Ignoring the Oct 25th to Oct 31st difference, if that scenario played out and at the end of January HF sends out one extra module because hey, a BabyJet would have earned 25BTC between Oct 31st and Jan 29th they will have a lot of pissed off customers. The calculation for how much you have earned is based on the shipping date. By the letter of the program it is the first 90 days after shipping, that would mean if it ships 30 days late your MPP window is also extended 30 days which obviously makes the program a worse deal. Essentially customers are hurt by late shipping and then their compensation is also reduced. Many people complained it would be fairer if the MPP began when the units should have shipped so customers are not double penalized for late delivery. Thankfully HashFast seems to have agreed with that logic so the 90 day window starts on 31 OCT. Obviously for the days from 31 OCT to shipping date the computed revenue would be 0. You have 0 GH/s and 0 GH/s at any difficulty = 0 BTC produced. So the MPP "payout" is based on the total of what a theoretical unit would earn each day between shipping and 28 JAN (90 days after 31 OCT). They way I read it (and I may be wrong) if you units ships on say 15 DEC and between 15 DEC and 28 JAN you earn*: >= 100% of purchase price = no additional boards (achieved break even in 90 day window) >= 66% & <100% of purchase price = 1 additional board (200 additional GH/s needed for break even x2 = 400 GH/s) >= 50% & <66% of purchase price = 2 additional boards (400 additional GH/s needed for break even x2 = 800 GH/s) >= 33% & <50% of purchase price = 3 additional boards (600 additional GH/s needed for break even x2 = 1,200 GH/s) < 33% of purchase price = 4 additional boards (600 additional GH/s needed for break even x2 = 1,200 GH/s) On edit: My original numbers were incorrect. Thanks for the correction minor. The MPP "pays out" DOUBLE the hashrate that would have been required to break even in 90 day window. I updated numbers above.I assumed that Hashfast will only pay out in "full board increments" and will round in the customer's favor as less boards won't fulfill the terms of MPP (i.e. if 127 more GH/s would have achieved break even, doubled is 254 GH/s. Since HF only produces 400 GH/s boards the only options are ship nothing or ship one board). The cutoffs above assume the number of boards will be rounded up in the customers favor. Also remember HashFast isn't going to monitor you individual rig. It is simply a calculated earning. For a given hashrate & difficulty a miner will earn x BTC per day. The sum of those earnings over the 90 day window determines the computed earnings and thus the amount of MPP payout. Maybe Hashfast can confirm or correct me on this. |
|
|
|
|
So for those looking for a second reference point. Hashfast announced today they will be delayed at least three to four weeks from today (ouch) but kinda buried in that was the fact that they received the final silicon today.
Hashfast announces tapeout complete = 08/28/2013.
Hashfast announces they have final silicon = 11/07/2013.
Fabrication took 71 days from tapeout.
That is inline with BFL 10 week time line.
|
|
|
|
growth will eventually slow down.
yeah, but when, i wonder if it will be in my lifetime. Well it would have to. Went from $1 to $300 in three years (give or take) For those looking to get rich I am not saying this will still happen but the "same growth" would be 300x per 36 months so $90,000 in 2017, $27M in 2020, $8B in 2023, etc. Pretty sure that isn't happening.  Global currency supply (M0) is ~$5T that would be ~$250,00 per BTC and I can't really see much growth beyond that. You missed a zero I think. And I believe the "take over the world"-price is higher than that still. Bitcoin is a potential substitute to more than just the monetary base. At that point it would be a substitute to M2, precious metals and stocks (to the extent people use them to avoid inflation) as well to various degrees. Maybe as optimistic as I am about Bitcoin I don't buy into the "one coin to rule them all" dream. Hell Bitcoin can't even maintain 100% of the cryptocurrency marketshare. Still M1 would be ~$20T or quadruple that, M2 would be ~$50T or 10x that, M3 would be ~$75T or 15x that. If you wanted to pretend precious metals lose their value as store of wealth you could boost that another ~$15T or <$5M per BTC (2013 dollars). Even under that scenario growth has to slow down in our lifetime. I mean no system can have 600% annualized growth for decades and decades. |
|
|
|
You underestimate current central bank policies! Bernanks for everyone!
True I updated it to say 2013 dollars. If they devalue the dollar 1000x it could get to some crazy number but $1000 then wouldn't buy more than $1 today. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads up D&T. I did not realize that I was covered in the MPP. I was definitely in the first batch, I just checked the receipt in my email, mine is one of the first 550 machines with an expected delivery Oct. 31.
Straight from the receipt:
"Baby Jet Delivery Dates. All of the 550 Baby Jet units from HashFast's first production batch are guaranteed for delivery by December 31, 2013. If Buyer ordered one or more units of such Baby Jets, and HashFast does not deliver such units by that date, then Buyer may cancel the undelivered portion of the order at Buyer's request and HashFast will refund the payment for the units that Buyer purchased but did not receive and cancelled. This cancellation and refund is Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy for HashFast failing to deliver by the December 31, 2013 guaranteed delivery date, and Buyer must cancel the order by January 15, 2014 to avail itself of this remedy. Buyer to pay all taxes, duties and shipping costs."
Is this the MPP you are referring to? If so, then that's not much of a MPP. They can deliver on December 30 and fall under the good graces of the contract, and we'd all still be screwed.
No that isn't the MPP. If you were in Batch 1 you have MPP it wasn't an option it was part of the order. For Batch 2 (BabyJet & Sierra) and some Batch 3 MPP was an option. There were two prices. A higher one with MPP and lower one without MPP. Someone in Batch 2 or 3 should check their invoice it should say in the name of the purchased product (i.e. Sierra December delivery w/ Miner Protection Plan). At this point it looks like HF is no longer offering MPP on new sales. https://hashfast.com/miner-protection-program/ |
|
|
|
So on January 28th, everyone in Batch 1 will receive 4 more modules if I understand this correctly.
Yeah I can't see how difficulty combined with late start will result in more than a 25% return of purchase price by end of Jan (a return of less than 25% of purchase price is needed for the max MPP compensation). I mean even if difficulty growth slows down significantly it seems very likely. Of course if the return is higher by end of Jan then less boards will be issued by the MPP but I don't see that happening. |
|
|
|
growth will eventually slow down.
yeah, but when, i wonder if it will be in my lifetime. Well it would have to. Went from $1 to $300 in three years (give or take) For those looking to get rich I am not saying this will still happen but the "same growth" would be 300x per 36 months so $90,000 in 2017, $27M in 2020, $8B in 2023, etc. Pretty sure that isn't happening. Global currency supply (M0) is ~$5T that would be ~$250,000 per BTC (2013 dollars) and I can't really see much growth beyond that. |
|
|
|
I'll say what Hash Fast is unwilling to say: if you didn't purchase a miner protection plan, you are fucked. Kiss your BTC goodbye. I'm so happy I ordered before they came out with the MPP....... Getting fucked by another ASIC manufacturer, what a surprise.  Well the delay is mostly on Batch 1. Batch 1 was all MPP. Later batches had an option of MPP or not but they are unlikely to face as long of a delay. Really!!? So maybe I am covered under the MPP... I'm not entirely sure what batch I ordered in, Ill have to look into it. I don't remember there being the option of a MPP when I ordered though. Thanks for the heads up. Yeah there was no option, all Batch 1 orders had MPP (remember it was a higher price so you can consider it included in the price). If you can find your invoice you can lookup the order number here: https://hashfast.com/order-chain/ |
|
|
|
Can someone please confirm: if we get 4x the hashing power AND we also ordered the Baby Jet Upgrade, the Upgrade is for the original Baby Jet, right? And is the 4x hashing power some separate chips, which would then require an additional (~1k) investment for the kit to assemble it all?
The MPP comes as complete boards (not raw chips). You would need to add power supply, case (optionally), water cooling loop, and fans. Not sure if HF will offer those parts but even if not buying retail you would be looking at something like: 300W PSU per board (likely combined to larger PSU to handle multiple modules) = $70 per board/module. Corsair H80 watercooling loop (or some custom system) = $60 per board/module. At least two radiator fans = $15 per board/module. So something like $130 to $150 per board in off the shelf parts to convert one or more boards into a complete rig. That is just a rough idea. It may vary a lot depending on what the final power looks like, what components are used, etc. Still everything except the ASIC boards (provided as part of MPP) can be bought off the shelf at newegg or amazon. The upgrade modules IIRC will include an upgraded power supply and second radiator so your additional cost their should be nothing. |
|
|
|
I'll say what Hash Fast is unwilling to say: if you didn't purchase a miner protection plan, you are fucked. Kiss your BTC goodbye. I'm so happy I ordered before they came out with the MPP....... Getting fucked by another ASIC manufacturer, what a surprise. Well the delay is mostly on Batch 1. Batch 1 was all MPP. Later batches had an option of MPP or not but they are unlikely to face as long of a delay. |
|
|
|
Topics of the day:
-1) Substrates. F. substrates. It looks like that TSMC is doing the easy job, but these substrates instead are impossible. Expert opinion welcome. TSMC should make substrates, too, right?
-2) There is no guaranteed shipping date for the MPP. However, delaying that would really be criminal.
TSMC does do substrates and packaging however their pricing and timelines may not be viable for small runs. I am not saying it is or isn't unless you get a bid from TSMC yourself (under NDA) you probably will never know. Remember TSMC makes chips for companies like AMD who may want 10 million units and aren't as time sensitive with rollouts planned months in advance (i.e. AMD isn't going to want a couple wafers done in a week they are going to want 5 million units packaged over the course of a month so they can all hit retail shelves the same time). IIRC KNC used TSMC as well and they had the completed wafers sent to another company for packaging (talk about hand carrying wafers in wafer carrier from foundry to packaging house by employee on airplane). I agree a shipping date for MPP is the least they can do. |
|
|
|
For First Batch Baby Jets, the start date of the program will be retroactive to October 30th. We want to make sure a delayed ship date does not reduce the value of the program. Well that is good news at least and nice that HashFast followed the spirit of the program. |
|
|
|
Another source: http://www.altera.com/technology/system-design/articles/2012/20nm-systems-era.htmlPerhaps no semiconductor process has generated more controversy—before a single product has been shipped—than the 20 nm node. There was argument over whether the node would have to wait for production-ready EUV lithography. It did not: double-patterning, though expensive and restrictive on layout, has met the needs of the finest-resolution mask layers.
...
The 20 nm node is arguably the most difficult ever attempted for production, and just a description of the technical challenges would justify a small book. But from the system designer’s perspective—using the SoC, not creating it—everything reduces to five key points: cost, density, speed, power, and 2.5D. System designers’ experiences will largely be determined by how chip designers manage the interplay of these five factors.
...
Cost is paramount. NVIDIA’s Huang may well have been right: with its greatly increased costs, 20 nm may always be more expensive than 28 nm for the same number of transistors.
...
Either with or without finFETs, power presents another issue. The sum of static plus dynamic power is unlikely to be half what it was at 28 nm. But density is going up by a factor of two. Arithmetic says that power density—and hence local heating—will limit both layout and clock frequencies in some 20 nm blocks.
A nice one posted up thread on general issues with smaller process nodes: But the difficulty inherent in printing ever-finer features has now taken its toll. “When we got to around 28 nm, we were actually pushing the limits of the lithographic tools,” says Subramani Kengeri, vice president of advanced technology architecture at GlobalFoundries, the world’s second-biggest chipmaking foundry after Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.
To deal with this, Kengeri and his colleagues were forced to adopt a lithographic technique called double patterning. It lets technicians pattern smaller features by splitting a single patterning step into two, relying on a slight offset between the two steps.
Intel used the technique to form transistors on its 22-nm chips, but it stuck to single patterning to make the densest metal layer. Pushing the technique to its limits, the company made wires with a pitch of 80 nm, which encompasses the width of one wire and the space to the next. By adopting double patterning, GlobalFoundries and others could push the pitch down to about 64 nm for their 20-nm chips. But that move came with a significant trade-off: Double-patterned chips take longer to make, adding significantly to the cost. http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-status-of-moores-law-its-complicatedEven Intel (who is generally 12 to 18 months ahead of the pure play foundries) has pushed back their 14nm timetable. This is Intel, the king of chips who can do things other companies can only dream about. Unusual for them they are also splitting the launch. Mobile (where power reduction matters the most) is delayed "only" 1 quarter, desktop (mass production, lower margins, yields more important) is delayed 2 quarters to the second half of 2014. "It was simply a defect density issue. As we develop these technologies, what you do is you are continually improving the defect densities and those results in the yield, the number of die per wafer that you get out as the products. What happens as you insert a set of fixes in groups, you will put four or five, maybe sometimes six or seven fixes into a process and group it together, and run it through and you expect an improvement rate. Occasionally, as you go through that, the fixes do not deliver all of the improvements. We had one of those. […] We have got back now and added additional fixes, gotten back onto that curve, so we have confidence that the problem is fixed, because we have data that it is fixed," explained Mr. Krzanich.
....
Usually Intel launches new central processing units based on new high-performance micro-architecture for desktops, notebooks, workstations and even single-socket servers at the same time. This will not be the case with chips to be made using 14nm manufacturing technology.
Broadwell chips will only land into mobile computers next year, according to Intel’s plans. For desktops, uniprocessor servers and workstations there will be so-called Haswell Refresh microprocessors made using 22nm fabrication process. As a result, the volumes of 14nm products this year may be lower than traditional output using a new node. Intel itself has not officially confirmed lack of plans to introduce Broadwell microprocessors for desktops in 2014. It is believed that Broadwell-based products will now be available in the second half of 2014.
Also note the talk about multiple respins at 22nm because defect management didn't meet projections. Intel owning their own fabs can do multiple respins "cheap" for a foundry customer you are talking $5M a pop plus weeks if not months of delays. AMD & NVidia have both pushed back GPUs on 20nm into 2015 going instead with another round of chips at 28nm. TSMC and others are busy developing their own technology akin to Tri-Gates. These are called 3D Fin-FETs. The basic design and physics behind these structures are essentially the same, but Intel trademarked theirs first. The problem here is that we are still at least two years away from an effective implementation of FinFETs on any node from any pure-play foundry. So the GPU guys are looking at a new process node that will effectively shrink the transistors, but may not have the electrical characteristics they were hoping for. TSMC is not planning on opening up their 20 nm HKMG planar based lines until Q1/Q2 2014 with product being delivered in a Q3 timeframe. TSMC is ahead of the bunch so far with actually implementing a 20 nm line. http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Next-Gen-Graphics-and-Process-Migration-20-nm-and-Beyond/20-nm-and-BelowEven the design of a sub 28nm chip isn't easy. One wrinkle, new with 20nm design, is the need for double patterning. To be fair, double patterning is a useful lithography technique. In fact, it is an essential technique at 20nm. On the other hand, poor color resolution, mask misalignment, and pattern interference problems can easily defeat an SoC whose layout is not double patterning–friendly. Double patterning uses two or three masks to image one layer of a chip on silicon. The exposures from multiple masks overlap to create features that are half the pitch that would otherwise be possible using these wavelengths of light. The patterns of the two masks can be thought of as printing two or three different colors (see Figure 2) that combine to form a single layer.
The semiconductor industry has developed several versions of the double patterning technique. Triple and quadruple patterning techniques are being investigated for 14nm and beyond. The success of all these techniques depends on accurate decomposition of the design layout into the multiple masks, precise mask alignment during lithography imaging, and control of variables such as dosage, focus, etch, and overlay. Chip design teams do not need to know much about the specific lithography variables. But teams do need to know this: you cannot print just any pattern you please using double patterning. Using a method of layout decomposition, multiple masks have to be created and combined in specific ways, and some combinations will not work. As a result, managing double patterning effects cannot be left to the physical signoff tool—as was possible at previous technology nodes—but needs a holistic approach. The entire design flow must take double patterning into account to have optimal layout for manufacturing. Specifically, the implementation tool needs more manufacturing cause-and-effect knowledge, so this tool needs to work closely with the physical design and analysis tools. Simply integrating the signoff tools is not enough. Accurate abstraction technologies must be built into placement and routing to handle early convergence of double patterning issues. Throughout the design flow, this integration for double patterning needs to be tighter than existing integration for dealing with physical design issues.
https://www.cadence.com/downloads/files/20nm_wp.pdfTSMC is only expecting to have taped out a HANDFUL of masks by the end of 2014 at 20nm and doesn't even mention 16nm tapeouts. TSMC has taped out several 20nm chips and expects to let customers start designing 16nm FinFET chips before the end of the year. By the end of 2014 it expects it will have taped out 25 20nm designs and be far along in work on 30 16nm chips. Thats right, TSMC is expecting a whole 25 designs to be using 20nm by the END OF 2014. 25 not thousands or hundreds but a staggering twenty five. Think every company in the world which uses Silicon and all the designs they may have, TSMC is expecting two dozen designs to be taped out by the end of the year. That is how small that market is. Not even a word about 16nm tapeout in 2014. So it isn't just NVidia it is across the industry. Everything is more expensive, more time consuming, and more complex. None of this should be taken as a slight at KNC, they have never claimed a 16nm chip will be available in 2014. So once again KNC saying "we are working on 20/16nm" doesn't mean "we are going to beat Intel, NVidia, AMD, Samsung, Altera, and other silicon giants to market and be one of a the first companies on the planet to mass produce 16nm chips in 2014". "Working on" =/= "16nm mining in 2014". That is a an assumption made by those outside of KNC. |
|
|
|
In other words, you feel it takes more than a year to do a die shrink? And what advantage would lax scheduling bring to bitcoin ASIC design? Surely if the chips are worth having in 2 years, they're way more lucrative in 6 month?
Not a die shrink an improved design and waiting for the inevitable price cross over. You don't think it will take NVidia three years to do a die shrink do you? They went to 28nm in 2012 and won't switch to 28nm until 2015. They could die shrink their current design and get lower power or higher performance but they won't for at least another year. Why? Economics. It is cheaper to just keep using 28nm until 20/22nm costs come in line. In a year sub 28nm availability will be higher and marginal costs will be lower. Your claimed lucrative chips depend not on the design but on foundry costs and even if they had a design today foundry costs aren't going to magically go down. If you can produce a chip at $X marginal cost per chip using 28nm what is the point of paying another $5M in NRE so you can produce a chip at $2.5X using 20/22nm. Throw in the added bonus of the increased fabrication time for double patterning and it means a longer cycle between ordering wafers and having final chips ready. Hint: there isn't one. Someday the marginal cost of 20/22nm will be < $X and it will make sense to switch to lower cost and improve efficiency. That day isn't in 2014.  Your assumption (unless it is just your normal trolling) is that a 20/22nm wafer is the same cost as 28nm wafer and that isn't the case, not even close. NVidia could move but even with their purchasing power and economies of scale (millions of wafer starts per year) it just doesn't make sense yet. The only companies moving below 28nm (with the exception of Intel) are companies were power costs outweight the increased price. If a cellphone SoC cost $15 paying double adds $15 in cost to a $400 phone. If that gives you 30% lower power consumption and thus for the whole phone maybe 10% longer battery life it might be worth it. That is why Samsung and Apple are both looking at 20nm starts in MID 2014.  |
|
|
|
My Jupiter is using 700-800 Watts at the wall. The ASICs report using ~400 W. Anyone have an issue like this?
That seems insanely high how are you measuring wattage at the wall. |
|
|
|
That is neat. Only problem is, I was going to purchase $1000 worth of them back at 1.6 but got into it with my wife about it, so didn't.
I know women are always right... but.....
Don't say a word. Print out the price chart and hang it on the refrigerator. |
|
|
|
I was ready for a purchase too, but thankfully you not replying to my PM about this made me reconsider Sorry nothing personal I get a LOT of PMs a day and some days I don't get to them all then they get buried and I forget about them. I would point out everything is based on probable timelines and the fact that I (just my opinion) find it highly unlikely that IF Cointerra already taped out weeks ago they would just remain silent. Press releases are cheap and a confirmed tapeout would spur MORE sales. I don't think Cointerra is a "scam", I don't think made up a website to run off with the money but I do believe (for whatever reason) they haven't completed the tapeout YET. Most likely they will and most likely they will eventually ship but one can count on shipping being at least 60 (being optimistic again) days from tapeout. You can't push the tapeout back 30, 40, 50, 60 days without shipping also being pushed back. I got nothing against Cointerra, I may buy their product in the future (once they have shown they can deliver) and if the price is right. |
|
|
|
You're wrong. Humans would rather have 1Ms and know that the buying power of their satoshis are increasing, instead of changing units. Good thing you speak for all humans. Of course since everyone wants that it will happen and there is no need for a proposal. Job well done everyone. |
|
|
|
|
What makes you think people only bought needs under gold based currencies? Gold (and other commodities) and gold back paper currency has existed for thousands of years. Hint: people bought wants and needs.
Bitcoin is experiencing a high rate of price deflation right now, probably more than any commodity currency has in the history of mankind. However law of large numbers and all that, eventually adoption will slow. It will slow if for no other reason then everyone on the planet is using it.
Right now global GDP is about 1.8% annually. Lets bump that up and say 0.2% per month. If everyone on the planet was using Bitcoins, and the supply was fixed the purchashing power of a Bitcoin would rise by the same rate the underlying (global) economy rises. That means your Bitcoins would gain a staggering 0.2% more purchasing power each month. Would you not buy a video game say $50 (equivalent) just because it will be $49.90 next month due to inflation. At some point your desire for a good or service will outweigh the gain by not spending and .... YOU WILL SPEND. If you don't well you will have a miserably (and likely short life) and die with a lot of Bitcoins which do absolutely nothing for you.
As for investment do you really think nobody on the planet would say "hey I don't want my purchashing power to only rise by 2.4% annually, Bob says his widget company can produce gains of 30% per year. 30% is more than 2.4% so maybe I should invest my Bitcoins with Bob"?
|
|
|
|
This is the timetable according to BFL after a tape-out.
<snip>
Is this accurate or are they just trying to scare away competition and customers that go with the competition? There is no one exact timeline but it is roughly accurate. I really (based on past experiences) doubt BFL will be able to meet their own timeline but the timeline is realistic (maybe a little optimistic but not impossible) for a competent company. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
