 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
So ... I don't see the flaw in this concept (other than if you are totally fixated on money) and the fact that it isn't 'compression' - it's simply throwing away data that can be regenerated within an allowable short amount of time.
 |
|
|
|
Excellent! I pay price for not reading all of thread. I will review now. EDIT: After review, if take 5000 eligible units and increase throughput from 210 to 255 mhash/sec, will generate almost 74btc extra per day at current difficulty. If take all extra, exceed 700btc in less than ten days. With real commission, inverse ratio for break-even. 19 days for 50%, 38 days for 25%, and so on. 5000 units is 1250 4-chip boards. That is acceptable estimate. |
|
|
|
First, none of this has anything to do with opensourcing the bitstreams or not. Regardless of how much hardware he has personally, this wouldn't change either way. I fail to see how this is relevant.
or c) He feels the IP has value outside just the amount of commission he might make, and he might want to leverage it for something else.
Just because MS isn't selling Windows XP anymore doesn't mean they're going to GPL the source if you cut them a cheque for a couple thousand bucks.
That's the problem though. This particular IP's purpose is to generate profit directly. Therefore, the IP actually doesn't have any other value outside the amount of commission he would make with it unless it is sold entirely, such as through the bounties offered. That's the point. The only way it would have an increased value to the creator is if it is somehow generating more profit than we're led to believe. Regardless of how someone may feel about their IP, it's worthless if in the end there is little to nothing to show for it. You can't compare Windows XP to this bitstream. Windows XP was successfully sold to millions at a profit already, and XP licenses are still valid. Windows XP has turned a profit for MS, so, they have no reason to accept a "couple thousand bucks" to open source it. The difference here is, assuming this bitstream legitimately does what we're told as advertised and nothing more, then the creator has not profited from it and will not profit from it more than the value of the up front bounties offered to simply release it in source form. I try one more time. Imagine Dr. Tyrell has invented new shovel design. It can move more dirt than every other shovel and is ergonomic so user can work all day. If he sells Stakhanov Shovel as design for $7700, that is all he makes. If he rents shovels for percentage of improved dirt moved, he makes x dollars minus cost of production and maintenance (signcryption services). If he hires 500 people and gives them shovels to mine own land, he makes full profits of improved output, minus cost of production and maintenance of shovels and cost of labor and land use. Math homework for you. How much rental makes him 700btc? How much makes for him 700btc for custom hardware he keep private? |
|
|
|
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie. 700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.
Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission. This is exactly what I've been saying. The only reasons, that make any sense, to turn down such an obvious route to profit would be if there were either a) more profit to be made from shady code running on the device, or b) the code running on the device is in some way illegal to use or release in the first place. Does not have to be illegal or shady. Could be ASIC of his own. If I can afford ASIC run, he can, especially if he has mined many bitcoins with improved bitstreams. Could also have access to better FPGAs with more gates that better to suit algorithmic approach. Think if BFL mined instead of selling. |
|
|
|
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie. 700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.
Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission. |
|
|
|
There have been some really good technical mudslinging threads about what constitutes a true full custom ASIC, but there is no question that more than one solution is really being produced. The chances of them all coming out if the same factory in China is not even remotely likely.
I think confusion comes from confusing chip etching and assembly. Quite possible chips are etched in same facility, perhaps even same wafers. Not sure if China includes other China (Taiwan) but is possible. As for assemble units for sale, is very unlikely that same facility is making BFL, etc. boards. Many PCB assembly in China, Taiwan, Viet Nam, USA, everywhere. Not so many chip fabs. Relationships much easier to establish with PCB assembly. Send tech packs, request quotes and samples, test, good going. Chip etching is much more expensive, so most relationships with intermediary trusted by fab to verify chip design so not to waste production run or fab time. |
|
|
|
Is interesting, with such imperfect information, that angry mob assumes 700btc (7700 dollars?) is adequate compensation for Dr. Tyrell's time and creation. Well, 700 BTC may not be adequate, but it's more than getting almost nothing from commissions. (Are commissions actually enabled currently?) Do you know what's not adequate for sure? Calling us "mob". Looking at your signature it seems like you need to brag about things - just FYI, I'm currently making a master degree in physics. I am not good at discerning some humor in English, so I do not know if you are making joke about bragging. My joking is my drop-out of law school. Point is, don't take self so seriously. If you are not joke, then apologies for confusing you. The imperfect information is exactly and precisely demonstrated by primary statement. Is commission Dr. Tyrell's means of making money from bitstream? That is big assumption. We know he is working on project, and he has said he devotes time to project at expense of miner. If project uses bitstream IP and makes more than 700btc, then no point to open source at this time. At least two sides to every issue. I am trying to think of Dr. Tyrell's motivation for not release open source. Seems most obvious case. I claim mob because much anger directed by many people who have no claim to Dr. Tyrell. Other word better, is fine. It is appropriate to my eyes. |
|
|
|
|
Is interesting, with such imperfect information, that angry mob assumes 700btc (7700 dollars?) is adequate compensation for Dr. Tyrell's time and creation. That is less than week of consulting income. How many hours spent developing? How much mining does Tyrell do with bitstream?
Dr. Tyrell may have to rely on Zhou to make eyes, but he has assembled his own hardware that uses bitstream. He has healthy advantage that mob needs to understand before price of open-sourcing software is smart move on his part.
Want is different than deserve or earn.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there customers? Can I pay for improving access and support? I would like this, both for myself and to support other bitheads.
|
|
|
|
I wasn't exactly comparing them, as BFL does not make chips. They sort of implied they do but now they claim they weren't referring to the chips. They admit their chips are made in Asia. Taiwan if I'm not mistaken and that's where most of them are. You can probably count the number of high end and/or custom chip manufacturing plants in the world on 2 hands. It's just that they sell to one company that sells to another that sells to another that sells to BFL. The same goes for Marvell and Phision and SiS and even Samsung for example. I think maybe Nvidia owns their own chip fab plant but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually didn't.
Maybe the 2nd gen ASIC's will be "more" custom then these first gen. You typically don't have another generation unless you screw up. That's the point of ASICs. You hard wire everything within, create the masks and manufacturer processes and then you have incredibly complex chips that have a sizable upfront cost but very low production cost. Contrary to what a lot of people thing you can design ASICs to accept some parameters, which makes them in a way re-programmable (this is bounded by what you design into them though). It's also quite popular to include in the ASIC a processor like an Arm8 or something. (I don't think BFL is doing this based upon looking over the layout they released a couple weeks back). Not so much difficult. Expense largely in size of die and count of layers. Many runs of small size that use netlist can share common layers and only etch custom code in one layer. Mask much simpler this way. I do not think any of current makers have sales to do any method other than this. This is most common of ways of making ASIC from FPGA prototype. I do not think there has been enough time to create four or five layer mask just for mining bitcoins. Is too expensive in start up costs to go that way. Could be wrong. It happen once before. |
|
|
|
It's immoral and illegal.
But... people giving out personal information to strangers on the internet who doesn't really need them for their business... They kind of deserve it.
Woman walking down street when she not need to deserve robbed or raped? Why you to blame victims? You know circumstances? |
|
|
|
Is you be joking happy time? Wire-wrap and ASIC. I would think you would at least have access to a reflow oven.  If you're not joking, I'd like to hear more. At least I know you can do math. I joke about wire wrap, of course. I am not sure about your first sentence, but I take feeling you are teasing my about my English. Look down for explanation in signature. I am serious but fun for mining chip. I have many old FPGA developer kits and have been creating small footprint unrolled bitcoin miners as hobby. Performance is bad alone but together, I can make all worth two dollars per hour spent on hobby. I breaking even after 30 million bitcoins are found. Mathematics makes proof ! |
|
|
|
FPGA conversion to ASIC (by yourself or by vendor) is not too expensive if you have research or student access. Is cost more than GPU card and less yield than full custom run, but you can work with fab scheduling companies to put chips on margin of wafer already being processed. Simpler is better, because charge by mm^2 and layers. I have done for other purposes in grad school and am looking into bitcoin ASIC for fun. I probably go for many simple hasher chips than many core, so is not commercially viable. Simple chip to wire wrap, too. My estimates are less $100 chip, packaged, for 50-100 chips. Could be more, is always case. I plan to test on main net. You must fear my 50 times .5 gigahashes per second in lunchbox. |
|
|
|
|
I started mining with VMs (USB devices only) so can separate access with VLAN tagging and ipfw. Is working well once set up and allows lightweight virtual machines.
Next need is USB-over-ethernet or USB/IP to support migration between servers possible.
|
|
|
|
Take Single to BFL with you. Test return process and customer services. Chance you get new ASIC Single instead. I will buy for $500 if so! |
|
|
|
Start a competitor to your past employer with the data as seed data. Never sell it. Never share it.
People are getting worked up over the ethics of this data. Every sales person in the world takes their client list with them when they leave or are fired from their employer. Sales people are poached by competitors solely because they have know the client list of the competition. Sales, biz dev, press officers, CxOs are all poached by competitors for their data and connections. The business world is a brutal place when you see it from the executive level. Ethics quickly go out the window when you deal with 8+ figure revenues and profits.
Take them across the street and sell them to Jerry Graff. I need the Glengarry leads! The Glengarry leads would be wasted on someone like you! Love this movie. I watched to learn speaking English. Did not help as you can tell, but good time anyway. Fuck you, that's my name! Is priceless. |
|
|
|
Actual Changes from TML 1.11 to 1.12:
* a bit of whitespace here and there
* changed the default bitstream name from kreisel to leibniz
* fixed a misspelled parameter name in the usage info screen
* changed a couple of copyright headers
* bumped the version number to 1.12
Looks if code changed to avoid send of shares below difficulty. May be because of load on TML servers. It would be excuse for not allowing connections from older client. Bitstreams significantly differ, but could be result of compilation of minor change. Appears some midstate java code calls simplified. Could be reason for larger bitstream, to move into fpga. Midstate changes relate to signcryption and could be server affecting as well. I am guessing based on simple analysis of available source code and eyeball + tools of bitstreams. |
|
|
|
Not sure what goes on here. Why is seller not responding to thread?
what do you want me to say? i am still getting offers. but so far not good enough offers. Normal people post counter offers. Stupid to fish in river with no bait on hook. Perhaps you are fishy enough? |
|
|
|
|
Not sure what goes on here. Why is seller not responding to thread?
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what is going on here, are you acting as an 'agent' to sell this debt? I thought you were one of the guys who were shouting ponzi on here from ages ago? Or am I mixing you up with someone else?  Not an agent. Yes, I shouted ponzi, but that is after their announcements to cease payment. I am selling b/c not everyone believe they are ponzi, and like I said, HK is still paying, and imsaguy plus others is trying to pay in the future. Don't like unknowns, if I can get a reasonable offer, I'd rather sell it now. What is reasonable offer for each debt, and what is actual debt for each? Then we can choose menu. |
|
|
|
|
