Universal Hash Board: Bitfury 28 nM "UHB_BF28NM"

[allten]

We've been working vigorously for the last several months to produce a workable Bitcoin mining "standard"
that would prevent the need to "re-invent the wheel" every time a new Bitcoin mining ASIC is released.
This would make all aspects of mining hardware reusable on future generations (except the “Hash Board”);
It would also be re-usable on ASICs from other vendors. The only requirement is that the chips are small
and “string capable”.

As we continue to work to finalize the "preliminary" release of this standard called the “Universal Hash Board”
standard, we have begun to apply its current outline and guidance to existing ASICs in an attempt to learn as
much as possible. The files presented below apply to Bitfury's 28 nM chip set.

BOM_UHB_BF28NM_Draft#1.pdf
https://goo.gl/rOatL2

PCB_Bottom_UHB_BF28NM_Draft#1.pdf
https://goo.gl/kX2Gh9

PCB_Top_UHB_BF28NM_Draft#1.pdf
https://goo.gl/Wk0xNC

Schematic_1_UHB_BF28NM_Draft#1.pdf
https://goo.gl/FflNBk

Schematic_2_UHB_BF28NM_Draft#1.pdf
https://goo.gl/9LLX7w

Note: This design was done for learning purposes only. Nothing is guaranteed! All our work is presented for
potential benefit and inspiration to the Bitcoin community. We also desire to operate a 3rd party Bitcoin
Mining company as transparent as possible. Thank you.

FYI, I frequent these forums for causal moments of entertainment, but rarely sit down to write posts. Hope
you all understand. Please email me for anything you feel is important or critical. Please speculate among
yourselves on all the details and future of this endeavor. More will be released as soon as possible, but
remember, development is a slow painful birthing process.

~~~~~~A few other tidbits ~~~~~~~~~~
1) In a few weeks, we will publish a similar topic for Bitmain's BM1384 (aka Antminer S5).

2) We are looking for broken hardware to be donated for this cause. If you have one of the following to
spare, please email me and then send it our way!
   Antminer S7
   Avalon 6
   Antminer S9

3) Interested in joining?
   Looking for PCB Designer.
   Looking for 8bit Microchip PIC programmer.
   
       Please email me with your qualifications (or resume).

Note: Our operations currently run with little to no funding. All work is voluntary and comes without
promise or pay; however, active involvement may situate you in a position for hire with pay as we steadily
lift things off the ground over the next several months.

[Unacceptable]

Very cool...but a little late...no chips will be sold to anyone by any manufacturer to make a miner for the general public

[dogie]

I've heard the easily replaceable hash board before (including from Bitmain) and it never quite works out the way you think it will. Have a look between the generations and try and work out how many Bitmain generations are a. board compatible and b. heatsink compatible and that'll give you an answer as to the sustainability.

[2112]

The schematics look like art project, not a technical project. It seems like the preparer wasn't understanding what he was doing or for other reasons made strange mistakes. E.g. there is an n-channel device Q5 with gate tied directly to +3.3V.

I've seen electronic schematics prepared around 1960-1970 by a school dropout who was dictated by an engineer who was injured and blinded in an accident. They had similar completely incomprehensible mistakes. E.g. no sane technician or engineer would consistently spell "nM" for "nanometer".

It could also be a joke, because "Bitfury" is consistently spelled "Bitfurry".

[sidehack]

I haven't looked over schematics (not downloading on this browser, I'll check it at the shop), but on that breakout image I don't see any provision for regulation; couple that with the need to be "stringable" and I assume the design is fixed core voltage? In which case the designer needs to be reminded that home users don't really appreciate planned obsolescence, therefore "no thank you".

[klondike_bar]

4 fans for only a single hashing board? catch up to the times

someting like this needs to be capable of >2KW and be easy to swap boards in. Look at the antminer S2 or the first-gen bitfury 56nm as an example of what it should look like (and then realize that desipte that, both companies never released compatible upgrade modules)

[RadekG]

The schematics look like art project, not a technical project. It seems like the preparer wasn't understanding what he was doing or for other reasons made strange mistakes. E.g. there is an n-channel device Q5 with gate tied directly to +3.3V.

I do not understand where you see the problem with Q5. Please explain us what's wrong. BSS138 is logic level N-fet. Gate is connected to 3.3V and input goes to source. G+S resistor keeps Q5 default off. If input is H Q5's G+S=0V, Q5 is off. If input is L, G+S=3.3V, Q5 is on.

[RadekG]

I've heard the easily replaceable hash board before (including from Bitmain) and it never quite works out the way you think it will. Have a look between the generations and try and work out how many Bitmain generations are a. board compatible and b. heatsink compatible and that'll give you an answer as to the sustainability.

I think there is a good reason to "standardize" hash boards, but it needs a lot of standards to be followed by all manufacturers. Here are my simple points why universal PCB can't work.

1) different power density. Just compare KnC or Spondoolies chips with BF, Bitmain or others. Two different ways of power density. SFARDS just in the middle. Different power density needs different PCB design and different heatsink design.

2) string design. It is already required, but not all designs are so simple. Bitmain S7 and S9 are hybrid string designs which needs separate buck controller (not necessary when changing design). BF250NM is already prepared for string design, but it is not so easy with BM1384.

3) total output power. It is based on power density. We can see extremely increasing power density with the same case size in Bitmain's products beginning from Antminer S1 to Antminer S7 or S9. One single heatsink can't handle 700W on multiple chips. Even 300W is too much as we seen on S5 failure rate.

It can be win for customer, but it makes so many design rules for manufacturers that it is nearly impossible to implant any standards.

I am happy that anybody spend time thinking about it, but there is still not enough manufacurer competition to do it.

[2112]

I do not understand where you see the problem with Q5. Please explain us what's wrong. BSS138 is logic level N-fet. Gate is connected to 3.3V and input goes to source. G+S resistor keeps Q5 default off. If input is H Q5's G+S=0V, Q5 is off. If input is L, G+S=3.3V, Q5 is on.

So what is the point? It is neither inverter nor amplifier. To convert push-pull output to open-drain output? Connecting that open-drain in series with the push-pull output? What for?

Also Q1-Q4 are two inverter pairs. They legitimately convert single-ended output to the balanced outputs. But they only have active pull-down. The pull-ups are resistors. Why using resistors instead of normal CMOS inverters with both pull-down and pull-up active?

I see signal integrity issues with all of those five elements. And they seem destined for off-board routing through a connector. Is that some sort of weird ESD protection by using cheap discrete transistors as sacrificial to protect rare/expensive integrated circuits?

Edit: spelling and US/English terminology fixes

[klondike_bar]

Here are my simple points why universal PCB can't work.
1) different power density. Just compare KnC or Spondoolies chips with BF, Bitmain or others. Two different ways of power density. SFARDS just in the middle. Different power density needs different PCB design and different heatsink design.

3) total output power. It is based on power density. We can see extremely increasing power density with the same case size in Bitmain's products beginning from Antminer S1 to Antminer S7 or S9. One single heatsink can't handle 700W on multiple chips. Even 300W is too much as we seen on S5 failure rate.

I dont think manufacturers will standardize a design anytime soon - by offering a full product their margins are probably improved

as for power density/draw, a universal heatsink isnt ideal but it is pretty sufficient. simply upgrading the fan/fanspeed could allow a +/- 50% power capacity.

The bigger issue is board layout, where all components were set to a specific maximum thickness in heatsinked areas (so that only critical parts (ASIC, regulators) are snug to heatsink and other components are not), and this could prove inconvenient to some layouts

[allten]

I haven't looked over schematics (not downloading on this browser, I'll check it at the shop), but on that breakout image I don't see any provision for regulation; couple that with the need to be "stringable" and I assume the design is fixed core voltage? In which case the designer needs to be reminded that home users don't really appreciate planned obsolescence, therefore "no thank you".

There is no regulator on the UHB boards in the standard that is being created. The regulator is moved to the Control Board.
There is no "planned obsolescence", but just the opposite. Thanks for taking a look.

[allten]

4 fans for only a single hashing board? catch up to the times

someting like this needs to be capable of >2KW and be easy to swap boards in. Look at the antminer S2 or the first-gen bitfury 56nm as an example of what it should look like (and then realize that desipte that, both companies never released compatible upgrade modules)

The max Wattage in this standard is at 500 Watts.
The wattage range is much more reasonable for new home users; people who want to investigate the technology.
We still believe that bitcoin mining is the #1 way to introduce this technology to the masses. This is our motivation.

The four fan design as seen in the OP teaser photo offers the ability to cool while being very quiet.
Again, catered towards a reasonable home mining experience for newbies. The design is a large step
from the obsolesce seen so far. All the surrounding infrastructure will survive several future generations.

[allten]

The schematics look like art project, not a technical project. It seems like the preparer wasn't understanding what he was doing or for other reasons made strange mistakes. E.g. there is an n-channel device Q5 with gate tied directly to +3.3V.

I've seen electronic schematics prepared around 1960-1970 by a school dropout who was dictated by an engineer who was injured and blinded in an accident. They had similar completely incomprehensible mistakes. E.g. no sane technician or engineer would consistently spell "nM" for "nanometer".

It could also be a joke, because "Bitfury" is consistently spelled "Bitfurry".

Glad you like the "art". I've corrected the spelling on our internal files for the next revision. Thanks.

The n-channel device Q5 is a unidirectional High-to-Low Level translator. The High signal is on the left.
Took me a while to grasp how it works. Admittedly, I've never used it in practice; It was referenced from
Bitfury's design files that they publicly shared.

[allten]

Very cool...but a little late...no chips will be sold to anyone by any manufacturer to make a miner for the general public

I totally understand the pessimism. I've been watching Bitcoin since the GPU days and all the drama that has unfolded.
IMO, if it doesn't change (ASIC companies not selling their chips) then they are going to be "holding the bag" and it won't be worth much.
If they don't embrace us "little guys" sooner rather than later then I truly believe POW blockchains utilizing ASICs are doomed.

We've chosen to be optimistic. We've chosen to work hard and share our efforts as much as possible with a bright hope of ASIC manufactures
embracing us and working closely with us.
We desire to become a 3rd party hardware manufacture that will also empower this community and give it a voice that cannot be ignored.

[allten]

I've heard the easily replaceable hash board before (including from Bitmain) and it never quite works out the way you think it will. Have a look between the generations and try and work out how many Bitmain generations are a. board compatible and b. heatsink compatible and that'll give you an answer as to the sustainability.

Yes. This has by far been the most challenging aspect of the design.
Varying sizes of chips and thickness.
Surrounding components.
Heat dissipation through the top of the chip or through the PCB.
Different PCB layout where chips are now in new locations.

It's no surprise where Bitmain is now: Individual Heat sinks for each ASIC.

Our solution may not be elegant, but should work.

Not ready to go into detail yet and the topic deserves its own thread.

[allten]

Please Help. We need some more hardware to reverse engineer and make sure this standard is truly universal.

Looking for broken S7 and S9 Hash boards and controllers.
Looking for a broken Avalon 6 hash board and controller.

If you have any sitting around collecting dust, please donate soon!

THANKS!!

[sidehack]

Why is that necessary? Are you looking for signalling specifics for the different chips?

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I've heard the easily replaceable hash board before (including from Bitmain) and it never quite works out the way you think it will. Have a look between the generations and try and work out how many Bitmain generations are a. board compatible and b. heatsink compatible and that'll give you an answer as to the sustainability.

Yes. This has by far been the most challenging aspect of the design.
Varying sizes of chips and thickness.
Surrounding components.
Heat dissipation through the top of the chip or through the PCB.
Different PCB layout where chips are now in new locations.

It's no surprise where Bitmain is now: Individual Heat sinks for each ASIC.

Our solution may not be elegant, but should work.

Not ready to go into detail yet and the topic deserves its own thread.

The surrounding components is a pretty important point -- mainly the decoupling caps around the chips and the bypass used for each node when powering a string. It may look like, "well just put some (random value) caps here and..." BUT -- the actual values and more importantly,  where they are located and what type they are (material used) is of vital importance. You use different ASIC's, you will need to find a new set of optimum values for the caps or at a minimum, verify how the different ASIC's work with a compromise set of values.

In many ways the power planes feeding ASIC's are much like RF circutry and must be treated as such or else you get some mighty weird and very localized dips/spikes in the 'DC' power feed to them.
ref:  http://powerelectronics.com/power-electronics-systems/five-things-every-engineer-should-know-about-pdn

[Unacceptable]

Very cool...but a little late...no chips will be sold to anyone by any manufacturer to make a miner for the general public

I totally understand the pessimism. I've been watching Bitcoin since the GPU days and all the drama that has unfolded.
IMO, if it doesn't change (ASIC companies not selling their chips) then they are going to be "holding the bag" and it won't be worth much.
If they don't embrace us "little guys" sooner rather than later then I truly believe POW blockchains utilizing ASICs are doomed.

We've chosen to be optimistic. We've chosen to work hard and share our efforts as much as possible with a bright hope of ASIC manufactures
embracing us and working closely with us.
We desire to become a 3rd party hardware manufacture that will also empower this community and give it a voice that cannot be ignored.

All well & good,except...there are only 2 or 3 ASIC companies left,Avalon & Bitmain & BW(maybe Bitfury,I think they are dead or dying).

They will not sell chips to anyone (in any meaningful amount),cause.....money,they make MORE profit keeping their chips & manufacturing in their CONTROL  
Not to mention the self mining they are doing to increase profit even further.

So,unless YOU make YOUR OWN chips,YOU will have nothing to build or sell to us "little guys"............& your "voice" will be basically ignored,they'll be nice about it though I'm sure.

Bitcoin has been in the commercial phase for a few years now & will get even more commercialized as the the few with chips & miners consolidate the hashrate in their favor.

Best of luck,just don't hold your breath!!!!  

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Very cool...but a little late...no chips will be sold to anyone by any manufacturer to make a miner for the general public

I totally understand the pessimism. I've been watching Bitcoin since the GPU days and all the drama that has unfolded.
IMO, if it doesn't change (ASIC companies not selling their chips) then they are going to be "holding the bag" and it won't be worth much.
If they don't embrace us "little guys" sooner rather than later then I truly believe POW blockchains utilizing ASICs are doomed.

We've chosen to be optimistic. We've chosen to work hard and share our efforts as much as possible with a bright hope of ASIC manufactures
embracing us and working closely with us.
We desire to become a 3rd party hardware manufacture that will also empower this community and give it a voice that cannot be ignored.

All well & good,except...there are only 2 or 3 ASIC companies left,Avalon & Bitmain & BW(maybe Bitfury,I think they are dead or dying).

They will not sell chips to anyone (in any meaningful amount),cause.....money,they make MORE profit keeping their chips & manufacturing in their CONTROL  
Not to mention the self mining they are doing to increase profit even further.

So,unless YOU make YOUR OWN chips,YOU will have nothing to build or sell to us "little guys"............& your "voice" will be basically ignored,they'll be nice about it though I'm sure.

Bitcoin has been in the commercial phase for a few years now & will get even more commercialized as the the few with chips & miners consolidate the hashrate in their favor.

Best of luck,just don't hold your breath!!!!  

On BitFury, ja it is looking like their chip making divisions foray into 16nm will not make it to the Public. But BF as a whole... They do a helluva lot of other things including blockchain analytics so bottom line is probably still pretty good for them. The losses from 16nm chip making and of course related to that, any containerized farms they sold based on it will just be write off's to them and backers/investors.

As for BTC being a commercial phase and becoming more so -- Satoshi or whoever came up with it designed that in from day-1. What it ultimately boils down to is that BTC block-found payout halving will always happen until finally all income is derived solely from Tx fees vs miner's finding blocks. The idea of course is that folks will have to pay reasonable Tx fees to use BTC -- like the CC card / banks/ PayPal. et al charge.

Anyone looked at what the typical tx fees per block are currently? Hint: Not much vs the 12.5BTC miners bounties... On CK pool typical best additional payout from Tx fee's that CK collects & distributes to us is around 1BTC.