DragonMint T1 16TH/S halongmining.com

[philipma1957]

so nobody on this forum received their T1 except a user with only 1 post?

No  2 real members  got them:


 Biffa

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=149433

Just to clarify I haven't got mine yet, 6 boxes have  shipped and are currently in customs, and have been for the past 3 days with a "clearance event" holding things up.

My bad  thought they came already.

[dimaze]

With all due respect, I was not asking you how risky you believe it is to operate a DragonMint.  Silicon is not the only material inside of the DragonMint and its PSU. Other risk factors exist, such as extremely high voltage. Yet the central question from my previous post remains, which you did not answer. Should it be possible in a court of law to hold Halong Mining accountable, if someone has a valid claim against it? Should Halong be held accountable if it negligently released a defective product that posed an unacceptable risk of danger? Of course it should. Every business should be held to account if it acts with negligence or if someone has a valid claim against it. I am not saying that Halong Mining has done any of these things (although the Innosilicon board looks staggeringly similar to that of the DM, see https://i.imgur.com/RgI9Eoy.jpg), but I have a real problem with the public's not having the information needed to sue and recover from someone if valid claims arise. Do you share this concern? If you do, then please realize that to hold a business operator accountable, we have to know, at a minimum, where we can deliver a copy of the lawsuit. That is why businesses are required to have a registered agent who can receive service of process from a court.

Using extremely high voltage is not an activity anyone should take lightly, even if you consider silicon safe. Even low wattage smartphones have been known to burn dangerously due to defective components. The DragonMint operates at 1500 watts, has no FCC certification that I have been able to verify (despite Halong's claim that it exists), and it is a new product from a new hardware manufacturer that insists on operating with total anonymity and impunity.

The mining industry is still young enough and its hardware rare enough that regulators still don't fully understand them. Governments are just starting to wrap their minds around the need for economic regulation of cryptocurrencies. The G20 leaders announced last month that cryptocurrency is on their radar. South Korea weeks ago banned anonymous cryptocurrency accounts. Regulation on the hardware side is just starting to happen too. The U.S. FCC in February sent a cease and desist letter to a home miner in Brooklyn, New York due to a Bitmain Antminer that the FCC believed disrupted a cell phone network. The disruption was so serious that T-Mobile, a U.S. corporation, spent thousands of dollars investigating the source of the interference and finally triangulated the interference to one man's Brooklyn apartment.

If someone in New York or anywhere else can't place a phone call to emergency medical services, for example, because a Bitmain miner is disrupting their cell phone signal, can't we all agree that is an example of a legitimate safety concern? If we learn that Bitmain miners disrupt mobile phone communications to a dangerous degree, and if that disruption is due to a design defect or gross negligence by Bitmain, can't we all agree that Bitmain should assume responsibility for its actions?  If, hypothetically, Bitmain were to try to skirt responsibility, can't we all agree that a court of proper jurisdiction should force Bitmain to assume responsibility? The same should happen to Halong Mining (or any other entity) if for some reason Halong is ever found to have acted with negligence or some other valid claim against it exists.

Collaboration, unity, improved consumer experience, improved performance.... These goals are wonderful. I share them with you. But please realize that "improved consumer experience" requires the possibility that a manufacturer can be held accountable for valid legal claims against it. It doesn't matter who the business is. You don't get to operate with impunity in business under any circumstances.

As for the contact at the URL you provided, the contact information shown on that page is for Little Dragon Technology LLC -- and notes nothing about Halong Mining. I found no evidence that an association exists between these two entities other than Halong Mining says it is a licensor of the patent purportedly owned by Little Dragon Technology. Halong wrote on its blog, "After Little Dragon Technology LLC acquired the patent from the original inventors, we negotiated a license to use AsicBoost in our miners on the understanding that AsicBoost would be opened up to everyone to use, under some form of defensive patent license, in the hopes it can help protect decentralization of Bitcoin mining. " (See: https://halongmining.com/blog/.)

I checked the Statement of Information on file with the California Secretary of State for the entity Little Dragon Technology LLC, and the filing does not note any association between Little Dragon Technology LLC and Halong Mining. To that extent, I am inclined to believe that Little Dragon Technology LLC is simply a shell company with no legal connection to Halong Mining, and that Halong Mining is using the AsicBoost license just as anyone else is authorized to do. The key point is that one cannot successfully sue Little Dragon Technology LLC for valid legal claims against Halong Mining.

I can appreciate the concern to hold any manufacturer accountable, and if something were to arise, I'm quite certain there would be an effort to ensure accountability by defective and dangerous hardware delivered by said agents. This goes for any products out there. My first concern with any manufacturer certainly isn't who I can serve papers to in the scenario of said defect. I feel comfortable enough to purchase the units without digging into those what if legalities. I can also understand why Halong wants to be discrete on certain aspects, especially prior to their ASICBoost announcement. It's quite possible if all that information was so readily available months, Halong may have had a tougher time getting units out as advertised due to more covert factors by other players. As indicated in the prior post, there are already social media avenues, fake sites, among other tactics being used to attempt to mitigate legitimacy and damage Halong's reputation. As a business owner, I'd also take steps to safeguard my business and employees, so I understand Halong's approach. I'm way more concerned with them delivering units as advertised, which they've mostly fulfilled within the timeframes indicated. They've met my criteria to purchase from, and I've been overall pretty satisfied with my interactions with them. If they've indicated it's FCC certified, I have no reason to think otherwise. That's my personal stance, and I hope you find what you're looking for out of Halong. I should get 6 units from them today, which I'll post about here.

The Bitmain case in NY in regards to the 700 band was related to the S5's modified in close proximity to a T-Mobile communications hub/tower from my understanding. It'll be an interesting subject to follow, I'm not sure if the guy got back to the FCC with details yet. More details here for those curious in the FCC report: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0215/DOC-349258A1.pdf

[dimaze]

Just to clarify I haven't got mine yet, 6 boxes have  shipped and are currently in customs, and have been for the past 3 days with a "clearance event" holding things up.

I had to reach out to DHL and provide my tax ID before customs released them. Have you called them yet?

[Dr.Mann]

I can appreciate the concern to hold any manufacturer accountable, and if something were to arise, I'm quite certain there would be an effort to ensure accountability by defective and dangerous hardware delivered by said agents. This goes for any products out there. My first concern with any manufacturer certainly isn't who I can serve papers to in the scenario of said defect. I feel comfortable enough to purchase the units without digging into those what if legalities. I can also understand why Halong wants to be discrete on certain aspects, especially prior to their ASICBoost announcement. It's quite possible if all that information was so readily available months, Halong may have had a tougher time getting units out as advertised due to more covert factors by other players. As indicated in the prior post, there are already social media avenues, fake sites, among other tactics being used to attempt to mitigate legitimacy and damage Halong's reputation.

Through Halong's obfuscation, its lack of transparency, its refusal to disclose the country or jurisdiction in which it is incorporated, its refusal to disclose its incorporation number or proof of its business license, its effort to avoid accountability for its products, its refusal to produce evidence of the DragonMint's alleged FCC certificate, it is clear that Halong Mining has done more to damage Halong Mining's reputation than any other party. None of the covert tactics you describe justify this conduct. Halong is operating more like a dealer of enriched uranium on the black market than a manufacturer of computer hardware.

As a business owner, I'd also take steps to safeguard my business and employees, so I understand Halong's approach. [....]

As a business owner, do you hide your business address from your customers or from law enforcement? Do feel it is important for your customers or the judicial system to know how to contact your business? If you refused to provide this information, for how long do you think you could stay in business? If you told your customers that your products possess a 3rd party certification that attests to their safety, do you feel an obligation to provide evidence of such certification, if asked?

They've met my criteria to purchase from. . . . If they've indicated it's FCC certified, I have no reason to think otherwise. [....]

One reason you might consider is that the FCC has no record of Halong Mining or the DragonMint that I can find. You can search for yourself the FCC's certification database here:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Halong has claimed in this very thread that the DM has received FCC certification.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

One reason you might consider is that the FCC has no record of Halong Mining or the DragonMint that I can find. You can search for yourself the FCC's certification database here:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Halong has claimed in this very thread that the DM has received FCC certification.

Just to clarify this point: For devices that are NOT intended to be radio transmitters the FCC does not require anything to be on-file with them nor do they do the actual testing.

EMI testing is done either by a company's FCC certified in-house testing lab or one of the many 3rd-party FCC certified testing labs around the world. Said testing labs are the people who determine pass/fail and issue the FCC compliance tag. That said, the EMI test results ARE required to be available to anyone who requests them.

Of course that means that there must be a way for someone to contact the company to obtain the pass/fail report. Therein lies the problem with Halong's equipment.

[Biffa]

Just to clarify I haven't got mine yet, 6 boxes have  shipped and are currently in customs, and have been for the past 3 days with a "clearance event" holding things up.

I had to reach out to DHL and provide my tax ID before customs released them. Have you called them yet?

It's been sorted now. Delivery should be soon.

[Gyrsur]

Just to clarify I haven't got mine yet, 6 boxes have  shipped and are currently in customs, and have been for the past 3 days with a "clearance event" holding things up.

I had to reach out to DHL and provide my tax ID before customs released them. Have you called them yet?

It's been sorted now. Delivery should be soon.

in 2weeks^TM ??

[philipma1957]

Just to clarify I haven't got mine yet, 6 boxes have  shipped and are currently in customs, and have been for the past 3 days with a "clearance event" holding things up.

I had to reach out to DHL and provide my tax ID before customs released them. Have you called them yet?

It's been sorted now. Delivery should be soon.

in 2weeks^TM ??

Butterfly labs funny

[dimaze]

With all due respect, I was not asking you how risky you believe it is to operate a DragonMint.  Silicon is not the only material inside of the DragonMint and its PSU. Other risk factors exist, such as extremely high voltage. Yet the central question from my previous post remains, which you did not answer. Should it be possible in a court of law to hold Halong Mining accountable, if someone has a valid claim against it? Should Halong be held accountable if it negligently released a defective product that posed an unacceptable risk of danger? Of course it should. Every business should be held to account if it acts with negligence or if someone has a valid claim against it. I am not saying that Halong Mining has done any of these things (although the Innosilicon board looks staggeringly similar to that of the DM, see https://i.imgur.com/RgI9Eoy.jpg), but I have a real problem with the public's not having the information needed to sue and recover from someone if valid claims arise. Do you share this concern? If you do, then please realize that to hold a business operator accountable, we have to know, at a minimum, where we can deliver a copy of the lawsuit. That is why businesses are required to have a registered agent who can receive service of process from a court.

Using extremely high voltage is not an activity anyone should take lightly, even if you consider silicon safe. Even low wattage smartphones have been known to burn dangerously due to defective components. The DragonMint operates at 1500 watts, has no FCC certification that I have been able to verify (despite Halong's claim that it exists), and it is the first ever product from a new hardware manufacturer with no track record that insists on operating with total anonymity and impunity.

The mining industry is still young enough and its hardware rare enough that regulators still don't fully understand them. Governments are just starting to wrap their minds around the need for economic regulation of cryptocurrencies. The G20 leaders announced last month that cryptocurrency is on their radar. South Korea weeks ago banned anonymous cryptocurrency accounts. Regulation on the hardware side is just starting to happen too. The U.S. FCC in February sent a cease and desist letter to a home miner in Brooklyn, New York due to a Bitmain Antminer that the FCC believed disrupted a cell phone network. The disruption was so serious that T-Mobile, a U.S. corporation, spent thousands of dollars investigating the source of the interference and finally triangulated the interference to one man's Brooklyn apartment.

If someone in New York or anywhere else can't place a phone call to emergency medical services, for example, because a Bitmain miner is disrupting their cell phone signal, can't we all agree that is an example of a legitimate safety concern? If we learn that Bitmain miners disrupt mobile phone communications to a dangerous degree, and if that disruption is due to a design defect or gross negligence by Bitmain, can't we all agree that Bitmain should assume responsibility for its actions?  If, hypothetically, Bitmain were to try to skirt responsibility, can't we all agree that a court of proper jurisdiction should force Bitmain to assume responsibility? The same should happen to Halong Mining (or any other entity) if for some reason Halong is ever found to have acted with negligence or some other valid claim against it exists.

Collaboration, unity, improved consumer experience, improved performance.... These goals are wonderful. I share them with you. But please realize that "improved consumer experience" requires the possibility that a manufacturer can be held accountable for valid legal claims against it. It doesn't matter who the business is. You don't get to operate with impunity in business under any circumstances.

As for the contact at the URL you provided, the contact information shown on that page is for Little Dragon Technology LLC -- and notes nothing about Halong Mining. I found no evidence that an association exists between these two entities other than Halong Mining says it is a licensor of the patent purportedly owned by Little Dragon Technology. Halong wrote on its blog, "After Little Dragon Technology LLC acquired the patent from the original inventors, we negotiated a license to use AsicBoost in our miners on the understanding that AsicBoost would be opened up to everyone to use, under some form of defensive patent license, in the hopes it can help protect decentralization of Bitcoin mining. " (See: https://halongmining.com/blog/.)

I checked the Statement of Information on file with the California Secretary of State for the entity Little Dragon Technology LLC, and the filing does not note any association between Little Dragon Technology LLC and Halong Mining. To that extent, I am inclined to believe that Little Dragon Technology LLC is simply a shell company with no legal connection to Halong Mining, and that Halong Mining is using the AsicBoost license just as anyone else is authorized to do. The key point is that one cannot successfully sue Little Dragon Technology LLC for valid legal claims against Halong Mining.

I personally trust the company enough to where if they say they're certified, that's good enough for me. I've had enough experience in the mining industry to make a judgement call on that without vetting further company details. I understand your desire to vet those aspects, everyone has a criteria they look for. Halong has fulfilled mine. I would much rather Halong focus on making and delivering hardware, as they continue to do. I'm sure they wouldn't risk importing tens of millions worth of hardware if it wasn't legitimate.

As for the miner in NY, that is far more likely to be a fluke than commonplace in the industry. It'll be an interesting case to follow, I'm not sure if the gentleman responded to FCC's questions yet.

[dimaze]

Just to clarify I haven't got mine yet, 6 boxes have  shipped and are currently in customs, and have been for the past 3 days with a "clearance event" holding things up.

I had to reach out to DHL and provide my tax ID before customs released them. Have you called them yet?

It's been sorted now. Delivery should be soon.

Good to hear. I got my first Halong units yesterday -- They're all hashing about 10% above advertised spec with a bit less power pull than advertised too

[philipma1957]

Just to clarify I haven't got mine yet, 6 boxes have  shipped and are currently in customs, and have been for the past 3 days with a "clearance event" holding things up.

I had to reach out to DHL and provide my tax ID before customs released them. Have you called them yet?

It's been sorted now. Delivery should be soon.

Good to hear. I got my first Halong units yesterday -- They're all hashing about 10% above advertised spec with a bit less power pull than advertised too

 show  us clear evidence

this means 16th x 1.1 = 17.6th  and  a bit under 1480 watts   or say 1460 watts.

I would love to see this.  with meters and not type set.

I still don't have my demo and no tracking or contact from them.

So I have contacted forum member to see if they would be willing to send me a unit. for testing.

Since you claim to have really good ones send me one so I can show clear evidence that the gear is better then spec.

[zerobias]

 show  us clear evidence

this means 16th x 1.1 = 17.6th  and  a bit under 1480 watts   or say 1460 watts.

I would love to see this.  with meters and not type set.

I still don't have my demo and no tracking or contact from them.

So I have contacted forum member to see if they would be willing to send me a unit. for testing.

Since you claim to have really good ones send me one so I can show clear evidence that the gear is better then spec.

dimaze is talking about B29, not T1

there were another couple guys on the chat that reported B29 is doing above/below specs for hashrate/consumption respectively

right now you can see around 200 units running on coinmine.pl as well

i got mine already shipped to forwarding company and will have them delivered sometimes mid next week and will report as well

[dimaze]

That's correct. More on the B29 thread here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3077076.new#new

I haven't received my T1 yet. My guess is it will ship after the paid batches are out.

The B29's have an "auto tune" feature which increased my lowest unit's hashrates there too. It was about a 30-40 minute process that appeared to slowly increase the hashrate to the most tolerable point. The telegram chat mentioned this is an upcoming feature for the T1 too, so I'd expect further gains.

[elokk]

That's correct. More on the B29 thread here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3077076.new#new

I haven't received my T1 yet. My guess is it will ship after the paid batches are out.

The B29's have an "auto tune" feature which increased my lowest unit's hashrates there too. It was about a 30-40 minute process that appeared to slowly increase the hashrate to the most tolerable point. The telegram chat mentioned this is an upcoming feature for the T1 too, so I'd expect further gains.

Your previous post about seeing higher numbers than factory spec can be confusing. This is the dragonmint T1 thread so lets stay on topic.

When you receive a Dragonmint T1 for review, I hope you plan on backing up any stated numbers with proof. Other forum members will be releasing in depth reviews soon so you do not want to have egg on your face. So far I have not yet seen any Halong customers showing factory specs on their T1's. Only Halong insiders seem to have rigs with factory specs  

[Shazam!!!]

So far I have not yet seen any Halong customers showing factory specs on their T1's. Only Halong insiders seem to have rigs with factory specs  

That's because the only ones showing anything are, vloggers and hype pushers on social media. Not exactly the type of
"Hardware Hounds" who would know anything about specs. They are just part of the Promotion Pump team. Bottom line.
Halongmining is going to great measures, to show off their "in spec" equipment, and pushing reviews from asshats with
1000's of followers. Most of whom, were pushing ICO's before becoming Halongmining Representatives. All the while,
Un-experienced users flock towards the flame, unknowingly like Moths to a bug zapper. This whole shenanigan totally
reeks of Lost Money and the terrible media, for Bitcoin, that will follow.

[dimaze]

Your previous post about seeing higher numbers than factory spec can be confusing. This is the dragonmint T1 thread so lets stay on topic.

When you receive a Dragonmint T1 for review, I hope you plan on backing up any stated numbers with proof. Other forum members will be releasing in depth reviews soon so you do not want to have egg on your face. So far I have not yet seen any Halong customers showing factory specs on their T1's. Only Halong insiders seem to have rigs with factory specs  

Hah. Only if I was an insider. I'm just a believer and a happy customer so far

I plan on doing fairly extensive review on the T1 when I do get it. So far, I agree the specs floating around appear to be closer to 15.5 out the box. I just wanted to let you all know of the auto-tune capability on the other offerings, and it was indicated on Telegram the T1s should have this capability too.

[philipma1957]

Your previous post about seeing higher numbers than factory spec can be confusing. This is the dragonmint T1 thread so lets stay on topic.

When you receive a Dragonmint T1 for review, I hope you plan on backing up any stated numbers with proof. Other forum members will be releasing in depth reviews soon so you do not want to have egg on your face. So far I have not yet seen any Halong customers showing factory specs on their T1's. Only Halong insiders seem to have rigs with factory specs  

Hah. Only if I was an insider. I'm just a believer and a happy customer so far

I plan on doing fairly extensive review on the T1 when I do get it. So far, I agree the specs floating around appear to be closer to 15.5 out the box. I just wanted to let you all know of the auto-tune capability on the other offerings, and it was indicated on Telegram the T1s should have this capability too.

-ck himself has mentioned power numbers are short and may be improved on the T1

For now no one has shown a T1 do 16th at 1480 watts on any meaningful test.

My definition of meaning full test  would be at least 2 hours of 16th and 1480 watts . on 2 different meters  I have the ability to test this way and will do this.

I purchased another psu to use in my tests.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/100V-240V-2450W-Power-Supply-for-Antminer-S9-T9-S7-L3-Mining-94-Percent-Efficie/122923683959?

[kodokbuduk]

how much this T1 now?

[philipma1957]

how much this T1 now?

Sold out

[StevenMosher]

[...]

Competing in this space is incredibly difficult for many reasons. Firstly it's incredibly costly to tape out your own ASICs, especially for new process node (we're using 10nm), the NRE is already ludicrous - not to mention all the cascade of expenses that follow, and yield loss at every stage of the process. Then you have to deal with highly questionable,  anti competitive practices perpetrated by monopolies - like buying out all the components needed to make the miner or making arrangements that they be unavailable to competitors; and of course price wars where they can afford to sell at cost or below cost for long enough to kill competition. It would seem many of the posters in this thread still think of mining back in the days when you only needed a million or two at most from start to finish and there wasn't any strong monopoly.

[...]

It's simple enough.

10nm

which fab?

how many masks  for that 10nm?

Answers to those two will explain a lot


Moderator's note: This post was edited by frodocooper to tidy up quote formatting.