It's a great chip but I think AM's chip easily on par even though was a "failure". - 1 year later...

To date AM has never made an amazing chip...they just had chips en masse first. The huge divs were because they were early and sold over priced hardware. Sorry to sound negative, but I just do not get why you guys think AM is so amazing. Maybe gen 4 will be a killer, but competition these days are no joke.

When taking (pre)orders, you can generally bet against vendor claims for rather obvious reasons. Bitfury however is one of the few exceptions so far, delivering their asics pretty much on target (what was it, one day late?) and on spec (also in a different league than the competition, outclassing 28nm competitors with a 55nm design).

They got their money from VCs and only released this information long after securing the funding. They have very little incentive to lie or even exaggerate.  If it where a bluff intended to scare competition, it would be too late to have a meaningful impact.

Show me where Bitfury announced a 40 or 20nm design, specs and timetable and then blew it.

Out of passing curiosity, feel free to point out where the CEO of a competitor made that claim, but I dont even see how thats relevant.

List of recent failures:
- Still didn't TO their custom UMC 40nm effort (AFAIK, unconfirmed)
- Scrapped big 28nm ASIC on Thermals. They got burnt from big ASICs and keeping the small ASICs design approach.
- Scrapped 20nm custom ASIC effort. "Too complicated and takes too much time". Straight from the horse mouth.
- Starting again a fully custom 28nm ASIC

BTW, how's  your petamine investment doing?

Wait are you saying that address its pbminings proof?

Keep dreaming Jimmy. Bitfury already manages 0.62J/GH at the wall on 55nm with their very first design. And it can do 0.5J/GH when underclocked. There never was a failed 40, 28 let alone 20nm BF design.

You're absolutely bonkers trying to spin this as somehow being a positive for AM.  Its right up there with the dude saying having 3x worse power efficiency is a good thing because it allows you to serve different markets.

A few hints for you: BF has no incentive to maintain less than 51% of the network. Aside from selling actual hardware they also resell and host a significant portion of their hashrate to partners like cryptx and DigitalBTC. No one cares if >51% of the network runs on hardware produced by the same vendor. 

Moreover, BF doesnt have to fill its DC's to capacity. They will add hashrate for as long it makes financial sense, regardless of their % of the network. If it no longer makes financial sense for BF to add more, despite having access to hardware at cost, access to extremely cheap hosting and electricity (check out their datacenter design and electricity prices in georgia republic) and despite probably having (by far) the most power efficient hardware, then who do you think will buy or deploy AM gear?

Of course, bitfury still has to make good on its promises, it may fail to deliver, or you may hope on it being a bluff, but based on their trackrecord, I wouldnt bet a satoshi on that.

Hashnest sells GHS at 0.001125 BTC.

If PBM can´t cover the costs at .0016, then how do you guys figure Hashnest does it?

Or are they a scam as well ?

They said when? January? August? Did they say that their operations or most of them were in Canada? Just because the headquarters are there doesn´t necessarily mean that the operations are there too.

Who´s the head of the co.? CEO, whatever.

But are you sure they´re in Iceland? I mean, it´s a tiny place. Everybody knows everybody else. It´s not like you´re searching for something in bloody China. Not a very promising location for a cloud mining scam.

And why haven´t the competitors sent someone to check this out? Or hired someone locally.

As for the costs you mention, it´s possible that they´re just a department (a room of racks) in a private company which mainly mines for its owners and has this as a side business.

But what does it have to do with PB Mining? Are you saying that they´re part of this Verne Group? I never claimed that this news story had anything to do with PBM as you may or may not have noticed.

Please pay attention.

Landsvirkjun doesn´t provide electricity to the location covered in that news story I posted.

You people are very quick to assume and very loose with actual facts.

Maybe I´ll waste some time on you later, maybe throw you a bone if I notice some signs of domestication.

http://www.landsvirkjun.com/productsservices/valueproposition
$43/MWh ($0.043/kWh)
Still not cheap enough to justify pbmining's rates. With the best announced hardware (Spondoolies SP35, 0.6J/GH) 5 years of power would be 26.28kWh and cost $1.13/GH/s at that price. That's 0.0029BTC of the 0.0016BTC they are charging per GH/s, leaving -0.0013BTC to spend on everything else.
Even with not-yet-designed 0.2J/GH hardware, you're looking at $0.377/GH/s just for power, or 0.00098BTC of the 0.0016BTC/GH/s they charge, leaving 0.0006BTC/GH/s to acquire HW, maintain/upgrade it for 5 years, and make a little money.

Thank you for being reasonable.  Did you know the GN1 is very fuel efficient if you underclock it?  You can get it down to about 0.5GH/w at around half speed.

You act as if HF is the first company in history to go bankrupt despite having a superior product, but you are far too old for that to be the case.  

Both definitions are correct, but in common usage the complete die(s)+substrate package constitutes a chip.

If I'm wrong, please tell the class what competing die(s)+substrate object offers higher performance than HF's.  Come on, don't be shy.  You can do it!  Oh wait, no you can't.  

Since you want to be a pedant, let's just agree that HF's GH per sq mm of wafer is the highest of any design, regardless of how obnoxiously narrowly you want to define "chip."  

Why do you keep defending HF like you are Hashfast_CL's retarded little sister? "We got the fastest chip". Who cares. Bottom line  matters: HF did not deliver a working solution to their customers on time. And it turns out that most of it is to blame to incompetence too.

Are you too cranky to acknowledge the simple fact that HF's 750GH/s/chip (whether full or partial custom) is still the world record holder by a large margin?

PS  Inaba, it's one chip with four dies.  Chip = [die(s) + substrate package].

Its to represent that what they pulled with the 65nm delays, mis-selling, making potentially false/misleading claims, potentially misleading statements about tapeout etc, targeting new buyers with insanely old hardware and the repeated 'tradeups' with the second generation delays. Simply put, no other company has come close to what BFL did over the last 18-24 months - as highlighted by the FTC taking over the company. Blackarrow is getting close, but they're not at that level yet and still have an opportunity to fix it.

Now let's keep this thread on topic and tell me what's the difference between AM's pre-orders and SP-Tech's ones and if they should be on par or not in dogie's guide.

Please re-read my post. SP-Tech has chips in hand since August. What's the difference between AM and SP-Tech if they both have chips in hand and the product are already developed?

The SP20 should give better results then what we published. We'll get the faster ASICs in 2 weeks and revise the spec.

They have also announced that they are broke (aka bankrupt) and have had a large amount of coins stolen (apparently their security isn't great as they also apparently had their email list stolen). So that should also fit in somewhere.