|
There are no products matching all your requirements.
Or, perhaps only 1: buying a used Jalapeno from the few customers who have received them.
|
|
|
|
|
The missing component is a capacitor. However I have no idea if replacing it will fix it.
So, instead of attempting to repair it, can I offer to buy this non-working module (which consists of 8 hash units total) from you for 20 BTC?
|
|
|
|
For those in the last auction you had to purchase your own power supply (which isn't a PSU used in a pc). Since I had no clue what I needed to buy to get that running I never bid on those (not that I would have bid close to what they went for).
Ou course you can use a standard PC PSU. All you need is to ground PS_ON (eg. paperclip trick) and to customize the cables: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGLyJf6GDMs |
|
|
|
|
12 @ 25
friedcat: I would love to buy one of the chassis you designed to hold the 12 blades.
|
|
|
|
Deploying
Heading to 15TH/s or more in the following 7 days.
You have always said the first batch was going to be 12 Th/s. And that a clearly independent second batch of 50 Th/s would be made. So does "15 Th/s" mean you are making a tiny partial deployment of the second batch? |
|
|
|
I want to buy broken/non-working Avalon units or just individual parts (hash unit, full hash module, control unit, pdu board, etc). No matter what the damage is, I can make you an offer. Email me at m.bevand@gmail.com |
|
|
|
Does anyone audit ASICs made by different companies? Such a hardware can contain logical bombs that can harm Bitcoin when particular conditions are met. For example, starting from 250000th block an ASIC can withhold every 2nd nonce that solves a block. This lowers effectiveness of the hardware by 50% while keeps the same hashrate reported. If everyone mines with such ASICs then 51% attack become 25.5% one.
It is not in the vendors' interest to perform a majority attack, but even if they wanted to, there would be better ways to do it anyway. Firstly, they want happy customers to make more and more sales, they do not want their products to suddenly start working at only half the hash rate, instantly killing their reputation and sales. Do you have any idea how profitable it is to make and sell mining ASICs? Secondly, if they wanted to perform a majority attack at some point, they would just do it now by keeping some ASICs for themselves. Thirdly, if someone performed repeated majority attacks on Bitcoin, disproving a fundamental assumption in the system (that no attacker will ever get close to 50%), it would destroy confidence and BTC would lose value, thereby destroying the attacker's own wealth (bitcoins stolen via double spends). There. That's 3 reasons why a time bomb would be the most stupid thing to do for ASIC vendors. |
|
|
|
BFL is just taking money and promising, while they're 1 year late....
Why do you bend reality? They are 6 months late (Oct 2012 - Apr 2013), not 1 year. |
|
|
|
Editor's note: BFL claimed shipping on 4/22.
I saw that. It does not explain why betting was closed. |
|
|
|
Mars
This device will be the first mass produced product and is available for purchase in the next few days. The key details around this device are as follows:
Over 6GH/s
48x IC CYCLONE IV FPGA 115K on board chips See the sites below for more details on the chips we will be using in our Mars product.
Cyclone IV is 60nm. I guess we can expect roughly the same power efficiency than the BFL FPGA Single which is built out of the Stratix III (65nm), so ~10 Mhash/Joule. |
|
|
|
coinjedi, why did you change the bet deadline of my bet (Are BFL ASICs real and doing 350+ Mhash/Joule)? I had set it to June 30, but it now reads April 21. It seems that you decided to close it prematurely because BFL started shipping. Why? BFL will release multiple products between now and June 30, leaving the bet undecided about whether one of these products will achieve 350 Mhash/Joule or not. |
|
|
|
good thing is that difficulty seems to be stagnating (current estimated rise is 5% and we are some 850 blocks from change). So doomsayers prediction of sustained 16% rise didn't come true :-)
You are wrong: current estimated increase is 11% and there is *no* sign of stagnating in sipa's graphs. |
|
|
|
I am glad I helped prevent you from selling power below price  |
|
|
|
I'm surprised that more people aren't taking the No position in your BoB bet. It seems as though that should be almost a slam dunk at this point, you'd be getting almost 1:1 odds that BFL won't improve efficiency by 2x. Trust in BoB must be really low after the BS over the last bet.
It is not a slam dunk at this point because: - my bet specifies efficiency at the DC input - enmaku's 191 Mhash/J at the wall (30W) equates to 238 Mhash/J at the DC input (24W), assuming the power brick has an average efficiency of 80% - 350 Mhash/J would necessitate a power consumption for 5720 Mhash/s below 16.3W (or 67.9% of 24W) - reducing power consumption to 67.9% of its current value is trivial to achieve in theory by undervolting the chips to 82.4% of the nominal voltage because efficiency is (edit: inversely) proportional to its square (0.824^2 = 0.679) So, in theory, BFL could release a rev2 of the Jalapeno any time in the next 2 months by undervolting it by 82.4% (eg. from 1.300V to 1.071V), and attaining 350 Mhash/J. Will they do it? I don't know. But it is possible. The bet is still very much up-in-the-air IMHO. |
|
|
|
I added this to the OP: As of Apr 25, so far, here are the potential datapoints that could determine the bet winners: |
|
|
|
^^ Yeah i first saw that last night.. its 90k for a custom rig.. looks crazy.. What are they feeding it.. blasts of nos!? lol  This has nothing to do with BitFury's ASIC. This picture is their previous generation rig (FPGA Spartan6, not ASIC). |
|
|
|
From what we know, which is exactly nothing (unless I missed him respond to this question) I feel its more likely he was involved than not.
Why doesn't the man come in here and provide proof of your (and btw LukeJr's) convenient straw man. Seems it shouldn't be to difficult to prove that he sold the domain before Can-Electric SCAM was posted on his site..
Forum posters showed that the WHOIS information of the domain changed when the Can-Electric website went online. I remember thinking at the time "Tom must have sold the domain". |
|
|
|
|
What were the dividends paid on April 18?
|
|
|
|
2) Can-Electric. His involvement with that schema reeks of fishyness.
This is a very strong claim to make. You have to prove it. For what we know, Tom was never involved in Can-Electric. Most likely, people offered to buy one of Tom's domain, to run their own scam while leveraging the "image" of the domain name. In this situation, Tom would have had no idea what the buyers were going to use the domain for. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
