If we are playing show and tell  How did this happen? I thought the heat sink on the other side was big enough to absorb all the heat? |
|
|
|
At this point we would expect they will take back the obviously flawed miners we all have and exchange them for properly working hardware. I presume that is the whole point of the options they are offering. Which also means receiving hardware that is shipped back. Can AMT clarify a plan for that as well? Considering mrpark's experience it puts everyone else on a bit of worry and with good reason.
+1 |
|
|
|
The same 'filtered block' line (but different hash) in the last crash too. Perhaps something wrong with whatever filtered block handling is?
CMerkleBlock is used for filtered nodes. It holds a CBlockHeader. This is assigned in CMerkleBlock::CMerkleBlock using GetBlockHeader. This function doesn't copy the auxpow field. This is possibly why the null pointer accessing auxpow occurs. Possible fix: diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h
index bd21fe9..1221a88 100644
--- a/src/main.h
+++ b/src/main.h
@@ -1411,6 +1411,7 @@ public:
block.nTime = nTime;
block.nBits = nBits;
block.nNonce = nNonce;
+ block.auxpow = auxpow;
return block;
}
I'll put this test in production and see what happens. Thanks! Keep us informed. Shout out to cinnamon, you are my hero.  and would make an excellent addition to the board. I vote yes with a triple z snap ending over the shoulder. I will donate to the person that adds in the counterparty code to ix. But only after it is added in. It appears that friction wants 25k and already has 5k. If counterparty code goes in, then ix will easily be worth atleast $1. The gains alone will give you your remaining 20k easily friction. And you'll most likely STILL get a bounty. And when ix goes to $1 we will all have more $ to give as tips. ie: let me give you some of my future profits, in the future So, really it's a win win win win situation. You'll get the $ you ask for friction, but you'll also get all of the GLORY. Think about it... Friction the mighty dev of counterparty ix, assured a place in crypto Valhalla. Do it Do it Do it. Please?? Pretty Please with a cherry on top!? FrictionlessCoin offered to add Counterparty to iXcoin in exchange of 25k IXC. So far FrictionlessCoin has received 5k IXC. JohnnyBTCSeed has offered to donate ixc when the job is done (not clear if he meant the remaining 20k ixc) In the meantime Cinnamon_Carter has added minor improvements to ixc wallet. mmpool is straggling with errors generated by iXcoin client. So, I wonder: - Has FrictionlessCoin officially accepted the task to add Counterparty? If yes, have we a deadline? If no, is there anybody available to do it? (I hope FrictionlessCoin accepts the task) - Is the update going to bring iXcoin to the same update 0.9.1 of Bitcoin? - Is the Counterparty feature going to affect the compatibility of iXcoin with Bitcoin's future updates? - Are these errors going to delay the addition of Counterparty feature on iXcoin? In terms of priority, we need to fix this problem first. Have not started the CounterParty port yet. Counterparty feature is only dependent on the OP_RETURN feature that has been crippled by Bitcoin devs. That is why Counterparty price is sinking like a rock. Yes, we need to fix this. Note: Any new feature is dependent on the pools to accept the new client. So I can add any new feature I want, but many of the features won't be enabled unless the pools accept the changes. You know.... just occurred to me... it may be possible to add features without updating the clients that GHASH.IO uses... need to do some research on this. |
|
|
|
I also wonder if disconnecting the power, and the damage was a decoy to make me think the boards were damaged in shipping, when perhaps they were just non-working boards.
I can't prove any of this, but everyone may have different opinions on this.
Hard to prove that the damage was deliberate. However, very easy to prove negligence. The padding on my box was completely inadequate. Anyone from FEDEX will attest to this. |
|
|
|
AMT_Miners - Please do not delete this post until you answer my question on what I am supposed to do with this broken miner that is coming back to me. You told me you would pick it up at your local FedEx since the office was closed, but you never did.  MrPark... so FEDEX attempted 3 times to deliver the faulty product and failed 3 times. So are "delivery attempts" to be considered as "failed repair attempts"? If so, you should be covered by the Federal Lemon Law. |
|
|
|
This is the miner that was delivered to me:  Deleting this message is tantamount to willfull destruction of evidence. AMT keep that in mind. |
|
|
|
AMT_Miners - Please do not delete this post until you answer my question on what I am supposed to do with this broken miner that is coming back to me. You told me you would pick it up, but you never did. Yes, this is evidence. Deleting this is destruction of evidence. |
|
|
|
FEDERAL LEMON LAW http://www.carlemon.com/warranty_act.aspxThe federal Lemon Law (the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) provide for compensation to consumers of defective automobiles and trucks and other vehicles and products including motorcycles, RV's, boats, computers and other consumer appliances and products. To qualify under the federal Lemon Law, you must generally have a product that suffered multiple repair attempts under the manufacturer's factory warranty. Lemon Law compensation can include a refund, replacement or cash compensation. Here is AMT warranty: Warranty: This unit’s system board has a
lifetime warranty from manufacture defect
or component failure.
You can't just highlight the parts that you like. My question, is this not covered under the Federal Lemon Law? Sure it most likely is. But means you must receive a unit, send it back to them, and have them repair it. then when it gets back to you you'd have to hook it up and use it, and it would have to fail again. YOu'd send it back to AMT for a 2nd time they would fix it. You get back set it up running and it fails a 3rd time. You send to AMT they repair and send it back to you. If it doesn't work the 4th time then you can get a refund, replacement, or, cash compensation. So how does it work if the manufacturer (i.e. AMT) refuses to accept the item back? Is that evidence that they are indeed in contempt of the law? |
|
|
|
We have not edited the site/pricing because the lawyers said not to touch anything, and these guys know their stuff. Part of the filing was that "nothing can altered, edited etc". Also we haven't accepted a new order in the last 4 weeks, despite people that would like to pay. And that's the truth. So why adjust the pricing if we're not accepting the orders, we just marked it as sold out/out of stock.
So should we contact your lawyers to ask why the site says that you have a 2.4 TH/s that is available for shipment on April 1st? Which makes me also wonder, is AMT really selling an 2.4TH/s system and have you shipped these systems? Contact them. White & Williams LLP. Well, you tell us, are you selling a 2.4TH/s system? |
|
|
|
FEDERAL LEMON LAW http://www.carlemon.com/warranty_act.aspxThe federal Lemon Law (the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) provide for compensation to consumers of defective automobiles and trucks and other vehicles and products including motorcycles, RV's, boats, computers and other consumer appliances and products. To qualify under the federal Lemon Law, you must generally have a product that suffered multiple repair attempts under the manufacturer's factory warranty. Lemon Law compensation can include a refund, replacement or cash compensation. Here is AMT warranty: Warranty: This unit’s system board has a
lifetime warranty from manufacture defect
or component failure.
You can't just highlight the parts that you like. My question, is this not covered under the Federal Lemon Law? |
|
|
|
We have not edited the site/pricing because the lawyers said not to touch anything, and these guys know their stuff. Part of the filing was that "nothing can altered, edited etc". Also we haven't accepted a new order in the last 4 weeks, despite people that would like to pay. And that's the truth. So why adjust the pricing if we're not accepting the orders, we just marked it as sold out/out of stock.
So should we contact your lawyers to ask why the site says that you have a 2.4 TH/s that is available for shipment on April 1st? Which makes me also wonder, is AMT really selling an 2.4TH/s system and have you shipped these systems? |
|
|
|
The same 'filtered block' line (but different hash) in the last crash too. Perhaps something wrong with whatever filtered block handling is?
CMerkleBlock is used for filtered nodes. It holds a CBlockHeader. This is assigned in CMerkleBlock::CMerkleBlock using GetBlockHeader. This function doesn't copy the auxpow field. This is possibly why the null pointer accessing auxpow occurs. Possible fix: diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h
index bd21fe9..1221a88 100644
--- a/src/main.h
+++ b/src/main.h
@@ -1411,6 +1411,7 @@ public:
block.nTime = nTime;
block.nBits = nBits;
block.nNonce = nNonce;
+ block.auxpow = auxpow;
return block;
}
I'll put this test in production and see what happens. Thanks! Keep us informed. |
|
|
|
When I ordered back in November I thought the original delivery date was extremely aggressive but I was repeatedly assure that the dates were good. I honestly expected delivery in early February and I would still have made money. I also have a butterfly labs miner on order (at heavy discount due to their previous late deliveries). They are also 5 months late but they are going to deliver approximately 400% of the hash rate they originally offered (and have offered 100% refunds).
I understand that AMT may not have the money to offer 100% refunds immediately (this would be my preferred option at this point). I would take the the 6 months payout if I believed that I had a good chance of receiving the money, but I don't.
Not delivering a power supply and offering no refund for that cost is crazy.
Personally I think AMT should offer at least 3.6TH to replace the 1.2TH ordered. The difficulty has actually risen 8 fold since January so a threefold increase in performance is not even meeting us half way.
I do understand the difficult situation these guys are in, equally they should have some recourse to their suppliers (for example by receiving free chips from the chip designer).
I look forward to seeing some suggestions from AMT that give us some hope of a return of funds which they are required to offer by law.
I have brought things on Kickstarter and I understand the dangers of that type of purchase. This purchase was not made with those caveats and should not be subject to those risks.
I have to this point been extremely patient and generally supportive of AMT but I believe their current suggestions for resolution are a prime example of too little being offered.
+1 well said. I also think providing a 1.2T would be only 1/3 compensation at this point in the game. I think you are not alone, many of us feel because of the price drop an additional T's should be added, especially since AMT claims to be sooo good and have the best chips ETC. If companies that they (not us) think are not so good, like ANT S2 selling for $$2500 for 1T . They should be able to do much better and back up their claims of being so good and give is 3T for our $6000. They are talking out both sides of their mouth, on one hand telling us how they are better than spondoolies (which is not last years design but brand new design by the way); yet the don't want to beat their pricing. I am not even taking in account all the bitcoins we lost either. Exactly, they have not delivered anything on our $6,000 purchase. If they are to deliver anything now, then they should deliver something that is worth $6,000. At current rates that at least a 3 THs system. The fact that they have not changed the prices on their website appears to be a way to hide the reality that a 1 THs system can be bought for near $2,000. Yes, the defense lawyers are in on this scam by 'recommending' that the truth be manipulated. Is there any way to sue their lawyers as being accomplices? |
|
|
|
350+ pages, 6 months and still no working miners.
There have been several working miners and they have posted them here and discussed them. From the bitfury line to this line, the miners work but due to a manufacturer problem it caused further delays and a substantial financial loss which has made things tough. Specifically, who has a working miner? |
|
|
|
From the google groups forum; May 5David Irvine Ok I have had enough of the good work everyone is doing being hijacked by time wasters. I am going to become a little ruthless at banning people who come on this list and waste time. Its a waste of all of our time to read and worse answer some of these people. I think we are aware this is constantly the same people and the last few are just as bad. We had a guy trying to tell us he set up counterparty maidsafecoins and wanted us to buy the name for 5BTC. There have been other such people recently and these are just a PITA. I want the devs to get on with their work and this community to debate, design and discover the ways we can make SAFE a reality and get the testnets up and running. In terms of the crowd sale we finished the 2nd and last part of the Master Protocol discussions and this is recorded here http://mastercointalk.org/index.php?topic=460.0 and publicly available. I hope we all learn from this, but it is what it is. There were errors, tech issues and more. A combination of difficulties did arise and were dealt with. In any case we cannot go over it many times per day and we have to live with it all. Typically open and honest approach, unfortunately it attracts the weak and their alternative world view of things. It is best to stick to facts. In any case I will ban these people on sight and not waste any more of your time. I am sorry we have all had our focus taken off the ball with these people, I will try hard to make sure this is handled swiftly and efficiently. I may make mistakes and feel free to say if you think I do. Cheers folks (don't feed the trolls) -- David Irvine Secure email and chat: dir...@unseen.istwitter: @metaquestions blog: http://metaquestions.meBravo! Enough of the whining and the scamming and let's get down to business! |
|
|
|
At this point in the game, S2s are $2500 retail. Now minus coupons and bulk pricing, probably $2000 each 1T miner. This sucks ..
Heck, I got quoted from a Chinese manufacturer of coincraft A1 systems.... 1 THs for $2,000. Bulk |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I just noticed something very very interesting. On the AMT website, there are new, more in detail pictures of the lower power miners.
1. How could they possibly sell any of these for such a high price?
2. Why would they want to try to sell more of them if no one will buy them???
3. Does this mean that they're trying to make themselves look more professional?
4. Coincraft chip page is also updated and moved to the front of the list. Maybe they want to sell out all of the chips?
What do you guys think?
Also to AMT-
If you hadn't received my last message I will go with option 1. Please confirm. Thanks. (Order #1275)
The prices are completely out of whack with reality. The only logical reason why they are not reducing the price is this. If they say they reduce their 1.2 THs to a competitive price of $3,000, then all those who have ordered a miner and not received one will demand 2 miners instead of 1. The chip price is also bogus. Coincraft A1 chips are going for around $40 per chip now and asking double is also ridiculous. At this time it is becoming more and more pointless trying to negotiate with them. It is probably best to just talk to the lawyers, let them handle the ugly details. AMT at this time is not operating like any normal company. The entire website has not been updated and what they are selling right now are completely bogus and mis-priced. Think about it, Cointerra is selling a 1.6THs system for immediate delivery for $3,500. Why would anyone buy what AMT is selling? |
|
|
|
The pool had an ixcoin crash today: boost/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.hpp:412: typename boost::detail::shared_ptr_traits<T>::reference boost::shared_ptr< <template-parameter-1-1> >::operator*() const [with T = CAuxPow]: Assertion `px != 0' failed.
This is with the latest client. Same crash happened again today. The pool might have to go back to the older client. This is going to be a tough one to crack. Looks like a garbage collection problem! |
|
|
|
The people wanting miners now with the current hardware design are in for a game of Russian roulette as the miner could just as easily go bad or be bad leaving the assembly plant. I already had that experience. So has pretty much everyone else here. At this point getting hardware that works in my hands is all I care about. 1.2Ths of working hardware at this point would be nice. Since I ordered 2 miners I would obviously expect 2.4Ths of working hardware. But like I said if they go the route of getting us equivalent hardware and are able to save a few bucks going that route AND gets it to us fast...that would settle things really quick for them on alot of levels and we all get to move on. Lawsuit goes out the door (and sends a big fuck you to clenell with all your spamming insults in my inbox over my comments).
There's no way to predict what the end game is going to be here. Yeah, I guess it sucks to have $12,000 worth of equipment that does absolutely nothing. Well, I feel half or your pain. I have $6,000 worth of equipment sitting doing nothing in my basement. Anyone want to buy this junk from me? |
|
|
|
The problem is for them that's not legally viable. They need to fulfill at least the bare minimum on this or else it will be a much worse for them. Realistically they have the hardware already to reassemble. They have options to make this get turned around. chips is more expensive for everyone but them. and that is not acceptable. Might be for you so you can go that route. They were talking to you about the 40+10 options. You were trying to milk them for more than that and that is why that option was shut down...dont misrepresent the situation. They accepted, you just decided to take advantage for more of them and they declined as they can really as its their option.
Realistically speaking we know we are not getting refunds at this point....so if we have to settle on something then its to get WORKING hardware we paid for regardless of the source. If they want to truly make it up to us then getting us more THs for the money we paid would go a long way to addressing the already damaged customer relations situation they have here.
Milk them for more? I asked for 40+10 chips, however, I did not accept that I ship back their miner first. The logical thing to do since they have a habit of not accepting returns. Ideally, we all want more THs for the money. That would be inline with what was promised by the MPP. However, I have no idea of how many more months we all have to wait to receive hardware. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
