Community Miner Design Discussion

[aliashraf]

That is a whole lot of words  ....
....
I think what you have failed to read on this thread is that the purpose of this miner is to empower the little guys.  Any dealings like what you are suggesting is a, well, COMPLETE SELL OUT

You want to support little guys? The only way  is to have them cooperative and united, 'somehow, someway' ...

The 'genius hacker-cowboy' discourse is useless and in this very moment almost dangerous: It does nothing other than wasting people's time and opportunities.

Chinese corporates are swallowing the whale destroying the Bitcoin (along with themselves though) by monopolizing ASIC chips design and supply and faking a hardware supplier role while at the same time are competting with their customers using next generation chips and technologies.

And Mr.Kilo is going to fight them alone with no money and no support, fantastic but impractical and worse.

A dedicated engineer stuck in love with a project like this, is to be employed full time to go through design , prototype, test and deploy cycles under quality control and management supervision while using workshops, instruments, laboratories, parts , ... scheduled to the project. She will probably need a handful of teammates and assistants plus an extensive support of software engineers and devs.

I don't buy this sort of un-functional imitation of a dedicated hero. If You are committed to the purpose, say welcome to 'somehow, someway' organizing 'little guys' potentials and capabilities and if not stop playing Zorba shit ...

if it is anything like the DAO, count me out.  I am dedicated to somehow, someway making a Community Miner.  I WILL GET IT DONE - as far as expanding or somehow encompassing a smart contract or even associating the "Community Miner" with such a business plan or proposition would be a fail in my book.

DAO is a failed attempt based on a false idea: smart contracts. There is and there will be no smart contract for sure , contracts are social objects made and maintained by humans. I am talking about  semi-smart contracts i.e. contracts supported and facilitated by machines somewhat extensively but by no means ultimately and fully automated.
I am proposing such a semi-smart contract can help us to establish a semi-Autonomous Distributed Organisation as a 'bitcoinized' alternative to the Failed DAO and using this to support and escalate efforts and projects in favor of decentralizing Bitcoin network hash power effectively, the community miner project being one of them. Anything unreasonable or unfavorable here?

[NotFuzzyWarm]

<snip>
Anything unreasonable or unfavorable here?

Yes. All of it.

This is not about building an ecosystem or changing the world, it is simply about building a miner based around the best suggestions/ideas presented here. Nor are the plans for said miner to be mass produced per se which removes the need for most of the Corporate overhead you call for.

I mean, "design , prototype, test and deploy cycles under quality control and management supervision"? The final design is not up to a vote, it is up to the head of the project, Sidehack. Period.

Folks behind this thread have seen previous hardware projects fail and fall apart precisely because of the design-by-committee approach and worse yet -- direct investor input/pressure from folks with little to no skills on the technical matters they are pushing their wants/idea for -- that you are advocating. For one example, WASP is a great Poster Child for that. It's end result was endless discussions over minutia, continual scope-creep and tons of wasted time and monies all of which finally drowned the project in bureaucracy and killed it.

I for one am all for the Lone Ranger (cowboy) approach. Then again, like Sidehack I am one as well (though my biz is industrial lasers).

Now, does Genius need backers to fund building/testing/implementing their ideas? Sure. I for one am grateful to have hooked up with one back in the 70's when I was at Photon Sources, he was their head of aftermarket sales. We soon left together to form our own company and have not once looked back ever since. He was also wise enough to let me do what I do so well with zero interference while he concentrated on sales of what I come up with and build, running the business, and finding capital to fund the R&D toys, er, equipment I need.

[cloudnthings]

Money, to me, is a tool just like anything else. It's a construct that allows me to turn stuff into different stuff, and effort into reward. Money is not the goal, money is a means of translating work and stuff into the goal - whatever that goal may be. But yeah, most agreements or contracts do hinge on turning work into money or stuff into money, which for one side is work into money and the other side money into the goal. I've just never liked the idea of "having lots of money" being the goal in itself, because money is useless by definition if it's not being used.

Well said.

[aliashraf]

<snip>
Anything unreasonable or unfavorable here?

Yes. All of it.

This is not about building an ecosystem or changing the world, it is simply about building a miner based around the best suggestions/ideas presented here. Nor are the plans for said miner to be mass produced per se which removes the need for most of the Corporate overhead you call for.

So we are discussing a community miner which is going to be used by ..wait ...by whom? It is not the community as it is not going to be mass produced ... so who in the hell is going to use it? And 'all of' my post is unreasonable while you are telling us meaningful stuff?

I mean, "design , prototype, test and deploy cycles under quality control and management supervision"? The final design is not up to a vote, it is up to the head of the project, Sidehack. Period.

Folks behind this thread have seen previous hardware projects fail and fall apart precisely because of the design-by-committee approach and worse yet -- direct investor input/pressure from folks with little to no skills on the technical matters they are pushing their wants/idea for -- that you are advocating.

design-by-committee is great, sharing knowledge and expertise is great and having a reference guy in charge is great too, I see no contradiction and divergence here ...

'direct investor input/pressure' is of little concern here, nobody comes to invest in a sidehack project to push him out of rail, it is absurd. people should have a voice about most strategic decisions (like one you have made by your own about not to mass produce the product) this is it! nothing more, nobody is interested in details and everybody is concerned and has a right to be concerned about the strategy

I for one am all for the Lone Ranger (cowboy) approach. Then again, like Sidehack I am one as well (though my biz is industrial lasers).

me too
seriously, people who know me being asked about the one lone ranger in the world, without a second hesitation will introduce me as #1 candidate.
But I am planning to retire or something like that ... mmm ... put it this way ... for this specific problem, saving and strengthening community miners to defeat the obvious centralization threat to the Blockchain from China, I'm willing to try new possibilities and opportunities risen from this technology to make a compromise 

Now, does Genius need backers to fund building/testing/implementing their ideas? Sure.

congratulations! But Why? and more importantly, HOW?

[kupan787]

design-by-committee is great

 

[in2tactics]

design-by-committee is great

I was just as confused. LOL

[QuintLeo]

Chinese corporates are swallowing the whale destroying the Bitcoin (along with themselves though) by monopolizing ASIC chips design and supply

 When did BitFury move to China?

 Also, GlobalFounderies DOES have at least one of their fabs in the US (ex-IBM as I recall? Or was it ex-Intel?).

[aliashraf]

Chinese corporates are swallowing the whale destroying the Bitcoin (along with themselves though) by monopolizing ASIC chips design and supply

 When did BitFury move to China?

 Also, GlobalFounderies DOES have at least one of their fabs in the US (ex-IBM as I recall? Or was it ex-Intel?).

Is it enough for arguing against the obvious facts? https://blockchain.info/pools

[Unacceptable]

I doubt very seriously that ANYONE is going to get ANY chips in ANY reasonable amount for us home miners  

All this chatter is nice,but more than likely to no avail  

So best of luck & I'll keep watchin...but I'ma doubtin  

[aliashraf]

design-by-committee is great

I was just as confused. LOL

why then? just keep reading the whole damn sentence

design-by-committee is great, sharing knowledge and expertise is great and having a reference guy in charge is great too, I see no contradiction and divergence here ...

good luck with being a genius and we ordinary average Joe's will appreciate you enough but even an average Joe sometimes has something surprising to mention and to help, let's have you (the genius)  in charge and give poor Joe some opportunity to help and learn.
I mean come on, even Batman gets aid ....

[aliashraf]

I doubt very seriously that ANYONE is going to get ANY chips in ANY reasonable amount for us home miners  

All this chatter is nice,but more than likely to no avail  

So best of luck & I'll keep watchin...but I'ma doubtin  

Are you in? how much? Suppose a very good infrastructure is available and you can contribute financially and mentally, Are You IN?

[hurricandave]

I doubt very seriously that ANYONE is going to get ANY chips in ANY reasonable amount for us home miners  

All this chatter is nice,but more than likely to no avail  

So best of luck & I'll keep watchin...but I'ma doubtin  

Are you in? how much? Suppose a very good infrastructure is available and you can contribute financially and mentally, Are You IN?

You feel enthusiastic about your SADO idea. That's fine. But nothing about that has any bearing at this point to what was discussed before with regards to brainstorming about physical hardware configurations, firmware/software protocols and implementations. With due regards to the physical end product. Nothing has as of yet to bare the necessity of shaping what Might be built. You've gone a bit OT and thus far comments have managed to stay within the boundaries of politeness, thus far. To be honest though, it kinda pissed me of when I'm reading a thread meant to discuss how to shape a miner in concept and some one injects the process with the phrase "MANAGEMENT SUPERVISION", that's the LAST EFFIN THING this project needs! I bite my tongue now.

[in2tactics]

design-by-committee is great

I was just as confused. LOL

why then? just keep reading the whole damn sentence

Oh, I read your whole statement. However, you are stating an opinion as fact. Your statement may even qualify as a fallacy of the type "begging the question."

[aliashraf]

I doubt very seriously that ANYONE is going to get ANY chips in ANY reasonable amount for us home miners  

All this chatter is nice,but more than likely to no avail  

So best of luck & I'll keep watchin...but I'ma doubtin  

Are you in? how much? Suppose a very good infrastructure is available and you can contribute financially and mentally, Are You IN?

You feel enthusiastic about your SADO idea. That's fine. But nothing about that has any bearing at this point to what was discussed before with regards to brainstorming about physical hardware configurations, firmware/software protocols and implementations. With due regards to the physical end product. Nothing has as of yet to bare the necessity of shaping what Might be built. You've gone a bit OT and thus far comments have managed to stay within the boundaries of politeness, thus far. To be honest though, it kinda pissed me of when I'm reading a thread meant to discuss how to shape a miner in concept and some one injects the process with the phrase "MANAGEMENT SUPERVISION", that's the LAST EFFIN THING this project needs! I bite my tongue now.

This was almost a dead thread when I put forward the problems like financing (thus managing as a consequence, yes?) this project. Sidehack  started another thread and shifted most of the 'brainstorming about physical hardware configurations' there and left us with the actual problem:
dealing with 'community miner' not as a habitual brain storming project but as a high priority mission for keeping Bitcoin decentralized.

I am trying to convince people that as a real world design/manufacture/distribute problem it needs institution and as a Bitcoin problem it can be supported by the Blockchain itself when it comes to trust, investment, management, etc.

[aliashraf]

Oh, I read your whole statement. However, you are stating an opinion as fact. Your statement may even qualify as a fallacy of the type "begging the question."

Stating that 'having teamwork while preserving senior designer's rights to lead the project is great'  is a fallacy? since when? It is a fact, real world jobs are done quite well this way and right now, almost every thing you are using is prouced this way, including the keyboard you misuse to type b* with

[sidehack]

Actually, I started another thread because the subject of that thread wasn't really designing a community miner. It was designing a miner, but separate from this project and I was requesting a bit of advice and discussion from the old salt engineers who have been building stuff since before I was born. That job will probably indirectly apply to this one more or less as an enabler (via resources) but it's not the same project by any means so shouldn't be handled in the same thread.

[in2tactics]

Oh, I read your whole statement. However, you are stating an opinion as fact. Your statement may even qualify as a fallacy of the type "begging the question."

Stating that 'having teamwork while preserving senior designer's rights to lead the project is great'  is a fallacy? since when? It is a fact, real world jobs are done quite well this way and right now, almost every thing you are using is prouced this way, including the keyboard you misuse to type b* with

I was not using the word fallacy as a synonym for lie. I am accusing you of arguing based on a logical fallacy and you are doing it again. It is also very misleading of you to put quotes around words that you never actually said.

design-by-committee is great, sharing knowledge and expertise is great and having a reference guy in charge is great too, I see no contradiction and divergence here ...

In what world does "teamwork" imply "design-by-committee"?

...
including the keyboard you misuse to type b* with

I would address this, but it actually makes no sense.

[kilo17]

Aliashraf,
I think you are missing the point still, the objective of this community miner is not to compete with industrial scale production, it is not to make a profit, it is not to change the face of Bitcoin or the direction it is going.  I think this project is a simple plan to produce a miner that common people that love Bitcoin can purchase, mine with and enjoy.

It is also a place to listen to what the little guys want and to respond.

I can appreciate what you want to do but for me the sense of accomplishment when it does get produced will be a reward in itself.  Maybe the miner will make it onto the Wiki history of miners or one of those comparison sites or maybe no one will want any part of it and a few of us end up with a stockpile that will not sell.  Regardless of the outcome, I can say "I tried" and I didn't act like a sellout.

[aliashraf]

Aliashraf,
I think you are missing the point still, the objective of this community miner is not to compete with industrial scale production, it is not to make a profit, it is not to change the face of Bitcoin or the direction it is going.  I think this project is a simple plan to produce a miner that common people that love Bitcoin can purchase, mine with and enjoy.

'common people' are a lot dear Mr. Kilo,
I agree neither you nor sidehack has ever talked about addressing Bitcoin centralization threat but it is the direct consequence of having 'ordinary people' being able to mine ... just think about it: hundreds of thousands of people having 1-10 Th/s machines mining, it is almost a quarter or more of the total hash power and  definitively it will put an end to the crisis.

Also I think the need for a 'community miner' is a consequence of the crisis itself. Bitcoin by definition is about community mining it is the most basic principle of everything about Bitcoin.
When ASIC came into the scene and Chinese began to establish their multi ph/s farms, playing the role of a miner and a mining hardware seller at the same time, community mining became obsolete, Bitcoin was put in the danger and kilo117 started his thread about the need for a community miner ... it is the real history of this thread.

[aliashraf]

In what world does "teamwork" imply "design-by-committee"?

In the real world! A product is designed by a team , is produced by a team, is tested by a team, is sold by a team ... people work together to make things happen ...

I have been a freelance independent programmer for so many years but when it comes to do serious work, I gather a handful of best fellas and share everything with them, including my core ideas about the job, I expose everything to their critics and suggestions and change a lot of my initial designs, everybody is happy, teammates feel respect and become more motivated and responsive, the customer is satisfied and I have learned a lot and I make profits. I keep the 'last word' right though which I use it rarely and politely ... it is team work and it is design-by-team and a committee is nothing less or more than a team.