their new device more than I trust BFL to deliver their already fully functional device. Sad, really, since the BFL hardware and specs look nice.

However, honesty/integrity does count.

For an example of BFL honesty, go to this page: http://www.butterflylabs.com/drivers/
and download one of the 'currently available drivers' one through four. They are claiming capabilities they are not delivering.

Exactly.

I'll find it very bloody amusing, not, if I get the hardware from 'another' company which I put a purchase request in - with no money upfront required - a couple of days ago before I get the BFL single ordered a month ago.

Amen.

Thank you, Glasswalker.

I *thought* the Icarus bitstream could, was reported as able to, produce 400mh/s from these things while using only two of the four FPGAs. Is no one getting that?

I think Epoch's post is right on.

In the interest of protecting this thread's topic cohesion,
perhaps the SatoshiDice, and its impacts, conversation should be taken to here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86679.40

I'm glad you closed with that line.

I can understand Luke-Jr's frustration, but strongly do not approve if, as you say, Satoshi-Dice is following the rules.

Transaction handling is the reason for existence of the 'bitcoin network' / pool miners / solo miners (if any left), et al. Coins for miners is a by-product. If that priority gets inverted, then Bitcoin as a currency has failed.

I will be watching this thread, or more directly relevant ones if I so find, with great interest.

Just to keep statements accurate. (The lack of which, IMO, is our biggest complaint against BFL.)

1) The Enterpoint product currently costs more. And will soon cost even more more.
About 8% more until the end of June. 63% more starting in July.

2) The Enterpoint product currently *matches* the BFL single on a MH/w basis.
IIRC, the best currently being delivered is about 400mh/s at 40w using two of the four FPGAs. About 200mh/s when using all four.

In the future the Enterpoint product *might* be double with 800+ at 40 to 50w.
But that is a future / hypothetical situation. *After* that is achieved it will be legitimate to sing their praises. (While acknowledging that all the BFL competitors, at that future point in time, cost greater than 50% more at the entry point level.)

3) IIRC, the best that has been achieved on Spartans is about 250mh/s per FPGA. Two times that for 500mh/s is substantially less than the BFL Single 800+mh/s. And, again IIRC, the other bitstreams you refer to are not generally available for use.

Assumptions:
1) Bitcoin Miners are not Gaussian distributions of all Internet population
2) Bitcoin Miners do their research and land on the best source of information for their interest
3) Here it is as far as the best source of community info. (Have you found a better source of info? - Link please.)

Known:
1) BFL is a bit 'loose' with accuracy of statements/predictions
2) rate of shipments/deliveries as reported on this thread

Result:
BFL's word/statements ain't worth s**t.


Please counter with facts, not emotions / flames.

This is an interesting statement:

So, most buyers of these things are not participants of this thread?

What does "volume" mean?

Because it is proper engineering practice?

Provide a known input to a device to ensure a known / correct output comes out is standard testing technique.

Apparently not as it is currently packaged.

"$ mono OzcoinWidget-Windows.EXE
 Cannot open assembly 'OzcoinWidget-Windows.EXE': File does not contain a valid CIL image."

Perhaps if some dis-assembly was performed required components could be exposed.