How does it work? Every time I've ever returned a product, I get back (to the penny) what I paid. Unless there are shipping costs or bank fee's.

[LATE EDIT: On second thought. I haven't done any oversea's ordering that I can recall. So, I'm not as familiiar with the nuances of it, and don't wnat to think about it anymore right now.
I've been up all night... my brain feels like a soup sandwich.]

||bit

The rate at the date of purchase is not relevant. It's not an expense report... it's a full refund:

If you paid them $30,000...then you should get $30,000 refunded.
If you paid them 5,000 BTC...then you should get 5,000 BTC refunded.
If you paid them 10,000 clam shells... then you should get 10,000 clam shells refunded.
....etc....

||bit

You will know when you see a $30,000 BFL espesso machine offered next quarter.

||bit

They could use them if BFL incorporates an interface to dock the mug with the pump of any cooling subsystem, with the coffee being cycled as the coolant. Perhpas, 50% hash rate increases from the caffeine alone. One caveat: users drinking too much of the coffee may see hash rates appearing to slow down.

But seriously, it would just be kinda cool to have one BFL mug.

||bit

...a "Butterfly Labs" coffee cup?  

||bit

One reason to sell them cheaper might be to ensure widerspread distribution. Afterall, consolidate all that hashing into the hands of a few is suppose to be bad for bitcoin.
As for them taking only bitcoins, that is not the case. They have taken bank wires, which are traceable.

For now, I'm more interested in the power consumption question. Could ASICs do a double SHA256 hash at 3.5GH/s and be supported by only the power from a single USB port?
Are there any existing SHA256 functions performed by ASIC's that we can find specs on and determine this? This should add the weight to either it being feasability or not.

||bit

Are you seeing anything in the PR that isn't consistent with current technological capability? As far as I can see, the PR hash rates can be accounted for with at least just using more ASIC chips per product.

||bit

I had the same initial assumption. It was based on some fast readings comparing FPGA and ASIC performance for similar tasks. The x3 or x4 numbers was what I was lead to think. However, not only has someone on this forum suggested that the performamnce would be orders of x10 to x50 increases from an FPGA to ASIC, but we have to consider the chips final fabric sizes. And there is still the manufacturers option on how many chips to incorporate in each product or submodule. But let's suppose just for discussion that the Jalapeno used just one ASIC chip to attain it's 3.5GH/s. And we know the FPGA Single is about 0.4GH/s per FPGA chip inside it. That means the ASIC would be about x9 faster (if it was just one chip), and consistent with the other forum person's view. So, it's much more than x3 or x4. But making the Jalapeno with just two or three such chips would mean the ASICS are x3 to x4.5 faster than the FPGA Single chips, and consistent with the other notions of performance improvement at hand. --- So,it seems it is possible by either presumed performance change per chip from FPGA to ASIC.

Aside from that, a question that I never followed up on from someone on the forums is about power consumption at those has rates. The Jalapeno, for exmaple is a USB device. How much power is required to generate that 3.5GH/s, and would a USB support it?

||bit

You do make me wonder about their press release. They said they had private venture capital. Which, if your $10 million number is correct, makes it hard to think someone (or some group) would have fronted that kind of money for making bitcoin mining hardware. Unless, we do not see the size of the market well enough. What is it's size?   Anyway, other than that, at least this seems exhaggerated from the BFL press release:


What are the 'some' of the 'some of the world’s great technological challenges'?  I wouldn't say that bitcoin mining is even one of the world's great technological challenges. People were doing fine mining with GPU's (even CPU's). Since those two technologies were meeting the purpose of bitcoin mining, there was no real great challenge that needed to be met.  So, they must have done some other work outside of making Singles....  Can anyone (BFL Engineer?) help elucidate what that work was?

||bit

There are two seperate orders dates. The final dates were 6/24 & 6/27. Each being the result of a one day penalty for the inherent wire delays.

||bit

You actually got a call back? I wonder if screening calls is going to continue to be their view of customer service. It's so much better to speak to a real person when you have the time...not when they have the time or any interest to call you back.

Anyway, supposedly they are working on some aspect(s) of their customer service. Maybe this will be another area they repair.

||bit

They do now. 

Received an email of wire receipt today. Timeline if it helps anyone:
1. 6/28 ... Wire instructions received from BFL in email.
2. 6/28 ... Wired funds sent to BFL (same day).
3. 6/31 ... From asking by email, BFL informed me [informally] that funds were received 6/29, but that customer service would still follow-up with a formal response.
3. 7/6 ... Official/formal customer service email received confirming wire receipt.

Elapsed time from BFL receiving wire was 7 days. That's not world class service. However, to be fair, considering BFL is a startup way over it's head in orders, and one weekend and a national holiday past since the wire, one can't really complain much more than it not being world class yet.

From others I have read in this thread, that is probably at the top end of time waiting for a receipt response. Others that have posted here have had faster responses. Like I mentioned, maybe I've been black listed.    j/k The emails from CS were polite.

I've always been a supporter of BFL and their product in theory. Ordered product. Yet, have been scrutinous of how they have operated in the past (usually in the area of communications & shipping). Like I said, I've been burned before.   But I will give it to them that they do seem more legit BECAUSE of this delay. Afterall, a full blown racket would probably just blast out a bunch of fast responses to suppress any possible dissent that could quickly lead to some kind of legal attention or requests for refunds. Wouldn't it?  

||bit

So, now you just wait for BFL to send you an email acknowledging receipt of your wire, and a relative order position. If you don't mind, let us know how long it takes and how it turns out.

||bit

I think a couple people in this thread did communicate that to be the case for their orders.  That is, they ordered some product(s) online, got an email indicating they ordered whatever they ordered. Then eventually (dasy later) received wire instructions, and they subsequently completed a wire transfer to BFL. And finally BFL did send them an email receipt to confirm the wire was received and noted any delays they calculated on their placement in que (e.g. zero, one or two days delay from wire instructions to wire receipt).

||bit

Thanks for the info. Good stuff. Shaking you for the extra $20 would have been awkward for them, epsecially if it cost you a loss in the que. But even if they did, I bet they would have saved your place in que considering the intent and amount you sent.

||bit

Sounds good.  And thanks for the feedback. Nice to know people are getting attended to within a week at most. Still waiting for a response here though - wire was sent 6/28 and received 6/29.
Let's see if they put me on a 'black list' for bringing this thread up. 

||bit

What do you think regarding the possibility of a bitcoin collapse?

||bit

I'm giving them a benefit of the doubt, for now, since they have been faster in response on wire transfers before. This new product line is apparently overwhelming their capacity. So, it seems it is not neccessarily a complete lack of right intentions on their part. After asking BFL, I did get a brief email that the wire was received, and was told that customer service was still going to do a formal reply of receipt. So, all that to say you're not alone, since your delay issue appears to be the same as this and others. Putting a light on this existing delay for those that wired funds is one of the reasons for this thread. One question: Is it an unwarranted concern?

You can at least verify with your bank that your funds were received at the destination. And since this is apparently a common issue, consider giving them a full work week to respond before asking about a formal notice of funds received.

BTW: I'm not sure if you are oversea's or not, so keep in mind, tomorrow is the 4th of July holiday in the states. Often, companies give two work days off during this week. BFL shouldn't be any different.

||bit

Yeah, fair enough. I realize they are probably being inundated with orders while understaffed as well. As ice_chill recommended and others are doing, I suppose sitting and being more patient is the going thing. BFL has whipped us into submission  

BTW: Regarding the fpga mini-rig, if things go as they were shooting for, you should see it in a week. It seems like it was the logical thing to do to keep the order and not refund it. Good luck.

||bit