Bitcoin Forum
April 17, 2014, 06:24:44 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 ... 200
481  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: CoinTerra Engineering Update: TerraMiner IV Hashing Live on: January 15, 2014, 07:56:22 AM
The address used with Eligius was 1CTtm4iiwqt35Rgew1DQW6Yo3 as far as I could see. That's not a complete address. The rest wouldn't fit in the window. I looked on Eligius's Contributors page ( and couldn't find that, so I'm guessing they shut down the miner (or pointed it at a different pool) at least 3 hours ago.
Or they punched in the address wrong and it was invalid.
482  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: January 15, 2014, 07:41:09 AM
you never been to court have you?   fight the battles that you can win not ones you want to win.. in fact anything you know you can't win you shouldn't even bring up.  Go after what they said in the early refund responses
They attorneys taking it on contingency on the amounts above and beyond the offered settlements sure don't seem to agree with you. Everyone can also see the clear and explicit promises of 1:1 Bitcoin refunds both in public and in private communications. By all means, anyone who somehow didn't get the message that 1:1 refunds on failure were part of the deal and didn't make their purchasing decision because of it: take the settlement— leave the assets for the recovery of those of us who relied on the original terms.
483  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [185 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool on: January 15, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
Antminers actually have a significant advantage on P2Pool.
The antminer graph I posted above has considerably better latency than the Avalon batch 1s (which still happily get me 100% eff).
484  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [185 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool on: January 15, 2014, 07:14:03 AM
Avalons don't work properly
Work absolutely fine.
and Antminers don't work properly
also work fine.

(My selective quoting is only of the hardware that I'm personally running hundreds of GH/s on P2Pool with but given that you're outright wrong about those, I assume the rest of your list is equally BS)

Antminers are not responding to LP/work restart, don't bother to setup p2pool for them, they are just not compatible and you will get 30% or more Rejected work.
Single blade antminer S1, Works fantastically on P2Pool:

And if there are non-trivial numbers of people with miners that don't respond to LPs then you sure as heck don't want to be sharing a pool with them. Higher latency or the lack of LP will ding (severely!) you on P2Pool but these things increase orphaned blocks generally. With other pools that aren't so critical amount miner timeliness that cost is shared by the miners. If your setup isn't screwy you're paying for other people's screwyness. Not on P2Pool.
485  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Newbie guide to ASIC vendors on: January 15, 2014, 07:01:19 AM
Usually when the presentation of a matter of fact is contested you can usually make a version which everyone agrees is acceptable simply by adding a bit more information.

Instead of  "Their 28nm product is already 2-3 months late and no silicon in sight so far", you can say something like:

For their latest 28nm product BFL originally advertised a target of X, but when they also said "this timeline is not a hard and fast timeline and is not meant to be the bible of how we will be rolling out this product." and "This is our current projected timeline. It is subject to change." they weren't kidding around: It's now X past that "target" and the network difficulty is now Y times higher then when they started taking orders, and they haven't yet demonstrated a working chip much less shipped any to anyone.

As far as criticism goes, I think this is even more effective (e.g. tells the reader why they should care), avoids the rat hole of arguing over what "late" means which some readers may use as an excuse to justify ignoring your complaint ("I read elsewhere that it was just a target, this guy has an axe to grind!"), and avoids sounding too whiny.

When you've really got a strong position you can usually concede every ambiguous point to your opponent and walk away all the more convincing for it. Getting into knife fights over every last issue makes you look weak, desperate, or biased (something some of the vendors around here should learn!).
486  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: CoinTerra announces its first ASIC - Hash-Rate greater than 500 GH/s on: January 15, 2014, 06:00:07 AM
You don't need to be validating real non-testnet blockchain headers to validate that your ASIC can perform double SHA256 operations correctly. 
Testing on the public network is actually a really poor test, in fact.  It doesn't test a gamut of difficulties, it doesn't test large block sizes (most pools are only generating 250k blocks right now), it doesn't test large coinbase transaction sizes, it doesn't necessairly tell you that your devices have severe latency problems (isn't obvious on the public network with a short test, but kills you if you want to merge mine with a fast chain).

Several miners have shipped from hardware makers with firmware which had severe problems with larger blocks as a result of inadequate testing.

I'm also of the opinion that testing should generally not be done on the public network, and that any "testing" done on the public network for demonstration or burn-in purposes should be limited to small amounts and ought to be 100% paid to the customers. Anything less creates creates a conflict of interests.

But hey, in a free decentralized system no one can dictate the terms from the top down. So if we want good conduct from hardware makers we're going to have to demand it as a community, or just hope that they'll adopt it on their own to foster goodwill. ::shrugs::

In any case, great to see that CoinTerra has hardware up and hashing.
487  Bitcoin / Mining / MOVED: [QRK] QuarkCoin Mining NEW (Detailed Explanation) on: January 15, 2014, 04:03:09 AM
This topic has been moved to Mining (Altcoins).
488  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: January 15, 2014, 03:09:50 AM
Batch 1, Paid BTC, Canadian, and received an unsolicited USD refund cheque today.
Are you going to cash it?
I don't think he has a choice.
They're really fucking us over.
Of course you have a choice.

Anyone who doesn't think you have a choice: please PM me your address, I'll be sending you $1 payments for the purchase of your homes.  (or better, if you happen to know the address of any person who doesn't believe they have a choice, please PM me their address, and I'll split the income I get buying their home for a dollar and flipping it with you).
489  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: January 14, 2014, 09:36:58 PM
FWIW, there doesn't seem to be a way to even place an order via the rather seedy seeming HF motherboard selling page.  My best, totally speculative, WAG is that someone is fake-selling those not to scam people buying them but rather to either produce drama for their own amusement ... or to convince people to take refunds.

If someone does have working 400GH/s mining boards, that price isn't actually bad. I'll buy a bunch of 'em at that price, if you don't mind me coming to pick them up and inspecting each unit. Alas, it doesn't seem to be real. Smiley
490  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Mining on Top of Unknown Block: A new protocol weakness on: January 14, 2014, 07:50:16 PM
Secure by design is great and necessary.

But I don't believe what you've suggested actually advances that.  You're trying to close off an avenue for hiding data which only exists if an unjustified and obtrusive form of conspicuous data hiding is already used.  I think this is pointless and does not contribute to security in any meaningful way.

Moreover, Bitcoin mining asics are not some hypothetical. They exist and we know how flexible they are and are not. What you suggested is not compatible.
491  Bitcoin / Hardware / MOVED: Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: January 14, 2014, 06:14:44 AM
This topic has been moved to Off-topic.
492  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: January 14, 2014, 05:35:40 AM
At some point when you see "hey, if they actually stick to everything they promise, i literally cannot lose money in 99.99% of situations and will make massive profit" you are supposed to realize you are being scammed and dealing with liars who will fuck you over
Except that wasn't the deal here. If the BJ's had shipped on time assuming a 2%/day hashrate increase they would have been a 10% loss before accounting for the MPP, the MPP was only a correction back up to break evenish.  Actual hashrate growth since the batch 1 orders happened and now has been much greater— more like 2.3%/day. You could say that the BJs had a reasonable potential for some upside if delivered on time and to spec, but massive profit? No way. They wouldn't have made a massive profit if they were delivered to spec.

Thats what was crappy here... the prices were high, the projected revenue wasn't great. The _only_ thing the HF batch 1 offer had going for it was a layered stack of assurances that it was reasonably unrisky— refunds, mpp, (near)state of the art process, an experienced design house, located in silicon valley, a late announcement with near impending shipping (they initially seemed to be saying they weren't going to take preorders, but ultimately they did). I think this contributes to people not being happy about the current situation: We weren't promised unicorns and rainbows and so didn't expect the risks that comes with chasing them.

Though I suppose some customers used crazy optimistic hashrate projections and thought they were going to make a mint... though I don't understand why anyone doing that hadn't already sunk their money on KNC. Smiley It certainly wasn't the case for everyone. I saw it as a moderately low risk way that I could upgrade my mining farm to 28nm and continue mining as increased hashrates drove my avalons into non-profitability over power costs... and now they're asking people to lock in an 86% loss. ... perhaps even trying to force it, if that unsolicited refund check wasn't a one off fluke.  (Easy for people to jump to that conclusion, since there is still a fighting chance that batch 1 + full MPP will be somewhat less of a loss than taking that refund check; assuming hope upon hope that this time the delivery timeframes are correct)
493  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Auto-validating,,, etc. on: January 14, 2014, 04:43:04 AM
What you really want is a generic validatorvalidator  to act as a fixed point, then you can feed it to itself and once it passes, feed the normal website validator to it.

Or you could not do high value crypto in an environment where its the norm for people to replace the code out from under you at any time.
494  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: Auto-validating,,, etc. on: January 14, 2014, 04:41:05 AM
This topic has been moved to Service Discussion.
495  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: January 14, 2014, 04:38:12 AM
Preorders are so that the company can finance development and production of not-yet-existing devices. And that just doesn't go together with full-BTC-refunds.
That should have been clear from the beginning.
What was clear from the beginning was that refunds of the full amount of BTC paid were promised— this, combined with MPP and the sounds of very short term completion, made the deal appear rather low risk, which was necessary considering that the prices were 2x (and later 4x) higher than the competition. Nor was the expectation of that unreasonable: they had outside investment, taking preorders fills the sales pipeline, makes inventories easier to manage, locks in coin earliest when people will pay the most, and keeps customers from going to the competition.

There are plenty of reasons to take (and pay) pre-orders that has nothing to do with wanting investomers who will take a bath on non-delivery. The prospective returns on the HF devices even if they'd delivered on time would have been at a _loss_ for the single units, then made up for (probably) by MPP. Thats not the kind of prices return anyone would have signed up for if they thought it was a high risk investment rather than selling a product.

(You also don't see e.g. complaints like this for cointerra (yet!) because they were a fraction of the price— while not offering the kinds of assurances HF offered, initially offered Dec/Jan (e.g. not much off— HF customers weren't pulling out pitchforks in November), and when they realized they couldn't make their deadlines they called up their December customers and offered to refund or add capacity to their order to make up for it.)
496  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s on: January 14, 2014, 03:15:50 AM
Reading this article, it appears they have the inventory but are late.
That article seems to have swallowed some marketing deception whole cloth. Hashfast was saying they would ship before the end of the year up to the 30th of December. Come a week into January and they sent out a message saying January 28th.

If they "have the inventory" they'd be shipping it, instead they've just sent out some engineering samples one of which has been reported here to have reliability problems (the sierra where apparently 2/3 boards don't work).

I really doubt they're mining with it, since I don't think any of them want to go to prison. Catastrophes happen in business, and even if you think that HF is a bunch of fraudsters they're simply not likely to do something that would remove all doubt.

(Though if you want to speculate, there was a pretty large hashrate bump a couple days ago... looks like an addition of another 100TH/s per day to the network since the 6th over and above the background growth)
497  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: BitDNS, Namecoin and cjdns on: January 13, 2014, 10:12:50 PM
This topic has been moved to Off-topic.
498  Bitcoin / Mining support / MOVED: Digital Ocean cloud mining, just can't get it going, please help on: January 13, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
This topic has been moved to Mining (Altcoins).
499  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / MOVED: [SCRYPT] 5970 I reading this right? on: January 13, 2014, 06:43:41 PM
This topic has been moved to Mining (Altcoins).
500  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: ASIC miners from KNC on: January 13, 2014, 04:56:31 PM
Anyone planning to buy a Neptune from KNC? It is pricier, but seems more reliable (KNC has delivered lots of ASIC hardware already with no more than 1 week delay from their offers).
This is a preorder, it will not ship within a week.

It is also using a 20nm processors (Cointerra is using 28nm, then electrisitywise, the KNC is the more future proof from both).
Semiconductor process is only one variable. KNC's prior 28nm product was exceeded in power efficiency by some 55nm devices. The actual power performance is matters, not the lithography.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 ... 200
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!