No, you are the one who refused. I privately offered you to bet up to 1000 BTC, and you chickened out  No, I have offered you a bigger amount. You are the one that refused and asked for a smaller bet up to 1000 btc. I'm interested in bigger amount sufficient to punish all BFL cheerleaders that are constantly poisoning every single thread that exposes BFL's shady business practices and lies. Someone will pay for all of them. As the most vocal among all the trolls I want you to pay for all of them! You have not offered anything: you were just trolling / lying. I don't believe you have anywhere close to thousands of BTC. That's why I asked you to prove ownership of a mere 1000 BTC, and you refused! So how could anybody believe you? Let me use your technique against yourself: I hereby declare I am willing to bet 20 thousand BTC. To get this bet started between you and I, I already sent a very real 0.1 BTC to our escrow address (see the PMs that casascius and I sent you): http://blockchain.info/address/18nG2DCC7DtBeMijVWWWYKmfe6BXXTBsdQI have taken the first step: I have bet more than you so far. Your turn. If you match this 0.1 BTC, I will send 10 BTC, then 100 BTC, then 1000 BTC, then 20000 BTC. Progressively increasing the amount each time. But I suspect you are going to come up a lame reason to even refuse to match this 0.1 BTC, thereby proving my point that I am willing to bet more than anybody else, especially more than you. I would be delighted to have you bet against me, becoin. Come on, time to put up or shut up  Send the BTC to the escrow address like I did! |
|
|
|
|
cedivad, you are wrong. Avalon is not a scam. Neither you nor I can prove our opinions quite yet - so just wait and see.
1) Yifu cannot give a tracking number because, I theorize, he used unofficial / alternative ways to get the package quickly to Jeff in order to work around typical delays caused by traditional shipping companies, exports customs, etc. Perhaps he had to bribe a carrier, or a customs agent, or ask a travelling friend to carry it on a plane, etc.
2) Yifu said "resistor" instead of "mosfets and inductors" in a heated post. He made a mistake. Big deal. Besides, even resistors/capacitors can cause a 4-6 week delay (which he wants to avoid) when ordered in quantities of about 1 million (each Avalon unit probably has 200 1200 resistors/capacitors, multiplied by 600 units = 720 thousand (Edit: fixed math)). It is also very likely that most of the resistors/capacitors would be the exact same model, as they will be used as a supporting logic for a device that is estimated to be composed of 80 ASICs or so (see my previous posts making this estimation). That's lots of repetitive identical logic blocks. Even Digikey in the US rarely carries individual models of SMD resistors in qantities of 1+ million. Here is a concrete example: only ~5% of the 4.7kOhm SMD resistors models on Digikey are available in quantities of 1+ million.
3) I perfectly understand the Avalon team's stance. Every piece of evidence posted by BFL has been criticized. Avalon saw that and said "f*ck this shit - we are not going to waste time arguing with these trolls - let them see the evidence once we ship. Period."
4) Ditto. They don't need to prove anything. Plus mining on the main net would anger customers as they would raise the difficulty level.
5) You will hear from Chinese customers (if any ordered) as soon as they get their units. Patience - they just barely started shipping!
|
|
|
|
Lets do some basic math:
For existing FPGA design the best can be had is 23MHps/J. There is no reason to anticipate an improvement in FPGA power efficiency, yes, there can be marginal reduction of overhead and the FPGA can be scaled up, but it's efficiency will not increase all that much. Based on existing designs we can anticipate 25MH/J for FPGA. There is nothing special abut ASIC, most ASIC vendors just use a custom programmed FPGA; this is called FPGA to ASIC conversion. So at best ASIC will be 50MHps/J;
You are wrong. A real-world SHA-256 130nm chip, non-optimized for Bitcoin, has already demonstrated 73 Mhash/J: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95762.0 Merely scaling down this non-optimal design from 130nm to 65nm would multiply the Mash/J efficiency by 4 (because efficiency is linearly proportional to the transistor junction area), making it 292 Mhash/J. Then it is not hard to imagine that optimizing the chip for Bitcoin (ie. two SHA-256 with no high-speed I/O since the same data block is hashed over and over locally, merely incrementing the nonce) would improve the efficiency by a factor or 2 or 3, therefore making it 584 Mhash/J or 876 Mhash/J. These numbers are not far from BFL's claims (1000 Mhash/J), making them plausible. And with 2-3 years of design, prototyping as well as about $1-$2 million start-up cost you can do it. No. The SHA-256 part of the ASIC that I pointed to was designed in weeks, not 2-3 years. It is open source and just a few hundred lines of VHDL: https://cryptography.gmu.edu/athena/index.php?id=source_codesAlso, yes, BFL can, and probably did, spend about $1M developing their ASIC so far. They have received more than $1M of preorders (proven), plus additional venture capital (according to them). They can definitely foot the bill. Also, the Avalon team seems to have been able to do it for less than $300-400k (excluding salaries), based on their price quotes from TSMC with poorly obscured prices ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120184.msg1381782#msg1381782 ). This validates anecdotal evidence of private wealthy individual engineers having designed their own ASIC for personal projects for only a few hundred thousand dollars. Bottom line, yes Bitcoin ASICs are definitely financially doable by teams with the funding of BFL and Avalon. If you doubt this, I encourage you to bet against the "BFL is real" bet (see link in my signature) - you would make a killing if you are right |
|
|
|
I agree! I will send 20 coins in ~3 hours. Let me know when you are ready to add even more...
I have offered you even more. You refused. So, stop trolling! No, you are the one who refused. I privately offered you to bet up to 1000 BTC, and you chickened out Are you changing your mind? If so, casascius, please create becoin and I an (A, B) pair of escrow codes. |
|
|
|
Lets do some basic math:
For existing FPGA design the best can be had is 23MHps/J. There is no reason to anticipate an improvement in FPGA power efficiency, yes, there can be marginal reduction of overhead and the FPGA can be scaled up, but it's efficiency will not increase all that much. Based on existing designs we can anticipate 25MH/J for FPGA. There is nothing special abut ASIC, most ASIC vendors just use a custom programmed FPGA; this is called FPGA to ASIC conversion. So at best ASIC will be 50MHps/J;
You are wrong. A real-world SHA-256 130nm chip, non-optimized for Bitcoin, has already demonstrated 73 Mhash/J: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95762.0 Merely scaling down this non-optimal design from 130nm to 65nm would multiply the Mash/J efficiency by 4 (because efficiency is linearly proportional to the transistor junction area), making it 292 Mhash/J. Then it is not hard to imagine that optimizing the chip for Bitcoin (ie. two SHA-256 with no high-speed I/O since the same data block is hashed over and over locally, merely incrementing the nonce) would improve the efficiency by a factor or 2 or 3, therefore making it 584 Mhash/J or 876 Mhash/J. These numbers are not far from BFL's claims (1000 Mhash/J), making them plausible. |
|
|
|
Yeah, probably a big fluke... spiccioli Current diff is ~3.44 million. Estimated next diff is ~3.39 million. Bitcoin Charts don't show anything out of the ordinary. I think it'll be a lil more obvious than this when ASICs do hit. sure crazyates, but a couple hours ago it was at 3.87 million from current 2.9 million... This happens all the time. Look at the Bitcoin Charts link he posted. In the last week, the 8-hour average varied from 2.5 to 4 million, the 24-hour average varied from 2.8 to 3.4 million, etc. This is just normal statistical variation. Not a fluke. |
|
|
|
|
I just sent 20.00007985 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree! I will send 20 coins in ~3 hours. Let me know when you are ready to add even more...
|
|
|
|
|
Sold 2 more PSUs. Updated OP.
|
|
|
|
|
Micon,
I don't know what can be simplified in the terms of our wager. There is a date, and a basic Mhash/Joule efficiency metric whose only purpose is to differentiate ASICs from other technologies. What do you want to research exactly, in order to bet more? If you have questions, let me know.
|
|
|
|
A simple technical solution to how to update the price would be for instance to have a cron job running every n minute. For instance, every 3rd minute. Then writing this value to a database or a file. Database would probably be best.
Then, when script executes server side, fetch this number from the database and display it in the web store.
* mrb puts optimization hat on head Personally I would just store the exchange rate in a js/json file, and have the browser calculate the Bitcoin price on the client side with javascript code multiplying the exchange rate with whatever USD price is in the html page. That opens up the possibility to update the Bitcoin prices in the page almost in real time with zero load on the web server. |
|
|
|
|
And I sold my last mobos. I now only have PSUs left for sale.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok.
By the way, if you have imported the private key for our 0.002 BTC test, you should see that your Bitcoin balance has automatically increased by 0.002 (there is no instant visual cue that the key was imported). You can also manually go to the address book, and look for the presence of the escrow bitcoin address.
If you want to move the 0.002 BTC out of the wallet key, the simplest way is to make a transfer of an amount X such as X + fees = 0.002. For example if your client is configured with the default fee of 0.0005, then send 0.0015 to any of your other addresses. Most likely you will only have one key securing 0.002 BTC, so the client will decide to take the fund from this key. (Or there may be a "send from" option in the Bitcoin-QT GUI, I don't know, I have never used the GUI.)
|
|
|
|
|
No, browsers that don't support <wbr> degrade very nicely: they act as if <wbr> was not present. No special char needs to be removed.
|
|
|
|
Micon, let's assume you win the coin flip - I already PM'd you my escrow code "A" - so go ahead and claim the 0.002 BTC Also, can you PM me your escrow code "B" so I can attempt to get my 0.001 BTC back for the first test? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
