is butterfly labs mining with those ASICs at the moment?

[BFL_Josh]

If we tested on testnet, it would make testnet useless, since it would spike the difficulty to unmanagable levels. 

Regardless, we aren't testing any ASIC equipment on the live network either now or in the past, so it's pretty immaterial.  We already have a plan, which I explained to several people at the Bitcoin conference on how we are going to handle the live testing when that time comes.

[nedbert9]

So what do you want them to do? You want them to NOT run thru a QC test and ship a product that has never been verified to be able to bitmine?! I'm sorry, but a 24-hour burn-in to test that my product actually works is well within their rights, and I'd prefer it that way!

I worked at a card dealership when I was younger. We would get BRAND NEW cars off the truck, straight from the manufacturer, but the odometer would read anywhere from 10-300 miles. Some of our customers wanted a car that read 0 on the odometer. We had to explain: these cars get tested and used at the manufacturing facility, and will not have zero milage. That's just the way it is. How'd you like it if you get a car from the manufacturer, with 0 miles, and it didn't start?! You'd complain that their Quality Control was poor! Same thing here.

Crazy.  Respectfully.  The analogy is unnecessary in this case.  Also, Bitcoin has main-net and then test-net.  Test-net is for testing and is protocol compatible enough to test hashers.


The more people that don't know about test-net the more this "Quality Control" issue can be passed off as a prudent, professional activity.  In reality it's a QC measure and a way to skim off the top of mining profits.

Effectively, raising difficulty prematurely before the ASICS are in the hands of customers.  It's slimey.

[nedbert9]

If we tested on testnet, it would make testnet useless, since it would spike the difficulty to unmanagable levels.  

Disagree.  Explain your point.  Rendering Testnet useless for non BFL testing activities is what I assume you mean?  Provide a supporting argument for this.

Regardless, we aren't testing any ASIC equipment on the live network either now or in the past, so it's pretty immaterial.  We already have a plan, which I explained to several people at the Bitcoin conference on how we are going to handle the live testing when that time comes.

Immaterial?  Maybe immaterial to the OP's point, but it's quite material to what BFL will introduce in terms of difficulty prior to customer delivery of your product.
As the PR person for BFL are you really going to shrug off this very valid point? 

You, BFL rather, have a plan?  And it was discussed with select individuals at the conference.

How is this any sort of representation of the company to your customers.  I could care less about the conversations you had at the conference.


This is such a condescending and weak argument.  Unless you have some amazing point about why test-net would be rendered a hulking piece of junk by unleashing your ASIC's on it this sounds like misinformation.

[BFL_Josh]

You'll have to talk to Gavin and the others than maintain test net if you want answers to that.  They have repeatedly requested that people not mine on test net because it raises the difficulty, making it impossible to test with.  If we unleashed 20 TH onto test net for even 24 hours, it would make it unusable for everyone else.  Feel free to disagree, but this has been an issue for a couple years now, please go research it.

Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument. 

[SgtSpike]

You'll have to talk to Gavin and the others than maintain test net if you want answers to that.  They have repeatedly requested that people not mine on test net because it raises the difficulty, making it impossible to test with.  If we unleashed 20 TH onto test net for even 24 hours, it would make it unusable for everyone else.  Feel free to disagree, but this has been an issue for a couple years now, please go research it.

Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument. 

But you WILL test ASICs on the live network?  Why has the information surrounding this testing only been disclosed to select persons at the Bitcoin conference?  Why will you not disclose that information to everyone else?

It's not an immaterial argument just because you haven't done it in the past, when you are obviously going to do it in the future.  And the fact that you refuse to give out the details of this to the community as a whole has me concerned now.  What can be so bad that you cannot reveal it until it happens?

[nedbert9]

You'll have to talk to Gavin and the others than maintain test net if you want answers to that.  They have repeatedly requested that people not mine on test net because it raises the difficulty, making it impossible to test with.  If we unleashed 20 TH onto test net for even 24 hours, it would make it unusable for everyone else.  Feel free to disagree, but this has been an issue for a couple years now, please go research it.

Yes, I am going to shrug off this invalid point because we are not now and have not been testing ASICs on the live network, so it's an immaterial argument.  

But you WILL test ASICs on the live network?  Why has the information surrounding this testing only been disclosed to select persons at the Bitcoin conference?  Why will you not disclose that information to everyone else?

It's not an immaterial argument just because you haven't done it in the past, when you are obviously going to do it in the future.  And the fact that you refuse to give out the details of this to the community as a whole has me concerned now.  What can be so bad that you cannot reveal it until it happens?

Yes, Josh.  You aren't treating your customers very well on this specific point in raising visibility to the issue of QC mining on main-net.

You know what kind of response this was likely to get.  And that response might have very well affected sales volume unless BFL convinced the majority why it was unavoidable to use main-net for testing.

Shrugging it off and acting like it's a non-issue and not treating the matter with the seriousness and disclosure it deserves - while there might not be an easy answer to avoiding main-net - really reflects poorly on your skills in dealing with important PR issues.


Well, at least there's competition now.


edit:
Even if the test-net dev's request that you not mine there does not preclude BFL's ability to have an isolated testing environment with a few nodes and a pool.  I do not see the justification for broadcasting blocks to the production network - for every single device - just to satisfy QC concerns.

[BFL_Josh]

It's not bad, I just don't want to make a commitment and then have to break it due to unforeseen difficulties. As to "why" those details were told to certain individuals at the conference, it was simply because they asked. I don't even know who the various individuals were that I explained our plan to.  If the community did not react so violently to changes in statements made here, we would be more open about our plans, but as it is, if we make a statement and then later have to change that, it turns into a giant mess.

Nedbert9:  We have the best interests of Bitcoin as a whole at heart.  Since you disagree that keeping the security of the network is of paramount importance, please let me know what your order number(s) are and I will get your refund issued immediately so that you may pre-order elsewhere.

[Desolator]

You know, even if they eventually ran the cards for absolute profit/testing purposes, yeah they're driving up the difficulty but every single chip they make is going out into the field eventually and it's obviously going to be mining.  So if they make 1000 and run them themselves for a bit, those 1000 are going to drive up the difficulty no matter what.  So what if BFL makes it happen a week earlier?  That's not that big of a deal, especially if it lowers the price for you.

In fact, if it costs $200 to make and they want a $50 profit then they mine $100 worth of BTC with it before it's released then send it to you for $149, not only is it tested to work to save you headaches with an RMA but basically most of that money they just made went into your pocket because it would have cost $250 if they had not mined with it.  That why I keep saying I wouldn't have a huge problem with it.  I'd have even less of a problem with it if they donated all BTC mined to a bitcoin charity or this forum or the development team or something.

Btw so you don't break the test net, maybe someone should develop a temporary.....butterfly net! lol. It writes itself, people.

[Fjordbit]

To be honest, I don't really care much that they are going to do this, but they could mine against a p2pool that is modified to not submit the winning block, and simply log the success. This would mine on mainnet and still be verifiable.

Alternatively they could mine the coins PPS into individual wallets and sent a printout of the private key import details. I get the feeling that this isn't the same as the cars because those cars weren't driven to the financial benefit of anyone. If you found out that the reason the odometer was 300 was because Ford was renting the cars out on a daily basis and pocketing the money, then you might be less happy about it.

But ultimately I don't really care. I just want my ASIC to arrive working.

[cablepair]

Please gentlemen can we please cut the bullshit?

I mean seriously, this argument is pointless.

If BFL Is mining with ASICs on main-net its for one reason and one reason only.

To make an incredible profit.

It would be very simple for someone to make an alternate "testnet"

that way BFL could test their asics without disrupting the difficulty of main-net or test-net.


However it would be INCREDIBLY profitable for someone like BFL to "test" ASICs on main-net and this is the reason they would do so.

[Sitarow]

BFL, Inaba, hugs  and kisses to both of you.


But Please.


Do not you dare test a difficulty changing amount of hashing power on mainnet.

THIS IS WHAT TEST NET IS FOR.

USE IT.

+1 or if you must.... the 1T units consider contacting the recipient of those units and use their credentials for that 24hr period

However...

If we tested on testnet, it would make testnet useless, since it would spike the difficulty to unmanagable levels. 

Regardless, we aren't testing any ASIC equipment on the live network either now or in the past, so it's pretty immaterial.  We already have a plan, which I explained to several people at the Bitcoin conference on how we are going to handle the live testing when that time comes.

[Sitarow]

To be honest, I don't really care much that they are going to do this, but they could mine against a p2pool that is modified to not submit the winning block, and simply log the success. This would mine on mainnet and still be verifiable.

Alternatively they could mine the coins PPS into individual wallets and sent a printout of the private key import details. I get the feeling that this isn't the same as the cars because those cars weren't driven to the financial benefit of anyone. If you found out that the reason the odometer was 300 was because Ford was renting the cars out on a daily basis and pocketing the money, then you might be less happy about it.

But ultimately I don't really care. I just want my ASIC to arrive working.

True that.  If they're throwing ASICs at the main block chain, then it means...ASICs exist.  They may even end up in people's hands!

+1

Please gentlemen can we please cut the bullshit?

I mean seriously, this argument is pointless.

If BFL Is mining with ASICs on main-net its for one reason and one reason only.

To make an incredible profit.

It would be very simple for someone to make an alternate "testnet"

that way BFL could test their asics without disrupting the difficulty of main-net or test-net.


However it would be INCREDIBLY profitable for someone like BFL to "test" ASICs on main-net and this is the reason they would do so.

Then again their may be others that will put their systems on main-net with out us ever knowing.

However if you were one of the first to purchase your SC's using BTC valued at 4.6 - 6.4 USD then this could be a slap in the face...

[jgarzik]

It would be very simple for someone to make an alternate "testnet"

To repeat, for the cheap seats:
     testnet-in-a-box
     http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/testnet-in-a-box/

testnet-in-a-box is a simple setup that provides a two-node network suitable for fully validated, off-network testing.  testnet-in-a-box testing is fully private, and will not disrupt mainnet and or testnet.

Further, note that testnet has special rules just in case a miner blasts the difficulty through the roof, then disappears:

Code:

            // If the new block's timestamp is more than 2* 10 minutes
            // then allow mining of a min-difficulty block.

For BFL, testnet-in-a-box would provide validity testing without disrupting any public network.

[Serge]

for some reason I was under impression that BFL would not disrupt network difficulty with customer's hardware (testing), I think someone from BFL mentioned it in one of threads few month ago.

For burn-in testing please consider setting up alternative test environment. 

[Desolator]

I still find it surprising that even if BFL would in the future run every customer's card for 24 hours and that makes like $15 or something so it knocks some price off the card since BFL would be making money and then you receive a fully tested and much more likely to work product and use it to mine for the other 364 days of the year and you still have a problem with that?  That's just dumb.

What I'd have a problem with is a "buy one get one me" deal where they actually cost $75 to produce so for every one BFL sells you, they buy themselves one and run it and basically mine against you forever with your own money I have a feeling they wouldn't do that, lol.

[Desolator]

I don't think it's legal to throw those in the garbage in any of the 50 states lol.

[pekv2]

Seems to be back to normal.

next dif 2796746.67390 13 days. Yesterday it said next dif 38*****.**.

[jjshabadoo]

Testing on the main net is bullshit and everyone knows it.

It has been clearly stated many times that testing could be done easily on a variety of testing platforms which would not effect the main net or increase difficulty.

You don't compete against your customers in ANY business, period. It is illegal and unethical.

Under NO circumstances should any hardware vendor be mining bitcoins for profit with customer hardware. There is NO excuse for this period.

It is also unethical for someone who works for said company to be competing against the customers of that company.

[crazyates]

Testing on the main net only reduces customer profits for a MAXIMUM of 14 days, and in reality it's much lower than that. After 2 weeks of mining, the difficulty gets recalculated, and the BFL testing from 2 weeks before will have no further affect on your profits.

[jjshabadoo]

Stop justifying their actions. This "no big deal" attitude is what has fostered the majority of the scams on here.

The owner of the company is a convicted felon on counts of FRAUD.

It matters to everyone who buys their product, period.

Difficulty rising for two weeks is bullshit and that's not the point. You have bought their products, in effect they are competing against YOU.

You and everyone else who pre-funded their product with limited or no recourse should at least expect to get your stuff quickly and without competition from your supplier.

How about the fact that there will only ever be 21 million coins ? You don't think it matters that they will have mined thousands of those with your hardware ?

Screw difficulty, the fact is you and everyone else can NEVER mine those coins.