is butterfly labs mining with those ASICs at the moment?

[RHA]

It is better to read more threads of the forum and cry less here.
For many months Inaba operates a pool of FPGA Singles in which he has 20% GLBSE shares (or less, I don't know). It was advertised here at the beginning of April.
From that time the pool has grown quite a bit because of people who had given their fresh new equipment to temporary hosting by Inaba (as he operates a data center) to save on shipment when upgrading. An offer of temporary hosting (because of popular request) was here at the beginning of July.
So now a group of minirigs and a bunch of singles belonging to different people works together at Inaba datacenter. Directing this group to different mining pools causes a performance hops. The sig shows only the hashing made at EMC. When all mine at EMC the sig shows 480 GH/s, when only a half - 240, when all mine elsewhere - 0 GH/s (you could see the last value in past weeks).

[1714942297]

1714942297

[1714942297]

1714942297

[1714942297]

1714942297

[1714942297]

1714942297

[1714942297]

1714942297

[1714942297]

1714942297

[SgtSpike]

Btw I heard that BFL doesn't have a working, completed ASIC in their hands yet but they managed to go to some sort of conference and show one off then auction it off...DAFUQ?!  Hmmm...

I just talked to someone who went, and he confirmed that there were NO ASIC's at the conference.

[nebulus]

Btw I heard that BFL doesn't have a working, completed ASIC in their hands yet but they managed to go to some sort of conference and show one off then auction it off...DAFUQ?!  Hmmm...

I just talked to someone who went, and he confirmed that there were NO ASIC's at the conference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viKPHKQJ9Q4

[Fiyasko]

They are just long testing, Wich requires them to do Real hashwork

[nedbert9]

Everyone concerned about BFL testing on main-net for their own profit should take a look at the last paragraph of this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110805.msg1209517#msg1209517

To quote what he was referring to:

Josh also mentioned that they will do a day when they test the new ASIC rigs out on the real Bitcoin Network, and all the BTC mined for that one day they will give out to the developers. Pretty  cool if you ask me. So, yeah, I'm having trouble believing they are scam. I saw the equipment and they built it with care.

Four points.  TL;DR.  Credibility and community/customer respect.  

BFL unilaterally decided to mine main-net while all prior community communications stated they would not.

BFL did not openly disclose QC activities on main-net at the point they decided that's what they were going to do.  This goes for both FPGA and ASIC.

BFL has attempted to defend their position of QC with main-net using false technical arguments and convenient omission of well known facts.  "We've been asked by dev's not to use test-net."  read:  we cannot use test-net at all - in any form - due to technical challenges.  False.

BFL has attempted to discredit customers who voice their displeasure on these issues.  Terms used like 'bad customer' 'bfl hater' 'irate/irrational' 'if you don't like please go elsewhere with your business.'


The market has been captured by BFL.  Once significant competitive market pressure exists BFL will have to compete not only on technology, but on customer relationships.

[Inaba]

Please stop spreading false information nedbert.  I believe *you* believe what you're writing, but it's demonstrably false to anyone that is capable of searching the forums beyond the one post you quote over and over from a year ago.  Additionally, I never said "we cannot use test-net at all - in any form - due to technical challenges." - that is you making false statements and attempting to attribute them to me.

BFL unilaterally decided to mine main-net while all prior community communications stated they would not.

False.

BFL did not openly disclose QC activities on main-net at the point they decided that's what they were going to do.  This goes for both FPGA and ASIC.

False.

BFL has attempted to defend their position of QC with main-net using false technical arguments and convenient omission of well known facts.  "We've been asked by dev's not to use test-net."  read:  we cannot use test-net at all - in any form - due to technical challenges.  False.

False.

BFL has attempted to discredit customers who voice their displeasure on these issues.  Terms used like 'bad customer' 'bfl hater' 'irate/irrational' 'if you don't like please go elsewhere with your business.'

Also false, but only because it's ludicrous to conflate "discredit" with "We will be happy to refund your money if you want a refund."

If you believe any of your above falsehoods to be true, please back them up with more than just a single post from a year ago by somebody else (not me).  

*EDIT*

I guess that morality flew right out the window (I knew your bitching about morality was all talk and no substance):  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110917.msg1210649#msg1210649

[The-Real-Link]

Maybe Inaba's sig just updated after a fast block change?  I know I could go on Deepbit or any other pool and show that I have 2GH/sec or almost 6GH/sec depending on how fast they update their data to show a disproportinately solved series of blocks, thus making it look faster than you really are.  2xx > 4xx is quite a jump but it's possible.

[Gabi]

Lol, it is saying 480Ghash/s right now

Inaba wtf do you have half a terahash of mining equipment?? GPU, FPGA?

[RHA]

Read a post seven posts earlier.

[nedbert9]

*EDIT*

I guess that morality flew right out the window (I knew your bitching about morality was all talk and no substance):  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110917.msg1210649#msg1210649

I guess if you equate selling something on the open market to deceiving customers I suppose that works.

warped logic is warped.

[reeses]

Please stop spreading false information nedbert.  I believe *you* believe what you're writing, but it's demonstrably false to anyone that is capable of searching the forums beyond the one post you quote over and over from a year ago.  Additionally, I never said "we cannot use test-net at all - in any form - due to technical challenges." - that is you making false statements and attempting to attribute them to me.

BFL unilaterally decided to mine main-net while all prior community communications stated they would not.

False.

BFL did not openly disclose QC activities on main-net at the point they decided that's what they were going to do.  This goes for both FPGA and ASIC.

False.

BFL has attempted to defend their position of QC with main-net using false technical arguments and convenient omission of well known facts.  "We've been asked by dev's not to use test-net."  read:  we cannot use test-net at all - in any form - due to technical challenges.  False.

False.

BFL has attempted to discredit customers who voice their displeasure on these issues.  Terms used like 'bad customer' 'bfl hater' 'irate/irrational' 'if you don't like please go elsewhere with your business.'

Also false, but only because it's ludicrous to conflate "discredit" with "We will be happy to refund your money if you want a refund."

If you believe any of your above falsehoods to be true, please back them up with more than just a single post from a year ago by somebody else (not me).  

*EDIT*

I guess that morality flew right out the window (I knew your bitching about morality was all talk and no substance):  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110917.msg1210649#msg1210649

Probably time for you to take a forum timeout, as this is just going to hose your weekend.  As it stands, you aren't doing your company any favors by posting this stuff while angry.

[Inaba]

Who's angry?

[Desolator]

THIS IS BITCOINTALK.ORG.  WE'RE ALL ANGRY ALL THE TIME! RAWR! lol.

Anyway, since people keep being lazy about reading, perhaps you should put underneath your sig pic "mining with other people's FPGA products for them pending an upgrade to ASIC" or something.  That would explain that they're not ASICs and it's not your personally owned hardware.

[Jutarul]

Anyway, since people keep being lazy about reading, perhaps you should put underneath your sig pic "mining with other people's FPGA products for them pending an upgrade to ASIC" or something.  That would explain that they're not ASICs and it's not your personally owned hardware.

+1

which reminds me of the point I was making earlier about transfer of ownership:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110290.msg1207708#msg1207708

I don't envy for BFL having to establish policies as they go. It's a very dynamic business right now. The whole premine thing is a PR disaster, because customers have the wrong expectations and BFL was not clear about it from the start (as opposed to at least one competitor).

The fact is: With selling the units as "pre-orders" the units technically belong to the customer at all times (?, needs to be confirmed by a lawyer). BFL is offering a quality control before the unit ships. The problem is that the unit creates profit during that time: Who is the rightful owner of this profit? The owner of the hardware (customer) or the person who operates it (BFL)?

@Inaba: You really have to clarify this point, otherwise expect someone to sue BFL about this point.

ADDENDUM: Maybe if BFL pools the profits from the quality control and does a payback to the customers (after substracting e.g. 20% management fee & electricity) they won't be as mad about it (you using the units to generate profits...)

[reeses]

Anyway, since people keep being lazy about reading, perhaps you should put underneath your sig pic "mining with other people's FPGA products for them pending an upgrade to ASIC" or something.  That would explain that they're not ASICs and it's not your personally owned hardware.

Colocation.  Easily enough stated.

The fact is: With selling the units as "pre-orders" the units technically belong to the customer at all times (?, needs to be confirmed by a lawyer). BFL is offering a quality control before the unit ships. The problem is that the unit creates profit during that time: Who is the rightful owner of this profit? The owner of the hardware (customer) or the person who operates it (BFL)?

Law around pre-orders is a real pain in the ass in the USA.  It varies by state, can easily cross the line into fraud (dun dun DUNNNN), and is illegal under certain circumstances.

Generally, you don't "own" the product in a pre-order.  You can ask for a refund under the terms of the agreement (i.e., you might be hosed if you pre-ordered a 2014 Ferrari "Enzo+" in Hello Kitty trim and they just finished the paint and stitch work) but you are not automatically entitled to interest or other consideration.

When the product exists, is not configured to order, and you are placing an order for that product, then the FTC is much more specific.  We have to deal with a 30-day rule (you may see this when pre-ordering or ordering items from Amazon that have become delayed) where you are asked if you still want the product.  We are then required to make contact and update the expected shipping date, again giving you the opportunity to cancel your order and receive a refund.

The FTC has decent pages on this now.  In general, the FTC sites are good to peruse from time to time if you engage in any commerce, especially on-line.

http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre28.shtm

[Transisto]

...
The fact is: With selling the units as "pre-orders" the units technically belong to the customer at all times (?, needs to be confirmed by a lawyer). BFL is offering a quality control before the unit ships. The problem is that the unit creates profit during that time: Who is the rightful owner of this profit? The owner of the hardware (customer) or the person who operates it (BFL)?

@Inaba: You really have to clarify this point, otherwise expect someone to sue BFL about this point.
...

Wow you guy like to make drama out of nothing.   "BFL to be sued over profiting from QC ?" OMG !

The thing is ; No-matter how many good advices you give them on how to QC their products fairly you'd have no way of enforcing said policy.

• If enough customer pledge on canceling their orders based of this uncertainty and BFL think they would make more money by allowing an independent 3rd party inspector to survey their operations. Then chance are they might do so and as a customer we might even want to finance it.
  (Remember how Inaba was sent to report on our collective behalf ?)
  
  
• Another scenario is that out of 22 employee we could offer a collective bounty for any of them to anonymously release proof of private mining with customer's hardware.  (I herein pledge 10 btc)
  
  
• It's also possible that BFL wouldn't risk bad PR if they foresaw creating next generation products. (the world doesn't end at ~100nm process)
  
  
• Or we might as well show some trust in their good faith.

I showed them my trust by pre-ordering and I expect to be respected in return.  
Unfortunately, I think not spreading FUD is the cheapest thing I can afford to protect my investment.

@OP/Desolator,  I think it's definitely time you edit this FUDdy title. !!!

[Jutarul]

@Inaba: You really have to clarify this point, otherwise expect someone to sue BFL about this point.

Wow you guy like to make drama out of nothing.   "BFL to be sued over profiting from QC ?" OMG !

The company is located in the US. People sue for less. If there are a few $100k on the table someone may jump at the opportunity. I just spelled it out.

This is a friendly reminder to BFL to update the terms and pacify their customer base. Otherwise the PR disaster may develop into a financial one...

[Desolator]

@OP/Desolator,  I think it's definitely time you edit this FUDdy title. !!!

They have pics of the units and I don't think they're empty chassis.  If the title wasn't true when I posted it, it is now or will be soon, lol.  I mean come on, they're at least going to run 1!  The original premise probably was inaccurate though, lol, so I altered it.  Btw nobody ever was able to truly explain the giant jump in mining activity during a time period when everyone knows ASICs are coming out so nobody in investing in new mining hardware.  It simply does not make sense and that seemed like the most logical conclusion (that BFL was testing some ASICs).

[greyhawk]

They have pics of the units and I don't think they're empty chassis.

Where? All I've seen are renders.

[Desolator]

It's so buried on giant threads, I should just make it my sig, lol.  For the record, this is from BFL's own Facebook page, lol.  But I assume most of you are as smart as me and don't use Facebook.

Jalapeno


And for the record, a fake that some dumbass posted:


And to get you 100% caught up, this is a pic of butterfly labs (the made up animals, not the company, lol)