HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[crumbs]

Stop.  You're wrong in several ways already.  First is trivial to explain:  
A company owes more to its shareholders than *a* profit.  It *must maximise* the profit.  At least them's the laws IRL.  If you're satisfied when your investment makes a satoshi after a year, you're in the minority.

Man, you're awfully good at putting words in people's mouths.  I never said anything about not maximizing profit.  My point is that a measured strategy that doesn't decimate the bitcoin network would reap more rewards over the long term, both for the company and by extension its investors.

On the contrary, i'm concerned with overall profitability for the company, and its shareholders by proxy.  I pointed out that profitability, short-term or otherwise, may nnot be possible without resorting to tactics detrimental to bitcoin ecosystem as a whole.

Secondly, those laws only speak to the allocation of profits. They don't say anything about how the company is run.  So stop.  You're wrong in several ways already.

See below.

Second, you're not justified in assuming that selling X chips @$Y ( "all the chips" -- a nonsensical number considering how chips are made) will be possible if other players flood the market with cheaper chips / raise the difficulty level to a point making your chips *unprofitable at any price*.  Please consider *all* the variables.

Who ever said "all the chips"? Yet again, putting words into my mouth.  More to the point, name me any other entity that has announced a chip with similar or better performance within the power limits ("under 1 joule per gh") that they have announced.  No? Well then how the hell is some other entity selling more expensive chips going to price them out of the market?  Please consider *all* the variables.

I'm sorry for the poor choice of words -- i meant to present a hypothetical.  If you wish to present me with an alternate hypothetical, in which this company would profit by "artificially" restricting their production & sales, i'm all ears.  As long as you take into account the other chip manufacturers willing to flood the market & "secretly mine."

Please remember my initial point -- that any statements by a manufacturer about welfare of bitcoin ecosystem are meaningless, if we start with the assumption that the manufacturer is motivated by profit.  If you wish to continue maintaining that this company just wants *some* profit, willing to sacrifice money for the good of bitcoin, i have no case.  But you are investing in a charity.
 

If by "artificial" you mean "not selling all the chips capable of being produced at a profit," then yes they are.  If you mean something else, what???

What I meant to say is that there's a divide between flooding the market and releasing product at a very, very slow pace.  It's not either/or.  So yes, it is "artificial scarcity", but not to the level you are painting it out to be.

You keep avoiding *the other chip manufacturers,* who (i assume) are willing to "secret mine" -- exactly the point of the PR release.  Let's stay on track.  HashFast is going to save us from the wanton exploiters of bitcoin, and remain competitive in the process.  That's what i find both silly & self-contradictory.

If it is in their best interest to keep the goose alive, they're not guided by goose's welfare, but by profitability.  What's the difference?  The difference is when the bottom line dictates it is more profitable to kill the goose, take off your hat.  

Well then clearly they think it's better to keep the goose alive. Which was my point all along.

Well no, my point all along is the goose will be killed as soon as that becomes profitable, if we start with the assumption that they're in this for the money & not the good of bitcoin (which i asked you to do).  If we assume these people are altruists hobbyshopping, i'm wrong, but they have no business passing themselves off as a for-profit, and you should not expect any return on investment.  I hope i'm being clearer now.

[1715276059]

1715276059

[1715276059]

1715276059

[1715276059]

1715276059

[1715276059]

1715276059

[crumbs]

Stop.  You're wrong in several ways already.  First is trivial to explain:  
A company owes more to its shareholders than *a* profit.  It *must maximise* the profit.  At least them's the laws IRL.  If you're satisfied when your investment makes a satoshi after a year, you're in the minority.

Can you point to such a law?

Are you saying that there is no such law?  How specific would you like the wording of the law to be?

Edit:  Thanks, Flashman.

I read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company the following language:

"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co."[1]

"Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting."[2]

...And this is why i asked you how specific you wish the wording to be.  Is your objection qualitative, or are we going to swap wikip links in a pedantic back & forth? 

I have never heard of such a law.  I almost asked for a pointer.  When I Googled Ford Dodge Brothers maximize profit, I immediately found language that disagrees with the assertion, and I reported that back.
I just want to be informed, and to avoid drama I used short simple words with their common meanings in a clinically dry question.

And i have but asked you to clarify the meaning of your request -- the Ford vs. Dodge case was offered by another user.  There's no drama here, unless your threshold for it is uniquely low.

[crumbs]

...And this is why i asked you how specific you wish the wording to be.  Is your objection qualitative, or are we going to swap wikip links in a pedantic back & forth? 

The law needs to be specific enough to support your assertion.  You made the assertion that it exists, the responsibility is on you is to prove that it truly does. You have yet to do so, so your assertion is merely just an argument from ignorance.

I'll refrain from cluttering the thread any further, as it's clear you're just trolling everyone here with your nonsensical statements.

My argument does not pivot on this point.  Your choice to disregard the gist and focus on an inconsequential detail reeks of pedantry & desperation to be right.

[nightengale]

I guess it's a good sign for an ASIC provider when their thread gets hijacked by all of this irrelevant crap?

[ProfMac]

Stop.  You're wrong in several ways already.  First is trivial to explain:  
A company owes more to its shareholders than *a* profit.  It *must maximise* the profit.  At least them's the laws IRL.  If you're satisfied when your investment makes a satoshi after a year, you're in the minority.

Can you point to such a law?

Are you saying that there is no such law?  How specific would you like the wording of the law to be?

Edit:  Thanks, Flashman.

I read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company the following language:

"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co."[1]

"Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting."[2]

...And this is why i asked you how specific you wish the wording to be.  Is your objection qualitative, or are we going to swap wikip links in a pedantic back & forth? 

I have never heard of such a law.  I almost asked for a pointer.  When I Googled Ford Dodge Brothers maximize profit, I immediately found language that disagrees with the assertion, and I reported that back.
I just want to be informed, and to avoid drama I used short simple words with their common meanings in a clinically dry question.

And i have but asked you to clarify the meaning of your request -- the Ford vs. Dodge case was offered by another user.  There's no drama here, unless your threshold for it is uniquely low.

Can you point to law that says:  a company must maximize it's profit for it's shareholders.

[crumbs]

Stop.  You're wrong in several ways already.  First is trivial to explain:  
A company owes more to its shareholders than *a* profit.  It *must maximise* the profit.  At least them's the laws IRL.  If you're satisfied when your investment makes a satoshi after a year, you're in the minority.

Can you point to such a law?

Are you saying that there is no such law?  How specific would you like the wording of the law to be?

Edit:  Thanks, Flashman.

I read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company the following language:

"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co."[1]

"Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting."[2]

...And this is why i asked you how specific you wish the wording to be.  Is your objection qualitative, or are we going to swap wikip links in a pedantic back & forth? 

I have never heard of such a law.  I almost asked for a pointer.  When I Googled Ford Dodge Brothers maximize profit, I immediately found language that disagrees with the assertion, and I reported that back.
I just want to be informed, and to avoid drama I used short simple words with their common meanings in a clinically dry question.

And i have but asked you to clarify the meaning of your request -- the Ford vs. Dodge case was offered by another user.  There's no drama here, unless your threshold for it is uniquely low.

Can you point to law that says:  a company must maximize it's profit for it's shareholders.

No.  Shame on me. 
My argument does not pivot on this point.  Your choice to disregard the gist and focus on an inconsequential detail reeks of pedantry & desperation to be right.

[GreenDefender]

Hi there,

....The GN chip will perform more than 400 Ghash per second, this is more than 50 times more hashing capacity per chip than any currently available solution, and uses as little as 10% of the power per Ghash as the current-generation ASICs.

HashFast Technologies was founded in San Francisco in 2013 by by Simon Barber and Eduardo de Castro.

in Germany i have to pay 0.285€/kWh (=0.374$US) world record ? 

I will reserve several btc's for a Group Buy if get facts. What do you think ?

[gateway]

So I have had the pleasure of hanging out with the HashFast guys last sat for several hours discussing various topics from the tech to this forum I have known John for several years and did business with him in the past and hes a a fair guy and always a pleasure to do business with. 

Simon and Eduardo are very smart cookies and its nice to see a company from the Bay Area producing chips/products.

These guys are legit, and while under NDA I cant talk to much about what they are up to but im very excited to see such next gen stuff coming out for people here that are mining from the low end guys to the big boys who always try to buy everything they can

What they have coming I'm deff waiting in line for and I think everyone will be buzzing when they release the info of their first product.

So just kinda throwing my hat in the ring here to verify that these guys are not some fly by night company.

Cheers guys and cant wait to have another 400Gh/s device mining away in the next few months.. or what ever the time release is

[Kouye]

So I have had the pleasure of hanging out with the HashFast guys last sat for several hours discussing various topics from the tech to this forum I have known John for several years and did business with him in the past and hes a a fair guy and always a pleasure to do business with.  

Simon and Eduardo are very smart cookies and its nice to see a company from the Bay Area producing chips/products.

These guys are legit, and while under NDA I cant talk to much about what they are up to but im very excited to see such next gen stuff coming out for people here that are mining from the low end guys to the big boys who always try to buy everything they can

What they have coming I'm deff waiting in line for and I think everyone will be buzzing when they release the info of their first product.

So just kinda throwing my hat in the ring here to verify that these guys are not some fly by night company.

Cheers guys and cant wait to have another 400Gh/s device mining away in the next few months.. or what ever the time release is

Great news! Did you get any insight on this funky twitter account deletion, too ?  

[minternj]

Hi there,

....The GN chip will perform more than 400 Ghash per second, this is more than 50 times more hashing capacity per chip than any currently available solution, and uses as little as 10% of the power per Ghash as the current-generation ASICs.

HashFast Technologies was founded in San Francisco in 2013 by by Simon Barber and Eduardo de Castro.

in Germany i have to pay 0.285€/kWh (=0.374$US) world record ? 

I will reserve several btc's for a Group Buy if get facts. What do you think ?

Wow that is some high power costs. I dont know that hash/chip really matters all that much, its really cost/ghash and ghash/Joule.

[Bitcoinorama]

Hi there,

....The GN chip will perform more than 400 Ghash per second, this is more than 50 times more hashing capacity per chip than any currently available solution, and uses as little as 10% of the power per Ghash as the current-generation ASICs.

HashFast Technologies was founded in San Francisco in 2013 by by Simon Barber and Eduardo de Castro.

in Germany i have to pay 0.285€/kWh (=0.374$US) world record ? 

I will reserve several btc's for a Group Buy if get facts. What do you think ?

Wow that is some high power costs. I dont know that hash/chip really matters all that much, its really cost/ghash and ghash/Joule.

This really does begin to effect decentralisation somewhat further down the road if areas of the planet become prohibitive to mine within because of higher electricity costs to run the hardware...

[jspielberg]

Wow that is some high power costs. I dont know that hash/chip really matters all that much, its really cost/ghash and ghash/Joule.

I think bitfury 100TH miners are currently the ones to beat...  ~1GH/1watt... $20/GH  25GH to 400GH configurations, with availability in October.

Looking forward to hearing the details specifying HashFast's cost/power/speed configurations.

Still waiting for my Avalon Batch 3 refund, and would like to get back into the mining space.  Hopefully HashFast will have some info out by then.  Knowing Bitsyncom, I will probably have some time

[jlsminingcorp]

I guess it's a good sign for an ASIC provider when their thread gets hijacked by all of this irrelevant crap?

[joking]
They all do sooner or later. It's a credit to HashFast that they have managed to amass 16 pages worth in less than a week .
[/joking]

[jspielberg]

I guess it's a good sign for an ASIC provider when their thread gets hijacked by all of this irrelevant crap?

[joking]
They all do sooner or later. It's a credit to HashFast that they have managed to amass 16 pages worth in less than a week .
[/joking]

Asic announcements are just chum in these here waters.

[Bitcoinorama]

I guess it's a good sign for an ASIC provider when their thread gets hijacked by all of this irrelevant crap?

[joking]
They all do sooner or later. It's a credit to HashFast that they have managed to amass 16 pages worth in less than a week .
[/joking]

Asic announcements are just chum in these here waters.

What's chum...?

[-Redacted-]

Bait...
.
.
.
Presumably used to reel in a bunch of suckers.

[jspielberg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumming

[minternj]

I guess it's a good sign for an ASIC provider when their thread gets hijacked by all of this irrelevant crap?

[joking]
They all do sooner or later. It's a credit to HashFast that they have managed to amass 16 pages worth in less than a week .
[/joking]

Asic announcements are just chum in these here waters.

What's chum...?

Fishing term. Usually ground up fish thrown in the water to excite the fish to come to the boat.'

Fashhash needs to come to the market quick. Anything past october will have to come priced at half of the october knc or bitfury 400gh machines prices to be attractive at all.

[jspielberg]

Bait...
.
.
.
Presumably used to reel in a bunch of suckers.

Hey... I resemble that remark!

[jlsminingcorp]

These threads crack me up. We move from violent dueling to bizzare comedy in a short space of time and there's bound to be some tradgedy at some point too. It's like watching a Shakespeare play!