Is bASIC trying to delay BFL shipments plan?

[hahahafr]

bASIC went from 27 GH/s to 54 GH/s, to now 72 GH/S for $1069.99.
BFL from 40 GH/s to 60 GH/s for $1299.99.

Is Tom using all of his ressources to force BFL to adapt to these numbers, thus delaying BFL shipment plan? Maybe because he has not his bASIC chips himself?

I would do the same in his position.

[1715523660]

1715523660

[1715523660]

1715523660

[1715523660]

1715523660

[1715523660]

1715523660

[1715523660]

1715523660

[psilan]

That sounds really dumb.

[MrTeal]

That sounds really dumb.

You haven't read many of hahahafr's posts, have you?

[Morblias]

bASIC went from 27 GH/s to 54 GH/s, to now 72 GH/S for $1069.99.
BFL from 40 GH/s to 60 GH/s for $1299.99.

Is Tom using all of his ressources to force BFL to adapt to these numbers, thus delaying BFL shipment plan? Maybe because he has not his bASIC chips himself?

I would do the same in his position.

Why do I read these forums?

[PuertoLibre]

That sounds really dumb.

You haven't read many of hahahafr's posts, have you?

Actually, it is not so far fetched.

Avalon did that to BFL. And there was a long delay as BFL responded to the changes in their hardware.

According to a BFL representative, the reason why they were late was exactly because of those changes to their specs. So no, not as crazy as it sounds.

------------------------
The question is, when did Tom get the changes in and when did his engineering firm ask him to consider the change to 8 chips? He doesn't give a real timeline as to when that all happened.

[psilan]

Nah mate it's ridiculous.

[PuertoLibre]

Nah mate it's ridiculous.

Ok, but when were the changes implemented on Tom's design?

Was it in late November? Don't assume, simply ask Tom when his device obtained the 72Gh design changes.

[psilan]

Why does it matter when? This is a silly thread.

[crazyates]

BFL did that to Avalon.

FTFY

Avalon was originally supposed to sell their Pre-orders for 1299, and later sell their hardware for 1999. They could get away with this because they were 50% faster than BFL, and over 2x as fast as the bASIC. When BFL upped their specs (due to the bASIC upping theirs), Avalon had to lower their price to remain competitive.

[niko]

BFL did that to Avalon.

FTFY

Avalon was originally supposed to sell their Pre-orders for 1299, and later sell their hardware for 1999. They could get away with this because they were 50% faster than BFL, and over 2x as fast as the bASIC. When BFL upped their specs (due to the bASIC upping theirs), Avalon had to lower their price to remain competitive.

...and then we had to read this thread. So, basically, everyone is screwed.

[Starlightbreaker]

BFL did that to Avalon.

FTFY

Avalon was originally supposed to sell their Pre-orders for 1299, and later sell their hardware for 1999. They could get away with this because they were 50% faster than BFL, and over 2x as fast as the bASIC. When BFL upped their specs (due to the bASIC upping theirs), Avalon had to lower their price to remain competitive.

...and then we had to read this thread. So, basically, everyone is screwed.

ASIC is a circlejerk then?

[PuertoLibre]

BFL did that to Avalon.

FTFY

Avalon was originally supposed to sell their Pre-orders for 1299, and later sell their hardware for 1999. They could get away with this because they were 50% faster than BFL, and over 2x as fast as the bASIC. When BFL upped their specs (due to the bASIC upping theirs), Avalon had to lower their price to remain competitive.

And the reason they went from 40Gh/s to 60 is obvious.

It wasn't more than a week or two ago that one BFL representative mentioned why they kept waiting on new revisions. Because of the speed bump increase.

[repentance]

According to a BFL representative, the reason why they were late was exactly because of those changes to their specs. So no, not as crazy as it sounds.

Didn't BFL say at the time that they'd originally intended to release a post-delivery firmware update which would have taken the specs to 60 GH/s?

Everyone's pretty much assumed since then that all ASIC providers would have the capacity to offer firmware updates which would deliver higher specs.  The question was really whether they'd do it pre or post-delivery and how much they'd try to keep in reserve.

If you want to screw your competitors you want them to start delivery while you still have time to make hardware modifications which increase your maximum specs beyond theirs, not just do something they can match with a firmware tweak.  Hell, if you want to be really nasty, you don't even announce how much better your specs really are until you start shipping.

[creativex]

Not with ASIC though. He who ships first will reel in a mother lode of orders. Dinking around with revisions while your competition ships could be brutal on the bottom line.

[PuertoLibre]

According to a BFL representative, the reason why they were late was exactly because of those changes to their specs. So no, not as crazy as it sounds.

Didn't BFL say at the time that they'd originally intended to release a post-delivery firmware update which would have taken the specs to 60 GH/s?

That was the original implication. Later followed by apparent hardware level changes to support the increased speed. Hence, the extra delays.

BFL might have originally shipped at their original spec much sooner. Though that train  of logic is broken (or borked) by the problem they appear to still face: namely, sourcing components. They appear to be suffering from a component shortage or late delivery of components [other than the ASICs[.

Everyone's pretty much assumed since then that all ASIC providers would have the capacity to offer firmware updates which would deliver higher specs.  The question was really whether they'd do it pre or post-delivery and how much they'd try to keep in reserve.

There is no simple answer to this. We don't really know if it is even possible to just push a firmware in and make it work. We would have to ask for confirmation from each vendor to figure that out.

If you want to screw your competitors you want them to start delivery while you still have time to make hardware modifications which increase your maximum specs beyond theirs, not just do something they can match with a firmware tweak.  Hell, if you want to be really nasty, you don't even announce how much better your specs really are until you start shipping.

Actually, many people would probably prefer to mine first and hope for upgrades in the form a simple firmware upgrade. But there is little proof that

A) This feature of firmware upgrades is as simple as a CLI application. (could be like a J-Tag style of firmware upgrades)
B) That the competition would be negatively impacted by simply announcing your specs late.

It pays much more (IMO) to delay the competition by forcing them to change parts and components. Everytime they do, they have to make hardware or software changes which costs time and money.

In this latest round of upgrades, BFL has basically stated they will not change their specs or design. They instead will prioritize their shipments first. Whether a customer can remotely upgrade their hardware is yet to be seen. This isn't exactly an Intel/AMD or Broadcomm chipset and design implementation.

So who knows how easy it is to upgrade. It is something we should ask the Vendors directly to get a straight answer.

[bcpokey]

According to a BFL representative, the reason why they were late was exactly because of those changes to their specs. So no, not as crazy as it sounds.

Didn't BFL say at the time that they'd originally intended to release a post-delivery firmware update which would have taken the specs to 60 GH/s?

That was the original implication. Later followed by apparent hardware level changes to support the increased speed. Hence, the extra delays.

BFL might have originally shipped at their original spec much sooner. Though that train  of logic is broken (or borked) by the problem they appear to still face: namely, sourcing components. They appear to be suffering from a component shortage or late delivery of components [other than the ASICs[.

Actually the latest news is that the ASICs were borked, and that's the delay. Though that is still a component shortage I suppose.

[Coinoisseur]

Heh, it's all paper changes. How much sweat does it take to type a small announcement? Do people really think any of these ASICs have been pushed back due to wanting to hit higher GH/s rather than not having fully functional chips? They just decided to turn down the option of already shipping 27-30GH/s units because hey we can get 40-60GH/s units out if we delay 4-6 months...

[hahahafr]

That sounds really dumb.

You haven't read many of hahahafr's posts, have you?

I love you too.

According to a BFL representative, the reason why they were late was exactly because of those changes to their specs. So no, not as crazy as it sounds.

Didn't BFL say at the time that they'd originally intended to release a post-delivery firmware update which would have taken the specs to 60 GH/s?

That was the original implication. Later followed by apparent hardware level changes to support the increased speed. Hence, the extra delays.

BFL might have originally shipped at their original spec much sooner. Though that train  of logic is broken (or borked) by the problem they appear to still face: namely, sourcing components. They appear to be suffering from a component shortage or late delivery of components [other than the ASICs[.

Actually the latest news is that the ASICs were borked, and that's the delay. Though that is still a component shortage I suppose.

Can you elaborate on this borked thing?

[bcpokey]

That sounds really dumb.

You haven't read many of hahahafr's posts, have you?

I love you too.

According to a BFL representative, the reason why they were late was exactly because of those changes to their specs. So no, not as crazy as it sounds.

Didn't BFL say at the time that they'd originally intended to release a post-delivery firmware update which would have taken the specs to 60 GH/s?

That was the original implication. Later followed by apparent hardware level changes to support the increased speed. Hence, the extra delays.

BFL might have originally shipped at their original spec much sooner. Though that train  of logic is broken (or borked) by the problem they appear to still face: namely, sourcing components. They appear to be suffering from a component shortage or late delivery of components [other than the ASICs[.

Actually the latest news is that the ASICs were borked, and that's the delay. Though that is still a component shortage I suppose.

Can you elaborate on this borked thing?

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/437-asic-update-26-november-2012-a.html

[eldentyrell]

you don't even announce how much better your specs really are until you start shipping.

prescient.