Bitcoin Forum
December 01, 2021, 04:29:20 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: is butterfly labs mining with those ASICs at the moment?  (Read 37439 times)
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 03:25:19 PM
 #41

When the first FPGA I saw came out, it was 400MHs and around $600.  There was zero competition.  To a certain extent, making a chip is making a chip so the fact that these are $149 is amazing.  But with 2 more companies breathing down their necks with similar ASICs, tada, it's $149.  I'm just saying if those 2 competing companies weren't out there, charging $400 instead of $149 for something that runs at 3500MH/s would be perfectly acceptable to most people so they would.  In fact, they could probably get $800.
However you want to phrase it, BFL has always been at the forefront of disruptive product announcement.

You have your cause - effect on pricing backward.

I've read all of your posts here and it's baseless, wrong and speculative all the way.


Did you even take economics in school?  With no competition, you can charge the moon.  That's cause and effect.  If they really get 3500MH/s and let's say a 5830 costs about $115 and typically reaches 320MH/s overclocked, they could charge $1000 and it would still pay off about 20% faster, not counting electricity which is also a huge difference.

But lets say the chips cost $75 to make.  Well, some other company comes in and says we don't need a $925 profit. We'll sell them for $700.  Then the 3rd company comes in and says we'll sell them for $500 because that's still $325 profit.  Suddenly everyone just has a bottom line contest and it ends up at $149.  Or one cheats and mines with them to drive the profits up so they can lower the cost and their products are the ones that take off instead of their competition.  But like I said, if all they had to compete with were GPUs and their ASICs were the only ones, they could and would charge A LOT of money.

And what exactly is wrong with my mysterious, giant leap of a connection that they made a product to sell to people to make money and mining with that product for a very short period of time would make a lot of money so they're probably doing it, as they do want to make money.

Also, 1 person close to them already confirmed that they're mining with an undisclosed about of hardware at the moment.

Then there's the fact that you really can't send out a product like this without running it for at least a couple hours to make sure it works.  Don't want to give your company a bad reputation for like 10% of their products failing in the first week when customers get them.  It's a 1st generation experimental product you know.

So where's my break in logic you're talking about?
They've mentioned multiple times that they use their own algorithm for checking to make sure the miners are working.  They compute known hashes, and compare the results of the computations with the known numbers to be sure they match up.  They specifically stated they do not mine while testing because they do not want their units to attempt to send corrupt or otherwise bad information to the rest of the Bitcoin network.

Josh told me that the owner of Butterflylabs has a buissness history of keeping stuff secret and silent.
And he certain doesnt have any experience with posting on a forum or maintaining websites.
Thats why (untill now) stuff has seem so shady and all I guess.

Seriously? The president of BFL got extradited from Italy and sentenced to 26 months in federal prison for mail fraud stemming from a large internet Ponzi scheme. That's a little more than "keeping stuff secret and silent".
Where's the source for that?  Haven't heard about that before...
1638332960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638332960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638332960
Reply with quote  #2

1638332960
Report to moderator
1638332960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638332960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638332960
Reply with quote  #2

1638332960
Report to moderator
1638332960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638332960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638332960
Reply with quote  #2

1638332960
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1638332960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638332960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638332960
Reply with quote  #2

1638332960
Report to moderator
Shadow383
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 03:31:04 PM
 #42

They've mentioned multiple times that they use their own algorithm for checking to make sure the miners are working.  They compute known hashes, and compare the results of the computations with the known numbers to be sure they match up.  They specifically stated they do not mine while testing because they do not want their units to attempt to send corrupt or otherwise bad information to the rest of the Bitcoin network.
Was that before or after they got busted mining with their FPGA's on EclipseMC?
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 03:38:23 PM
 #43

Josh told me that the owner of Butterflylabs has a buissness history of keeping stuff secret and silent.
And he certain doesnt have any experience with posting on a forum or maintaining websites.
Thats why (untill now) stuff has seem so shady and all I guess.

Seriously? The president of BFL got extradited from Italy and sentenced to 26 months in federal prison for mail fraud stemming from a large internet Ponzi scheme. That's a little more than "keeping stuff secret and silent".
Where's the source for that?  Haven't heard about that before...

Original post:
You say they defaulted last year, but the Wyoming Secretary of State website shows them having filed an annual report just about two weeks ago.  It also clearly shows the only listed executive of the company as Chris Vleisides at 2507 Jefferson St. in KC, MO.  He is apparently a professional photographer as you said (here's his website).  I don't think it's a just a coincidence that Butterfly Labs and Chris Vleisides are both in Kansas City, Missouri.

Anyway, after doing some further digging, it turns out that there is another Mr. Vleisides who has a more interesting past.  His name is "Sonny" Chris Vleisides.  Sonny was apparently convicted of mail fraud relating to a ponzi scheme and is currently on probation: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100915_0004129.CCA.htm/qx

https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/radDocs/PressRoom/nr110114.htm

He's still on probation for another year.  Anyway, Chris Vleisides the photographer was posting photos while Sonny Chris Vleisides was imprisoned.  It also appears that Sonny Chris is younger than Chris (a son or brother?).  I doubt they're the same person, but it's possible that they're related.  Butterfly Labs has definitely been producing legitimate hardware, so if they are a scam, it's a very long play and not a ponzi scheme.  At the very least, at this point it would be nice to have some answers.

Inaba's confirmation:
Sonny Vleisides is associated with BFL and it's the same Sonny listed in the case documents.  He was involved in off shore gaming in the capacity of selling and providing software engineering to companies that did the actual offshore gaming (there is even a US patent application for the process). The industry came under attack (as we all remember) around that time, and Mr. Vleisides was caught up in the process as well as a good portion of the industry based in Costa Rica.

Although this may be cause for concern to some, the fact is that we're a robust company with 22 employees.  One of them has a colorful background in offshore libertarianism.  If I thought there was even the possibility of something unsavory going on within BFL, you can rest assured I would a) not be part of it and b) would let everyone know it.

The reality is, we are legitimate, we have released revolutionary products and we are going to release more revolutionary products.  I was made aware of this back story prior to my employment and I evaluated it and concluded that it was immaterial to the business at hand and thus joined BFL.  There was nothing hidden from me and Sonny has always answered questions and been completely open about his past, but I think we can all agree that it's not something you just announce to the world.
Fjordbit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500

firstbits.com/1kznfw


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2012, 03:38:59 PM
 #44

I also think it's unethical for an employee of a hardware manufacturer to be mining on the same equipment.

Sorry folks, but in a market such as this, it would never be tolerated in other businesses. How do we know Josh doesn't have a competitive advantage ? Is he going to get a 1 TH unit first ?

I think the guy runs a great pool and has been a stand up guy, but once you go to work for a hardware manufacturer, it's kind of bullshit to be competing against your customers in something like mining where timing is everything.

Just my 2 cents. I am NOT saying Josh is doing this and as I understand he ordered his mini rigs before he worked for them.

I just continue to shake my head at how naive BFL seems to be in terms of building reputation. What are they going to sell once the network is saturated and there is no demand ? A more efficient ASIC isn't going to mean shit and if they make a 2 TH rig for the same price then they are screwing their preceding customers. This is really going to be an endless cycle I'm afraid.

On the other hand, building long term relationships built on trust and open information can go along way in a community full of people who are drawn toward decentralization.

Jesus, do people just sit around all day thinking up ways to complain about BFL? What is with this desire to put arbitrary restrictions on other people's actions?

I highly doubt BFL_Josh/Inaba is going to get hardware out of the order than BFL has promised and without some *actual proof* this post comes across as slander and extremely inappropriate to me.

If BFL_Josh/Inaba wants to mine, I don't see how there is a conflict of interest in him using BFL equipment. I'd be a hell of a lot more suspicious if he didn't have some equipment on order. That would be a bigger red flag than this.

Everybody calm down. You'll get your magic money boxes in due time.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 03:48:20 PM
 #45

They've mentioned multiple times that they use their own algorithm for checking to make sure the miners are working.  They compute known hashes, and compare the results of the computations with the known numbers to be sure they match up.  They specifically stated they do not mine while testing because they do not want their units to attempt to send corrupt or otherwise bad information to the rest of the Bitcoin network.
Was that before or after they got busted mining with their FPGA's on EclipseMC?
Don't know, didn't hear about that either.  Source?
Fjordbit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500

firstbits.com/1kznfw


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2012, 03:53:40 PM
 #46

While I'm on the topic. The original post is nothing but slander. I opened it expecting to see some, I don't know, charts and ties to bitcoin reward addresses which are then linked to IP addresses under BFL control. You know; EVIDENCE. Instead, the premise is horribly flawed when it's well known that minirigs and fpga singles have been flying out the door and there is strong motivation for people to crank up their dusty GPU rigs.

Where's the instantaneous 1TH/s jump in hashrate? Not a sloped line, a complete discontiguous jump.

If you're going to make an extrodinary claim, then fucking back it up. Otherwise, don't waste this forum's time.
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1079


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2012, 06:11:02 PM
 #47

They specifically stated they do not mine while testing because they do not want their units to attempt to send corrupt or otherwise bad information to the rest of the Bitcoin network.

There is zero risk of this happening - either a hash is correct or it is not.  Any node can instantly determine this with certainty and refuse to acknowledge a bad one.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper or hardware wallets instead.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 06:17:27 PM
 #48

While i do see some logic to BFL testing their equipment in a real world scenario before they ship them to customers, I also know the hashrate should be A LOT higher then it is already.  We are only 30% higher then we were in 2011 so either a small portion of them are being tested at a time or we simply have more miners.

The part that really confuses me is how the total hashrate bounces up and down by as much as 30-40% in a 12 hour period.  For what its worth, im a GPU miner and ive went from 1gh to 2.4gh in the past few weeks.   I know the GPU end is near, but i dont see any risk in buying video cards when i had tons of free PCI-e slots.  When GPU mining is crushed, ill sell my machines as gaming rigs on craigslist. 
It's because the hashrate is only an estimate based on the number of blocks solved in a given time period.  There is a LOT of variance in those shorter time periods.

They specifically stated they do not mine while testing because they do not want their units to attempt to send corrupt or otherwise bad information to the rest of the Bitcoin network.

There is zero risk of this happening - either a hash is correct or it is not.  Any node can instantly determine this with certainty and refuse to acknowledge a bad one.
I was waiting for someone to confirm my suspicions on that.  Thanks.
crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 06:22:30 PM
 #49

IIRC, it came up months ago that BFL does to an offline burn-in test to their FPGA Singles, to verify that their units are creating proper hashes (comparing to known results). Then, they would sometime fire up the Singles on a pool, to verify that they also work in a live environment, but it was never more than a few minutes or so. BFL posted a screenshot of their account, and had only mined ~100,000 shares over several months of testing.

Now that was months ago, before they shipped this many MiniRigs, and before the ASICs, but I don't see why they would change this, esp when it says in their FAQ that they won't.

Tips? 1crazy8pMqgwJ7tX7ZPZmyPwFbc6xZKM9
Previous Trade History - Sale Thread
BFL_Josh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 78
Merit: 10



View Profile WWW
September 19, 2012, 06:47:41 PM
 #50

All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC).  After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day.  We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well). 

We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time.  You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.
Desolator
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 06:53:41 PM
 #51

Well apparently if the extradited from Italy for fraud part is true, I don't think BFL would have any problem faking a screenshot.  I could turn 1 million shares into 100k in about 15 seconds in photoshop Tongue Or just mine with like 10 computers, each on a different pool. That's basically 100% undetectable.  It'd look like an even rise across the whole bitcoin system.

Btw I see someone posted a picture of butterfly labs in the general forum Cheesy

EDIT: O, hai Josh! *waves*

"You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool."

Kinda no way to "be sure" but how do you have real world pool-based bitcoin mining hash numbers posted if you're using artifical hases only?  There has to be a heck of a variance with no offsite server to contact.  Certainly with 7000 pre-orders, you did make sure they function using live bitcoin protocol data at some point? lol.

Also, new butterfly labs logo, perhaps? what do you think?:

SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 07:15:39 PM
 #52

All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC).  After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day.  We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well). 

We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time.  You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.

Thanks for the information.
dlasher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 467
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
September 19, 2012, 07:22:45 PM
 #53

It could just very well be all the mini-rigs that have shipped up til now. There are plenty of them in the wild @ 25GH/s.
^This. You won the prize!

I can name (just from people who I know have them) ~19 Minirigs, so that's 475Gh/s right there - I doubt BFL manufactured less than 100...

I know of at least another 10.

nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250

Inactive


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:23:46 PM
 #54

All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC).  After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day.  We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well). 

We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time.  You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.



When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.

For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?

Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run.  Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment.  Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.   Huh


Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing? 

Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.


You know this looks bad, right?
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:28:31 PM
 #55

All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC).  After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day.  We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well). 

We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time.  You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.



When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.

For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?

Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run.  Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment.  Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.   Huh


Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing? 

Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.


You know this looks bad, right?
I have to agree that it looks bad.  At least they're being upfront about it (finally).  I still won't be cancelling my order over this though.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:33:36 PM
 #56

Did it ever occur to people that self ASIC mining could have always been part of the plan?

BFL promised tentative dates of Oct or Nov for ASIC deliveries. As long as they met that, then no one has any right to complain or state BFL is acting inappropriately. If BFL planned for ASIC completion in September and to self mine for 2 months, and only then deliver en mass to purchasers, that would be completely consistent with what people bought and paid for.

People bought an ASIC to be delivered by end-of-November and for those parts to function for 1 year. Whatever BFL does with the hardware before end-of-November is their business....

just my 2 cents.
crazyates
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:33:56 PM
 #57

All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC).  After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day.  We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well). 

We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time.  You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.



When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.

For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?

Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run.  Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment.  Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.   Huh


Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing? 

Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.


You know this looks bad, right?

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.

Tips? 1crazy8pMqgwJ7tX7ZPZmyPwFbc6xZKM9
Previous Trade History - Sale Thread
cablepair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1000


Buy this account on March-2019. New Owner here!!


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2012, 08:39:29 PM
 #58



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.

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:41:13 PM
 #59

All of our equipment is burn tested after final assembly/testing for ~24 hours on a live pool (In this case, EMC).  After the burn-in, it's taken off the rack, packed and shipped the same day.  We do this for both the singles and the mini rig and the singles PSU's (we've had a few of those go bad, so now we burn those in as well). 

We are not mining with any ASIC equipment at the present time.  You can be sure there would be a big announcement if we had turned up the ASICs on a live pool.



When paired with ASIC technology BFL testing practices are disturbing.

For an initial batch production and shipment of BFL SC equipment how much will the "live pool" ASIC mining affect difficulty prior to ASICs being in the wild?

Let's say a conservative estimate of 20 TH total capacity for the first batch run.  Let's say one month of production where units are coming off the line assembled and being stored for batch shipment.  Of course, not before the essential live pool testing.   Huh


Would it then be reasonable to assume that the equivalent of approx. 666 GH per day in units would be in "live pool" burn-in testing? 

Difficulty adjusted that's still well over 200 BTC, or 2500 USD, per day skimmed off the top.


You know this looks bad, right?

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.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Testnet
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1045


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:49:06 PM
 #60

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

THIS IS WHAT TEST NET IS FOR.

More like testnet-in-a-box.


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!