HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[Ytterbium]

Remember we don't want any pre order or IPO.

Uh, I totally want a pre-order.

[1714788282]

1714788282

[1714788282]

1714788282

[1714788282]

1714788282

[1714788282]

1714788282

[qwk]

Remember we don't want any pre order or IPO.

Uh, I totally want a pre-order.

Me too.   

[eve]

No body want a pre order , Avalon and Butterfly have turn out to be nothing but S..M with all their non deliveries and excuses.

[Ytterbium]

No body want a pre order , Avalon and Butterfly have turn out to be nothing but S..M with all their non deliveries and excuses.

I just said I want a pre-order. I pre-ordered Avalon batch 2 and have my unit, and I just pre-ordered from KnC. These guys seem legit as well. 

If you can figure out which guys are the scammers and which are legit then per-ordering is a much cheaper way to get hardware. If a company uses it's own money (or an IPO, like ASICminer) to develop chips then they can keep them all for themselves rather then sell them, or sell them at prices that can make it hard to get an ROI.

[ultrix]

what I don't get is why anyone so experienced would build such a massive chip for something like btc mining. With big chips you get worse yields, usually lower clock potential and more thermal issues. I can only really think of getting slightly better performance/area from going big but then you might not gain anything due to smaller chips normally clocking higher/better yield.

A bitcoin chip does not suffer from nearly the same level of yield issues that regular ICs do. With regular ICs if there is the slightest imperfection anywhere on the chip, then the whole chip becomes useless. E.G. A CPU that executes one particular instruction wrong is pretty much useless to anyone. A bitcoin chip is composed of many replicas of a single mining core or engine. A tiny defect is very likely to only affect a single core or engine, so reduce the chips performance by only a tiny fraction.

In a normal chip it's necessary to build a clock tree to maintain clock synchronization over much of the chip. This is because there are lots of dependencies and connections between logic in one part of the chip and logic somewhere else. In a bitcoin chip each engine or core is mostly independent from the others, so the clock only needs to be synchronous within one engine - much smaller than the whole chip. Effectively it's lots of small chips in a big chip.

What's important in designing and optimizing a bitcoin chip to produce this sort of result is a very different set of skills from what's important in the normal process of SOC design (system on a chip design), and takes a highly experienced team.

Well depends on the design of the chip.  The Avalon and BFL design, which use an unrolled cores, would result in lower yields than say bitfury's chip, which uses an iterative core.  Additionally you still have to deal with metastability issues due to clock signal delays, its just an easier problem to design around (metastability that is).  I don't think either design decision falls outside the realm of any IC design, even SoCs, and chosen on a case by case basis.  The level of experience needed also depends on the process and how much you've got to front in NRE.  For example, Avalon's chip appears to be assembled from a standard cell library.  Or at least that's my best guess based on the etched silicon images I've seen.  Bitfury's chip is said to be full custom, although images with high enough resolution have not been posted.  If hypothetically they were both on the same process, the NRE of Avalon's chip would be higher than Bitfury's.  And although it probably not need be mentioned, BFL's chip was outsourced and probably has the highest NRE of all.  At least from these forum familiar examples and the subsequent performance data, chip design is a balance of process, experience, and budget.

[Blue777]

Looks like Moore's law kicks in I hope I'll just be able to ROI and then make a little bit of profit from my late-ordered KnC Saturn before it's time to move onto these guys.

A pro tip: don't take preorders, the community here is pretty much tired of the preorder game and wants back to the predictable time of over-the-counter purchase of hardware (like it was with GPUs). So, please, make a certain buffer of ready-to-hash devices before starting selling them, so that deliveries can be made next day after placing an order.

Really too bad pre order game.you paid fund,you have no idea when you can get machine.

[Vagnavs]

Remember we don't want any pre order or IPO.

well speak for yourself. I want a preorder and think it is standard practice. Like others have mentioned, if they had a hardware on-site, why wouldn't they mine for themselves? They would make a good ROI (depends on a number of factors, of course).
Regards

[jspielberg]

As per normal we have gone way off-topic here...

It seems like there will always be a conflict of interest with the producers.
I don't think pre-buys eliminate that conflict.  Frankly the only model that seems "trustworthy" is Asic Miners, and you are guaranteed no ROI.

The 100TH mine seems to be working, though it seems like they are working against their own best interests by selling their boards to the public.  Didn't stop me from pre-ordering at least a starter kit.

Back on topic:
If the price is compelling and their are no more red flags raised, I am looking forward to pre-ordering from HashFast as well... just need the stinking BTC/USD exchange rate to get back to the 100-115 

[erk]

Remember we don't want any pre order or IPO.

well speak for yourself. I want a preorder and think it is standard practice. Like others have mentioned, if they had a hardware on-site, why wouldn't they mine for themselves? They would make a good ROI (depends on a number of factors, of course).
Regards

Like removal of brains. The ROI of making and selling gear is probably just hours, from mining it's weeks.

[Loredo]

Uh, I totally want a pre-order.

Me too.

I want a preorder and think it is standard practice.

___________________________________________________

--There is no riskier method of purchase for a customer than a pre-order.  None. 

--There is no worse method of purchase than pre-order for allowing and encouraging mis-allocation of funds (not embezzling; spending on the wrong things) by the entrepreneurs.

--There is no better method of purchase than pre-order to allow an entrepreneur to do a "hit-and-run" business plan:  once built, just ship.  One shipped, just forget.

There is only one reason to prefer pre-order: 

As soon as someone has paid (remember the frequently posted "shut up and take my money" cartoon image) the dream of riches can kick in immediately.  For many, that dream is many times more powerful than rational business sense.

The good news for those who want their Dream-fix sooner rather than later:  this is going to be a pre-order; that was established on the original thread by about the third post.

[Loredo]

The 100TH mine seems to be working, though it seems like they are working against their own best interests by selling their boards to the public.  Didn't stop me from pre-ordering at least a starter kit.

If you reflect on it for a few minutes, the horizontal integration of offering shares in on-going mining, coupled with retail sales, makes perfect sense for the founders. 

From a cash flow standpoint, it offers a long-term cash flow much like what comes from a public offering of private equity.  The founders can retain (in the hashing business) a percentage of the on-going core business, and that percentage is under their control.   

Sale of equipment gives periodic influxes of capital.  When the equipment goes on line, yes, it reduces the founders' revenue from the core business.  But in present value terms, just as is the case when a "hot" company sells stock publicly,  the overpayment by the market more than makes up for the de facto dilution of the founders' position.

Remember there is a difference between the typical hardware buyers' time horizon and that of those planning and implementing bitcoin mining businesses. 

Retail buyers have a one-period horizon: only as long a the inevitable moment when equipment doesn't pay due to difficulty expansion; they have experience in this happening to them three times now, in CPU's, GPU's, and FPGA's.  Just look at bitfury's well-calculated time-dated price scheduling to see this (while all the while they're implicitly saying "trust us for timely delivery"  )

Bitcoin businessmen need to look multi-period, into an uncertain future.  The horizontal plan makes total sense in that environment.

[jspielberg]

The 100TH mine seems to be working, though it seems like they are working against their own best interests by selling their boards to the public.  Didn't stop me from pre-ordering at least a starter kit.

If you reflect on it for a few minutes, the horizontal integration of offering shares in on-going mining, coupled with retail sales, makes perfect sense for the founders. 

From a cash flow standpoint, it offers a long-term cash flow much like what comes from a public offering of private equity.  The founders can retain (in the hashing business) a percentage of the on-going core business, and that percentage is under their control.   

Sale of equipment gives periodic influxes of capital.  When the equipment goes on line, yes, it reduces the founders' revenue from the core business.  But in present value terms, just as is the case when a "hot" company sells stock publicly,  the overpayment by the market more than makes up for the de facto dilution of the founders' position.

Remember there is a difference between the typical hardware buyers' time horizon and that of those planning and implementing bitcoin mining businesses. 

Retail buyers have a one-period horizon: only as long a the inevitable moment when equipment doesn't pay due to difficulty expansion; they have experience in this happening to them three times now, in CPU's, GPU's, and FPGA's.  Just look at bitfury's well-calculated time-dated price scheduling to see this (while all the while they're implicitly saying "trust us for timely delivery"  )

Bitcoin businessmen need to look multi-period, into an uncertain future.  The horizontal plan makes total sense in that environment.

Getting back on topic, I think the bitfury folks have set a high bar in the industry.  I think it is mostly due to their own interests dovetailing with the general mining public (i.e. having proven working boards with low power being mass producible for its own 100TH mine project).  But, whatever the reason, I am glad they are doing it.

Hopefully HashFast is up for raising the game even farther!  So far they are looking pretty good, but there are a number of steps between now and delivery.  Pricing/(pre)order details will be the next major milestone from the general public's perspective (I am sure they have a great number of internal milestones that we will not be privy to).

From a strategy standpoint, the earlier they can commit to price/pre-order... the better their products will look before Metabank, 100TH mine and public sales, Avalon Chip projects, etc. start coming on line pushing the difficulty way up.

[dwdoc]

100TH has started hashing already and Metabank is getting its chips Monday.

[Loredo]

From a strategy standpoint, the earlier they can commit to price/pre-order... the better their products will look before Metabank, 100TH mine and public sales, Avalon Chip projects, etc. start coming on line pushing the difficulty way up.

The "have to get it now or be left behind" attitude is exactly what many outside observers point to in accusing bitcoin of being a pyramid or a ponzi.  (They're different forms of fraudulent business, and in fairness, the pyramid accusation is the one currently closer to the truth).  I hear it all the time.

Answer this:  If someone came to market and said "Our plan is to make available a public pool which will add 360 bitcoins per day for the rest of the life of bitcoin. We have secured our access to hardware, infrastructure, and have market activities and reinvestment strategies planned which will ensure this outcome."

Could you price a share of that offering (in BTC)?  Would you be desperate to buy today?

This current (not the above hypothetical, now) offering is very interesting for technological reasons.  But alll it's going to do from a practical standpoint is cause the hash rate to escalate again, both from its own power, and from the competitive responses of any entities who control, internally, low cost marginal hash rate, such as ASICminer.  

On the customer level, like the old song went, some will win, some will lose, and the losers will cry: deal the deck again.

BTW, such a model is proposed by that arrogant, loose-cannon promoter in the "eyes to the horizon" thread.  Except for the part where he can explain how he's going to pull it off long term, and why he's got it priced outrageously, it's good.

[Bitcoinorama]

Uh, I totally want a pre-order.

Me too.

I want a preorder and think it is standard practice.

___________________________________________________

--There is no riskier method of purchase for a customer than a pre-order.  None.  

--There is no worse method of purchase than pre-order for allowing and encouraging mis-allocation of funds (not embezzling; spending on the wrong things) by the entrepreneurs.

--There is no better method of purchase than pre-order to allow an entrepreneur to do a "hit-and-run" business plan:  once built, just ship.  One shipped, just forget.

There is only one reason to prefer pre-order:  

As soon as someone has paid (remember the frequently posted "shut up and take my money" cartoon image) the dream of riches can kick in immediately.  For many, that dream is many times more powerful than rational business sense.

The good news for those who want their Dream-fix sooner rather than later:  this is going to be a pre-order; that was established on the original thread by about the third post.

--Of course, so why do you believe any private VC would touch a project in the millions of dollars so risky with a ten foot barge pole?! They wouldn't. Failure to deliver on time could screw them massively. If you raise via pre-orders individuals spread the risk as opposed to one entity assuming all the risk and potential catastrophic failure of their business. That risk will vary in greatness from person to person, but it is totally up to them to come to terms with that and educate themselves on what the project entails. The risk is failure to deliver on time, which despite all best intentions, still exists due to a miscellany of unknowns.

--True, which is why it's down to Hashfast to step up and provide compelling evidence as to their sincerity and ability. Simon's background checks out, as does Uniquify. Both have business experience as well as solid academics, so embezzling and spending on the wrong things are hardly likely. Those that thew money at Butterfly Labs without checking out their background, or for that matter to anyone else, only have themselves to blame. Seriously, people need to stop trying to find excuses for their own lack of due diligence!

--Right, but this is very much a frontier where hit and runs can and do happen, based on a changing environment regardless of the sincerity of the intentions of founders that dream of long term company stability. Fact is whether there are pre-orders or other fund-raising that doesn't change anything. That's down to strategic business planning.

There are many reasons for pre-orders, but the main reason is shared risk on emerging tech. You are responsible for making your own mind up with your own research and risking only what you are prepared to loose. Do you honestly think the players we have now will be the sole players by the end of the year? Of course not, there's several on the sidelines as I type. If you don't want risk, then this stage of the game is not for you, as it is an educated gamble. In future you will be able to buy from stock at a more stable price point/hashrate, but that means waiting, and if this forum has anything in abundance it is impatience.

Research, funds, risk management, patience, fear, greed; these are all traits for you to take responsibility for, not the respective companies pitching for your business...

[Loredo]

--Of course, so why do you believe any private VC would touch a project in the millions of dollars so risky with a ten foot barge pole?!

The basic problem isn't just the risk in the project dynamics, it's in bitcoin itself.  

If the thing being mined were ... oh, I don't know, say diatomaceous earth, and you put together a business plan that said with minimal physical risk you could guarantee a minimum level of production of X tons per day for at the next Y years, do you think VC would look at it?

Sure they would, and if X*Y*365 induced free cash flow that matched will with the M million dollars required, the deal would be done over dinner in San Jose.  But if they're not sure bitcoin won't be attacked and squashed by central banks and international law enforcement, then it's a harder sale, and you might have to shop until you find someone willing to bet on bitcoin being around.

Would the same is true if you showed them the evidence of a diatomaceous earth interest bubble, and a regulatory environment which encourages a rush, and you proposed selling mining equipment what was sexier and more marketable than anything else out there?

Ah, now that depends on whether they believe you might get blindsided by an even sexier and more marketable widget while busy building out.  In this case, they might still pick up the dinner check in San Jose, but they'd have to go home to sleep on it.

[papaminer]

Here comes another BFL KILLER....

I am very hopeful for more ASIC manufacturer competition...

Like the saying "when banks compete consumers win"

[crumbs]

...--Of course, so why do you believe any private VC would touch a project in the millions of dollars so risky with a ten foot barge pole?! They wouldn't. Failure to deliver on time could screw them massively.

In other words, professional risk assessors consider the proposition too risky, making it a prime opportunity for noobs.  Can't fault that logic.

If you raise via pre-orders individuals spread the risk as opposed to one entity assuming all the risk and potential catastrophic failure of their business.

I'm beginning to understand...  Buying lottery tickets is more profitable if you buy them one at a time, instead of all at once...  Never thought of it like that.

[...]

If "28nm ASIC," "we're working on it" & "pre-order nao" make you want to reach for your wallet, i'd say mortgage the house & go all in.  But 28nm is so last week -- i'm *just about ready* to tapeout mah 14nm design.  So eat my bitdust, HashFast luddites.

[Ytterbium]

--There is no riskier method of purchase for a customer than a pre-order.  None. 

So? People who take risks are the ones who get rich. The less risk, the less potential profit.

There is only one reason to prefer pre-order: 

As soon as someone has paid (remember the frequently posted "shut up and take my money" cartoon image) the dream of riches can kick in immediately.  For many, that dream is many times more powerful than rational business sense.

The good news for those who want their Dream-fix sooner rather than later:  this is going to be a pre-order; that was established on the original thread by about the third post.

No, pre-orders are better because they are cheaper. Unlike most goods, bitcoin mining hardware can make money for the people who manufacture it, even if they don't sell it. So in order for them to sell it, they need to charge more then they think they would make themselves. But, with a pre-order, you are sharing the risk and thus you share the profits, if the people you pre-order from know what they're doing.

[Bitcoinorama]

--Of course, so why do you believe any private VC would touch a project in the millions of dollars so risky with a ten foot barge pole?!

The basic problem isn't just the risk in the project dynamics, it's in bitcoin itself.  

If the thing being mined were ... oh, I don't know, say diatomaceous earth, and you put together a business plan that said with minimal physical risk you could guarantee a minimum level of production of X tons per day for at the next Y years, do you think VC would look at it?

Sure they would, and if X*Y*365 induced free cash flow that matched will with the M million dollars required, the deal would be done over dinner in San Jose.  But if they're not sure bitcoin won't be attacked and squashed by central banks and international law enforcement, then it's a harder sale, and you might have to shop until you find someone willing to bet on bitcoin being around.

Would the same is true if you showed them the evidence of a diatomaceous earth interest bubble, and a regulatory environment which encourages a rush, and you proposed selling mining equipment what was sexier and more marketable than anything else out there?

Ah, now that depends on whether they believe you might get blindsided by an even sexier and more marketable widget while busy building out.  In this case, they might still pick up the dinner check in San Jose, but they'd have to go home to sleep on it.

Completely agree, which is why the informed layperson/geek is willing to take such risk albeit at a more manageable size for themselves. Furthermore their disdain for private central banks, and government corruption post '08 as well as their associated tax revenues being spent on propaganda and associated warfare in the last two decades as opposed to education and healtcare propels the more morally concerned to rebel against such abuse.

That said absolutely there will be sexier and more marketable offerings within time, and by the rate at which interest has increased subsequent to the media spotlight that was turned upon Bitcoin during the ECB's theft of Cypriot civilian funds, it is likely to be a very short period before such offerings appear.  This is why I haven't invested more than a proportional amount that I'm prepared to risk with any one entity at any one time. That's common sense.

Hashfast will more than likely require some form of pre-order to the public, but past performances of other companies is no reason to discredit them. With respect to all involved I consistently see forum members here who fear pre-orders due to being burnt in the past because a) they didn't perform any reasonable due diligence of the parties involved, b) risked more than they were prepared to lose, citing the fact they weren't prepared to lose only after they unfortunately lost out