BFL ASIC Shipment Plan

[crazyates]

you won´t need that BFL stuff... the hashing algo will change so that all sha-256 speacialized hardware is useless!

^^^ will be making 0.05BTC/day in about 6 months. 

[boonies4u]

you won´t need that BFL stuff... the hashing algo will change so that all sha-256 speacialized hardware is useless!

When? Do you have any proof?

[crazyates]

you won´t need that BFL stuff... the hashing algo will change so that all sha-256 speacialized hardware is useless!

When? Do you have any proof?

No he doesn't. That's been the anti-asic camp's battle cry for a while now. The protocol can change, but if there was ever a security vulnerability found in SHA-256, specialized ASICs could become useless.

[cablepair]

you won´t need that BFL stuff... the hashing algo will change so that all sha-256 speacialized hardware is useless!

When? Do you have any proof?

No he doesn't. That's been the anti-asic camp's battle cry for a while now. The protocol can change, but if there was ever a security vulnerability found in SHA-256, specialized ASICs could become useless.

well he's right that could happen

however not all ASICS are created equal, I can't speak for the hardware that BFL is releasing but I can tell you that there will be sASIC based Mining hardware released eventually and with a structured ASIC you can reprogram them just like a FPGA. If BFL really does ship in October it wont be before them but it should be available by the end of the year.

[hamdi]

the hash-method-change will be before BFL ships the ordered units. some called it "bitcoin 2"

[crazyates]

the hash-method-change will be before BFL ships the ordered units. some called it "bitcoin 2"

Please link? I srsly doubt it. Unless he's talking of a hard-fork that no one will ever adopt.

[Luke-Jr]

the hash-method-change will be before BFL ships the ordered units. some called it "bitcoin 2"

LOL

Reality:

• Breaking compatibility with old Bitcoin clients is considered by us developers to be a Bad Idea by default, without significant justification.
• There is a long-known vulnerability to mining pools (including decentralized and peer-to-peer ones); it is possible to fix it by making a backward-incompatible change to the block rules, but even this is not considered sufficient to justify the break.
• That being said, we have a lot of planned improvements for the day we finally do need to break compatibility.
• The closest thing to "Bitcoin 2" is a branch specifically for these planned improvements to be implemented and tested; I have one, but it is accepted to be at least 2 years away (at any given time) from being used live on Bitcoin "mainnet", and there are literally zero actual improvements made in it because we're all preoccupied with present-day improvements that can be done without breaking compatibility. There are plenty of those to keep us busy for a long time.
• These improvements include keeping the proof-of-work compatible. That is, using the same SHA256 of 80 bytes, with nonce being in the last 12.
• The developers cannot single-handedly make a compatibility-breaking change. This decision inevitably lies with the economic majority who decide whether to accept the changes or not.
• It is reasonably expected that the final hashing algorithm used as proof-of-work will not change unless it is threatened. That includes either SHA256 being broken, or someone obtaining and monopolizing a substantial amount of the network hashpower.
• By selling ASICs at consumer prices, Butterfly Labs is helping to take Bitcoin to the next level of security: no longer can anyone just make ASICs to monopolize the network at will, because all the "good guys" will already be using ASICs themselves.
• There are currently zero legitimate grounds to justify even wanting ASICs broken.

[gmaxwell]

Reality:

Exactly.

• There is a long-known vulnerability to mining pools (including decentralized and peer-to-peer ones); it is possible to fix it by making a backward-incompatible change to the block rules, but even this is not considered sufficient to justify the break.

Luke is talking about block withholding. We know how to fix it for centralized pools in an incompatible way— as luke points out, though not for fully decentralized pools.

That includes either SHA256 being broken, or someone obtaining and monopolizing a substantial amount of the network hashpower.[/li][/list]

Even most SHA256 "breaks" would not necessitate or justify a POW change (though might require the replacement of SHA256 _everywhere else_ in the protocol). E.g. the existent breaks for MD5 wouldn't make us move away from an MD5 POW if we were using it for that.

As Luke says, there could be reasons to justify altering the POW, but they're not things that would come quietly or subtly.   E.g. things like an active monopolizing super-majority attacker on the current POW.  Breaking everything is justified when the alternative is everything being even more broken, but not otherwise.

[Luke-Jr]

Luke is talking about block withholding. We know how to fix it for centralized pools in an incompatible way— as luke points out, though not for fully decentralized pools.

You must have missed my decentralized-compatible fix on the dev ML a few months ago :p

[squall1066]

I'm between thoughts, Firstly, The firs come first served is just basic business rules, you cant expect to build reputation by "throwing the dice" on orders, but at the same time BFL also claim to try not to give monopoly to some people whilst the hash rate is low (yes it is low compared to whats comeing) So I understand trying to randomise it a bit, But I dont really agree for trade in's a priority, To put it bluntly, Those people allready have some hashing power and can wait their place in line.

[PulsedMedia]

I just hope when they start shipping there wouldn't be continuously an inherent 6-8 week wait for getting it delivered ...

Personally i think they need try to schedule shipments so that international and national customers get at approximately the same time, and make sure that no single order gets at once too much, say FIRST batch of shipment is limited to 2 per for the first say, 500 customers, then 1 per next 500 customers. Then start shipping in FIFO manner.
That way as large group of people as possible gets at least something early on AND no one can get like 4TH worth while no one else gets nothing.

Or if they have enough products to be shipped, then from get go FIFO manner, but the largest orders ship in 2 shipments, second one with 3 business day delay.

Knowing BFL tho, they will have very limited number at beginning, and if i order today a SC it will be February before shipment if they are right on schedule
They need to seriously ramp up the production, if i knew a Single would ship tomorrow if ordered today, i would not hesitate to order RIGHT NOW at least 4 of them.

[BFL_Josh]

We are working on ramping up our current shipping as well as our ASIC shipping.  Rest assured our shipping times are improving and will continue to improve through the ASIC launch.

[cablepair]

We are working on ramping up our current shipping as well as our ASIC shipping.  Rest assured our shipping times are improving and will continue to improve through the ASIC launch.

ohhh kay....

Does ramping up mean ramping up your plan for shipping or actually ramping up shipping as in shipping things?

[BFL_Josh]

I mean ramping up the actual shipping.

[cablepair]

I mean ramping up the actual shipping.

thanks for clearing that up


so when will the first BFL ASICS ship?

[Jack1Rip1BurnIt]

I swear I see all these threads and they are all the same. Sounds like a couple of kids in the backseat repeating the same question over and over again.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet?Are we there yet? Knowing damn good and well....

[crazyates]

I swear I see all these threads and they are all the same. Sounds like a couple of kids in the backseat repeating the same question over and over again.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet?Are we there yet? Knowing damn good and well....

The "Are we there yet?" Threads will be coming in almost exactly 2 months. These are the "How much loooooooooonnnngeeerrrrrrrr? [/whine]" threads. 

[ice_chill]

Would be fair to ship the units to outside of USA 3 or 4 days earlier, then in US, as the customs delay leaves people outside of USA disadvantaged.

[JayCoin]

It seems like a brilliant marketing plan to draw in more pre-sales with a chance that you won't need to wait 12 months for your magic "beans". Oh... I mean "jalapenos" 

Kudos to whoever came up with that scheme.

[beekeeper]

I dont know, I have some experience in FPGA and even ASIC, your sure BFL will be able to ship ASICs so fast after getting them from production line? Customers may get a DOA product or something wich will perform 1/10 of the specs due to some glitch or bug which cant be worked around..
PS: I do plan to buy BFL ASICs too but after they hit the market.