21.co bitcoin computer!

[lovenlifelarge]

Have i misread something about the bitcoin computer??

I originally saw specs for a 100 - 120gh miner running at 0.15w per gh meaning total watts used would be 15w

I saw comments on amazon that people were only getting 50gh max & its still running at 15w, This makes spec 0.3w per gh..

Can someone clear this up for me??

Or is 21.co stealing 50gh off the backend for itself??

[1715371872]

1715371872

[1715371872]

1715371872

[1715371872]

1715371872

[Tupsu]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1253351.0

[GriffinHeart]

Well, if 21.co IS stealing anything someone would find out. Fairly quickly.
I haven't witnessed any complaints so far and I don't expect to, this miner is tiny and doesn't really bring in any income.
The sheer amount of code-literate people posting on their twitter is crazy, I don't think 21.co would get away with stealing 50Gh/s of 100Gh/s. To boot, 21.co is not a scummy company that would try to pull such a cheapshot, I mean what do they stand to gain with potentially burning their reputation and the legitimacy of their whole company for 50Gh/s per miner...

[alh]

I think it's a bit silly to try and compare their current device and associated "mining pool" to a more usual "ASIC miner + Pool". They repeatedly point out that the whole idea isn't to mine Bitcoins. As best we know at this time, it's not possible to redirect it's mining engine towards anything other than their "pool".

Anybody that's unhappy with any conventional metrics (i.e. $$$/GH, J/GH) have not been paying attention to what they have written and their stated goal. If you don't buy into the "I want to do something with BTC and micro-transactions", then this device will not satisfy you. Since their "pool" isn't open to the general public for other miners, it doesn't make sense to try and compare it.

[lovenlifelarge]

I think it's a bit silly to try and compare their current device and associated "mining pool" to a more usual "ASIC miner + Pool". They repeatedly point out that the whole idea isn't to mine Bitcoins. As best we know at this time, it's not possible to redirect it's mining engine towards anything other than their "pool".

Anybody that's unhappy with any conventional metrics (i.e. $$$/GH, J/GH) have not been paying attention to what they have written and their stated goal. If you don't buy into the "I want to do something with BTC and micro-transactions", then this device will not satisfy you. Since their "pool" isn't open to the general public for other miners, it doesn't make sense to try and compare it.

Ah thats interesting, I didnt know the device is locked to there pool only??

[alh]

You would need to verify this, but my understanding is that their mining ASIC has a BTC wallet address as part of it's logic. I don't really understand the details of how that works, nor if it's accurate, but it really doesn't look like 21 Inc wants to make a general purpose miner.

It would be really good to get accurate info on the device, but that's not likely to come quickly.

[QuintLeo]

It's not the ASIC that controls the wallet, it's the controller setup the ASIC is connected to - for an insane amount of overprice.

[2112]

I believe it is underclocked to 50gh/s for the cooling mechanism

The underclock is not because of cooling. They have a really complex DRM processor on the mining chip that prevents changing the mining payout address. The heat and electrical noise of the usual mining operating point would prevent DRM from working.

[alh]

It's not the ASIC that controls the wallet, it's the controller setup the ASIC is connected to - for an insane amount of overprice.

For virtually any other normal miner I would completely agree with you. My comment wasn't made out of random ignorance. I would swear that I read that the 21 Inc ASIC has a wallet address buried in the logic. I don't understand why, though it may all be wrapped up in some DRM scheme unique to them.

I don't think there is any reason to consider this a "normal SHA-256" mining engine. 21 Inc. doesn't sell miners in the usual sense, and hence to think we can apply our experience from others (e.g. Bitmain Avalon, BFL, etc.) is probably not right.

As I said before, if you buy into their overall scheme that's great. If not, it's probably best to move and not speculate too much on what, how, and why they did what they did. While the speculation might be fun, it's a bit pointless in my opinion.

One interesting question: Have -ck or Kano been contacted by 21 Inc? Can they say so if they have?

[notlist3d]

It's not the ASIC that controls the wallet, it's the controller setup the ASIC is connected to - for an insane amount of overprice.

For virtually any other normal miner I would completely agree with you. My comment wasn't made out of random ignorance. I would swear that I read that the 21 Inc ASIC has a wallet address buried in the logic. I don't understand why, though it may all be wrapped up in some DRM scheme unique to them.

I don't think there is any reason to consider this a "normal SHA-256" mining engine. 21 Inc. doesn't sell miners in the usual sense, and hence to think we can apply our experience from others (e.g. Bitmain Avalon, BFL, etc.) is probably not right.

As I said before, if you buy into their overall scheme that's great. If not, it's probably best to move and not speculate too much on what, how, and why they did what they did. While the speculation might be fun, it's a bit pointless in my opinion.

One interesting question: Have -ck or Kano been contacted by 21 Inc? Can they say so if they have?

I still think they just wanted to tell investors they had a product.  So they made a massively overpriced product they can sell and they know sales will be low.  So they could make 1 batch of these and it would last a LONG time.

Now when they go to investor ... yes we have a product launched.  Even though most of us agree what they have is not much of a miner at all.