Again, I have to emphasize that "export control" is not a founded reason because no one in China has received it.
That implies zero internal security, and we all know China is a heavy-surveillance state. It would not be unheard of for the entire batch to await approval, foreign or domestic. State security looks at the cryptography devices, and gives a yes-or-no answer for the entire hardware type. |
|
|
|
Very existential. Do I exist? That is something I must ponder at length. In the mean time, put down the crack pipe / energy drink and take a deep breath. In the real world -- i.e. the world outside a teenaged troll's bedroom, the world outside the Internet -- manufacturing and shipping and customs and all that jazz can take weeks for a first run product. This is not Amazon.com, where products have already been shipped to warehouses weeks or months before your order. Cryptography is most definitely "export controlled", which means the government pays very close attention to it. In fact, in the United States, cryptography software was considered "export grade munitions" until year 1996 or so. Exporting PGP software to Canada required as much paperwork in 1990 as exporting a rocket laucher w/ rockets. If in the worst case, Avalon is a scam, we cannot rightly be suspicious for a few more weeks yet. And for the record, I do not think Avalon or BFL are scams at this time. It is still a race between BFL and Avalon at this point, and -- as we see -- any number of factors may impact the outcome. P.S. DISCLAIMER: I don't know anything more than you guys do, on this thread, with regards to shipping, customs and arrival. All of this is speculation, even if it is a bit more informed speculation than most in this thread  |
|
|
|
It's flabbergasting that people deposited serious amounts of money on a website, created by a teen in 4 days.
+1000 Well, first, it is amazing that high profile bitcoin luminaries would keep any amount of serious money on a remote website. When bitcoinica first appeared, pretty much 100% of bitcoin web wallets had been hacked and most had been DDoS'd as well. Your own encrypted, decentralized, backed up computer is far more secure than (at that time) that proven track record. And, as you say, who would trust that much money to a teen running a fly-by-night website, who had no experience in the area of finance in question? Especially given HK's reputation it seemed likely that Bitcoinica was a bucket shop or possibly associated with organized crime in some way. |
|
|
|
To someone that knows it, is it normal for a parcel shipped with a 100$ DHL service or so to take 2 weeks to reach the old continent from China?
Can't get a clue over it.
It might take a while, the very first time a newly created piece of hardware clears Chinese customs. Presumably there would be less delay for later units, as customs would already be familiar with that hardware. |
|
|
|
I was surprised that I was the only core developer who paid for a unit. This is not actually true, I bought four Avalon units. (I didn't see any reason to whine about being snubbed in public, but since it's now being repeated as fact— I might was well correct it). I stand corrected. That was what the Avalon guy told me. No tracking/shipping info yet. |
|
|
|
BitcoinStore review update: - My order was filled, shipped, and arrived today
- One item, Victorinox mini-knife, was backordered.
- I was notified within 24 hours of the backordered item, via zendesk support interface. They offered to refund, or let me wait for the item. Opted to wait for the item (while the remainder of the order shipped immediately).
- The rest of the items arrived in a single box, marked "MemoryDealers", via FedEx Ground to my North Carolina/USA location.
- Everything packaged well, and functioned as expected. Purchased two LED mini-flashlights, a clock, a knife and a set of Wine Enthusiast beer glasses.
- Accurate packing list was enclosed with package
- Notified via both email and zendesk support personnel of USPS/FedEx tracking numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Order #xx2, placed on 08/09/2012.
Refund requested 01/13/2013.
Reply received 01/17/2013 from Dave stating "I'll be submitting your request to Tom in today's batch"
No refund received yet as of this writing (01/21/2013).
|
|
|
|
No, that is not the case at all. And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim. All right. Could you demonstrate that? File modification time is simply a data field in the compressed archive, trivial to change. Getting the compressed and uncompress archive sizes to match is only marginally more difficult. The compressed archive likely includes per-file hashes or CRCs already... that is the data highly difficult to duplicate (i.e. the part you did not post). The documents contains references to OpenPGP certificates of the GLBSE shareholders. That is impossible to forge.
Irrelevant. OpenPGP data is typically already public... it needs to be, to independently verify signatures. |
|
|
|
A release candidate 0.8-rc1 will be "real soon now." We especially need Windows testers. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129861.0The more Windows testers we can get, the sooner 0.8 is released. Please help! Even an "it works for me" report is great. Test the basics -- sending and receiving money -- or more exhaustive tests if you are motivated. |
|
|
|
Without hash protection, that does not prove you altered the original compacted archive (or not). Too late now, as that is missing from your original posting. I listed details of each file: name, date and size. Any change made in any file would change one or more of that details and change the total size of the decompressed files. Therefore, the encrypted version of the written declaration will PROVE that I did NOT changed any part of the documents. No, that is not the case at all. And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim. |
|
|
|
You need someone with an authentic copy to cooperate. Okay, they probably would have released them in the first place if they would cooperate in such a circumstance, but I don't see any reason not to publish the hashes either. If they are indeed factual, it's unlikely that people will come out and claim that they aren't based on the hashes, because that would need a conspiracy, which would be hard to establish at this point. So, by not releasing the hashes, you are making a case against yourself.
That is why I posted the encrypted written declaration with details of the compacted archive. That will show I did not altered the original compacted archive sent to my electronic mail. Without hash protection, that does not prove you altered the original compacted archive (or not). Too late now, as that is missing from your original posting. If you are in the bitcoin community and do not understand what a hash algorithm does, that is quite odd. |
|
|
|
Just UP the files somewhere. There's no need for drama or suspense.
Otherwise, you made up those files.
Notably, when contacted privately, OP was not interested in posting hashes for the data, leaving no way for the data to be verified by other entities as fiction, or non-fiction (without a line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence comparison). Smells like fiction + drama. How do you differ fictional data from factual data only with 'hashes'? Anyone else with the documents may compare their hash to the hash of the data you post. Thus "verified by other entities" |
|
|
|
Just UP the files somewhere. There's no need for drama or suspense.
Otherwise, you made up those files.
Notably, when contacted privately, OP was not interested in posting hashes for the data, leaving no way for the data to be verified by other entities as fiction, or non-fiction (without a line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence comparison). Smells like fiction + drama. |
|
|
|
There are lots of posts on BFL forums where users write something like: "The shipping thread names two recipients. Therefore there are only two units shipping, QED."
Although I'm obviously biased... BFL really should do that, too. Most major manufacturers ship out demo and review units of hardware before the mass production units are shipped to vendors/stores/customers. Even if BFL only shipped out two units, it would prove they have working hardware and start everyone salivating |
|
|
|
Two weeks? One hopes they did not ship it via slow-boat! which serious shipping time do you really expect? (in which location?) TIA My shipping location is the United States (North Carolina). FedEx could get it here quickly, but that involves expensive airplanes. Could be 48 hours, could be a week or two. Who knows. |
|
|
|
everyone patience if they have already shipped it, in next one or two weeks jgarzik will receive it we will know
Two weeks? One hopes they did not ship it via slow-boat! (for the record, I do not know shipping method, nor have a tracking number) |
|
|
|
Thank you jgarzik. But wouldn't it be really easy for someone from Avalon just to take a photo before shipping, its kinda weird and smells fishy - selling something with no pic.
Quoting Lunostre on reddit, which seems like a sane response: Pics would be nice, but this is a low fuss company. The manually assempled FPGA's he sold last year was produced on order and driven to the post office on moped.
They might have ramped up their operation, but they don't do much publich relations. Located in China and if Bitcoin becomes viral there, this technically bright guy, could find him self in a lot of legal trouble, as manufacturing Bitcoin hardware could be considered subversive and against several laws.
I have no association with Avalon other than being a customer, FWIW. Tiny operations in China/Taiwan/HK often work like this. |
|
|
|
|
I'll post photos and a review when my unit arrives.
I was surprised that I was the only core developer who paid for a unit. Followed the shotgun approach: ordered units from all the people working on ASICs.
|
|
|
|
Oh, and an I-dare-you-to-add-this product, that I think might have a niche bitcoin market: solar panels. Promise to buy at least one |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
