BFL announces 28nm 600GH/S blade for $4680

[willphase]

Bitcoin Difficulty

50,810,339
Next difficulty (estimate): 67,296,755

What's the ETA of 67.3M?

http://blockchained.com/ says:

Current difficulty: 50810339
Estimated next difficulty: 61989891 (+22.0%) in 6 days and 10.6 hours

Will

[1715112098]

1715112098

[1715112098]

1715112098

[1715112098]

1715112098

[1715112098]

1715112098

[1715112098]

1715112098

[xzempt]

Bitcoin Difficulty

50,810,339
Next difficulty (estimate): 67,296,755

What's the ETA of 67.3M?

if it keeps up at the current pace of 8.4 blocks found per hour,   next increase will happen in about 140hrs...  my guess is that estimate will be closer to 75 mil by that time...



http://bitcoindifficulty.com/     is where i got the stated increase to 67.3mil....  in the past they have been more accurate imo

[Viceroy]

Really, go eff yourself liar. ENJOY THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE WHEN BFL  goes BANKRUPT. How do you expect to cool 6 asic chips with one fan? The 7990 has two chips and requires three fans to keep them at 90c when under full load. STFU you scamming bastard.

Yep.  My 6800 series dual gpu cards with a vapor pipe engineered by a multi billion dollar company run at 100C when mining.  Two fans will not keep them cool on a hot summer day and that's just two chips. 


BFL is a long con only interested in stealing money from unsuspecting noobs.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110805.msg2958722#msg2958722

[Phinnaeus Gage]

thought I'd share

Let me quote from the Monarch Website:

"Institutional Pricing:  If you would like to purchase 50 or more cards, please contact Dave McClain for institutional pricing: 913-710-4865"


Well, Instead of calling Dave, I sent him a Email.

ME

Dear Dave,

I would love to see your quote for 77 units of the monarch BPU 600 c

Thanks in advance

Daves reply:

Christian,

There are no special pricing or quantity discounts. The price on the website is the same for 1 or 77.


--
With appreciation,

Dave
Butterfly Labs, Inc.
Account Manager
800-809-6463 (MINE) Ext. 101

my reply:

What the fuck, seriously?

Let me quote the butterflylabs website:

"Institutional Pricing:  If you would like to purchase 50 or more cards, please contact Dave McClain for institutional pricing: 913-710-4865"

and finally dave:

My sincerest apologies. What time can we talk this week?

How stupid is that company? hilarious!

Red Flag #X: The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

A L Huber
10770 El Monte St
Overland Park, Kansas 66211

Sirs,

It's come to our attention that a tenant of yours, Butterfly Labs, occupying the same building as your address is refusing to refund millions of dollars paid them for products ordered since during the middle of 2012, forward.

Would you be so kind as to let us know if BF Labs Inc.'s lease is about to expire or is their lease a multi-year contract?

With tens of millions of dollars at stake and Sonny Vleisides, a convicted felon, at the helm, their silence could only mean one thing: The company is about to fold after Sonny's probation expires on September 15, 2013, for fleecing hundreds of millions of dollars from the elderly with his 15 year running lottery scam.

It has even come to our attention that people who have worked with Sonny Vleisides in the past scamming millions, are now part of the BFL organization with offices at the building that you lease to them.

Regards,

A Bitcoiner

PS: As many times as people have accused BFL of the above, they have never once made a public statement refuting any of the claims. But, their COO, Josh Zerlan, has reverted to calling all bitcoiners, Monumental Assholes.

[mrb]

The hash rate can't possibly increase by 50% per month forever. it would require exponential growth in the hash rate.

It does not have to grow exponentially forever. It only has to grow 60% per month for 12 months to make the Monarch unprofitable (per PuertoLibre's estimations)... And 12 months of 60%/mo exponential growth starting today is possible. In the past, we saw 18 months of 100%/mo growth between Jan 2010 and Jun 2011.

However nobody can tell for sure whether the Monarch is going to be profitable or not. Assuming it ships in Jan 2014, if the average growth will be less than 57-58% per month it will be profitable, if it is higher then it won't be profitable. My estimate from ASIC market research is somewhere between 40 and 60%, but nobody knows precisely.

I'd like to see what happens, how our views change, etc. when the price hits $250-$500 per BTC...

The price of BTC is irrelevant in making an investment decision between moving your capital to (1) BTC, or (2) mining equipment. This has been explained many times. If BTC gains value both choices bring more returns. If BTC loses value both choices bring less returns. The question is which one will make you end up with more BTC at the end. So the only part of the equation to take into account is how much does the mining equipment cost today (in BTC), and how much BTC it could mine in the future.

[Vorksholk]

The hash rate can't possibly increase by 50% per month forever. it would require exponential growth in the hash rate.

It does not have to grow exponentially forever. It only has to grow 60% per month for 12 months to make the Monarch unprofitable (per PuertoLibre's estimations)... And 12 months of 60%/mo exponential growth starting today is possible. In the past, we saw 18 months of 100%/mo growth between Jan 2010 and Jun 2011.

However nobody can tell for sure whether the Monarch is going to be profitable or not. Assuming it ships in Jan 2014, if the average growth will be less than 57-58% per month it will be profitable, if it is higher then it won't be profitable. My estimate from ASIC market research is somewhere between 40 and 60%, but nobody knows precisely.

I'd like to see what happens, how our views change, etc. when the price hits $250-$500 per BTC...

The price of BTC is irrelevant in making an investment decision between moving your capital to (1) BTC, or (2) mining equipment. This has been explained many times. If BTC gains value both choices bring more returns. If BTC loses value both choices bring less returns. The question is which one will make you end up with more BTC at the end. So the only part of the equation to take into account is how much does the mining equipment cost today (in BTC), and how much BTC it could mine in the future.

Exactly. Unless for some people buying mining hardware is the only way for them to acquire large amounts of Bitcoins, as getting money into Bitcoins is much harder than purchasing hardware in many circumstances.

[willphase]

snip letter

A Bitcoiner

Mr. Gage,

With respect, I'm trying to work out your aims of continuing to post stuff about BFL here - you've made it quite clear that you don't approve of their business practices and that you think other people should not order from them, or trust them any more, but it's your end-game that confuses me.

Are you trying to put BFL out of business, or just dissuade people from placing any further order or trust with BFL, or is it just a personal vendetta you have against BFL because of some perceived or real slight from the past?

If the first, are you aware that if you succeed in your task, then there will be a lot of people on this forum who are waiting on good to be delivered that will be put out of pocket.  BFL are delivering the equipment ordered, albeit at a very slow pace, and I don't think you disagree with this fact.  If by some miracle you manage to cause BFL inconvenience e.g. having to respond to spurious FTC requests, or reply to letters from their landlord - it's just going to cost BFL money which they will have to pass onto their customers - members of this forum.  How do you justify this?

If it's the persuasion issue, then I think you have already succeeded, and to be honest, starting any campaign against their building management, or raising issues with the FTC, or any other active protests don't really help that cause.

If it's the latter, then I suppose there's not much I can do since it seems it's a personal issue that I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but do you really have to be so passionate about it?

Cheers,

Will

[SirWizz]

^ So if/when BFL goes out of business it will be PG's fault? 

[nexus99]

^ So if/when BFL goes out of business it will be PG's fault? 

PG is just a big troll. You are all feeding the troll.

[DeathAndTaxes]

having to respond to spurious FTC requests

What is spurious about BFL having to respond to unlawful attempts to deny refunds.   BTW BFL doesn't have to respond to FTC investigations they can simply comply with the UCC and offer refunds on uncompleted orders.

BFL saying "all sales are final"* is fine however under the UCC a SALE involves the transfer of ownership of the contracted good (in this case mining hardware). If you take contracted funds and haven't yet delivered** the goods then a sale hasn't yet occurred, you only have a funded sales contract.  A company can't choose to both not complete the sale and refuse a refund on the unfilled sales contract.

So the idea that BFL would be held hostage is silly.  If they are held hostage to the FTC it is only by their own choosing.


* As a contrast here are some legitimate example protected by "all sales are final".
a) a customer waits until BFL ships a product and then asks for a refund because difficulty is too high.  
b) a customer refuses delivery of a BFL product (and hasn't prior to shipping requested the order be cancelled).  
c) customer receives a minirig and realizes (due to lack of customer due diligence) it is too loud or hot and wishes to have it returned for a refund.
d) customer has a BFL single "die" after taking delivery and it is outside warranty period (or BFL isn't offering a warranty)

In these examples BFL would be legally allowed to refer the customer to "all sales are final" clause and the customer would have little legal recourse.  If they didn't like the policy they shouldn't have purchased the product.

** In most cases shipment by the seller to the buyer by a common carrier constitutes a transfer of ownership.  The seller does not need to wait until physical delivery to consider the sale completed.  

[erk]

No credit card option for payment... only BTC and wire x-fer. That's a non starter for me.

Perhaps Paypal is mad at them for all the refunds?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

snip letter

A Bitcoiner

Mr. Gage,

With respect, I'm trying to work out your aims of continuing to post stuff about BFL here - you've made it quite clear that you don't approve of their business practices and that you think other people should not order from them, or trust them any more, but it's your end-game that confuses me.

Are you trying to put BFL out of business, or just dissuade people from placing any further order or trust with BFL, or is it just a personal vendetta you have against BFL because of some perceived or real slight from the past?

If the first, are you aware that if you succeed in your task, then there will be a lot of people on this forum who are waiting on good to be delivered that will be put out of pocket.  BFL are delivering the equipment ordered, albeit at a very slow pace, and I don't think you disagree with this fact.  If by some miracle you manage to cause BFL inconvenience e.g. having to respond to spurious FTC requests, or reply to letters from their landlord - it's just going to cost BFL money which they will have to pass onto their customers - members of this forum.  How do you justify this?

If it's the persuasion issue, then I think you have already succeeded, and to be honest, starting any campaign against their building management, or raising issues with the FTC, or any other active protests don't really help that cause.

If it's the latter, then I suppose there's not much I can do since it seems it's a personal issue that I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but do you really have to be so passionate about it?

Cheers,

Will

Will

You have respectfully asked questions of me of which I will do my best to address.

My stance again BFL is mostly centered around the lies and misinformation put forward by their camp, namely Josh Zerlan.

Last November, Josh stated the following:

When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?

Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified.  We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

3 months prior, Josh penned the following with his BFL_Josh account:

I will still be posting as Inaba for communications that don't involve BFL. 

As for the GLBSE assets, they should not be affected.

See the lie?

As far as for the FCC statement goes, Josh, nor anybody else from Camp BLF, has responded to requests about how the certification process is going after it was proven that they lied about having some of them already certified, yet as of Friday (two days ago) there is nothing about BF Labs Inc., et al., mention on the official FCC site. If I were to submit a device Monday, by Wednesday it would show up on that site, but 10 months later, nothing about Butterfly Labs, et al.

To be clear, I can give a rat's ass about the FCC, UL listed, et al., requirements, but I do care about people being lied to by an entity to better their financial position off the backs of those who worked hard for the money that they have given BFL, only to have them referred to as Monumental Assholes.

I hope the above sheds a little light as to where I'm coming from, Will. You seem like an alright guy, and wouldn't mind speaking with you on the phone if you so desire. Simply PM me if you wish.

Feel free to ask me any more questions via a post or PM, but please PM me if a post goes unanswered for too long, for I may have missed it oppose to ignoring it.

Later, bud.

Bruno Kucinskas

[Unacceptable]

^ So if/when BFL goes out of business it will be PG's fault? 

PG is just a big troll. You are all feeding the troll.

Keep trollin PG   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6rRNANSgI

[Phinnaeus Gage]

^ So if/when BFL goes out of business it will be PG's fault? 

PG is just a big troll. You are all feeding the troll.

Keep trollin PG   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6rRNANSgI

Tollin', Tollin', Tollin' lyrics come to mind:

I'm tyin' to understand 'em
While the trolls try to brand 'em
Hopin' to be living high and wide.
But while others are calculatin'
BFL's got me waitin',
Waitin' at the end of the line.

[willphase]

Thanks for your reply PG.  If you have the best interests of BFL customers at heart, e.g. if you felt customers were actually at risk from not having an FCC approved device in their living rooms, then I applaud you.  If you continue to highlight the significant risks of placing a pre-order with BFL (which you do very voraciously, I have to admit!) then I also salute you.

However, if you're just upset because Josh lied to you some time in the past, or called you a name, and you end up costing people on this forum $$$ because BFL have to delay their shipments dealing with the results of your missives, or end up having to charge more for their devices, then I do find that hard to support.

Will

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Thanks for your reply PG.  If you have the best interests of BFL customers at heart, e.g. if you felt customers were actually at risk from not having an FCC approved device in their living rooms, then I applaud you.  If you continue to highlight the significant risks of placing a pre-order with BFL (which you do very voraciously, I have to admit!) then I also salute you.

However, if you're just upset because Josh lied to you some time in the past, or called you a name, and you end up costing people on this forum $$$ because BFL have to delay their shipments dealing with the results of your missives, or end up having to charge more for their devices, then I do find that hard to support.

Will

I honestly do have the best interests of fellow bitcoiners at heart, whether they are BFL customers or not. Them owning a BFL device that is not FCC certified is a mute issue as far as I'm concern. Highlighting the risk of pre-ordering from BFL is a given, given sales are based on lies.

Josh and I both have thick skins when it comes to each of us calling each other names and accusing each other of things that are obvious not true, e.g. me stealing barn wood at night or ripping off Bitcoin 100. We may both resort to silly tactics while presenting our overall agenda: Him, advancing sales for BFL, and me making sure as many people as possible do their due diligence, hence joining the choir on pointing out the lies and misinformation.

There are bitcoiners a helluva lot smarter than I that have shown time and time again that what BFL has presented in the past, and now with their new line, that they are not passing the smell test.

I honestly believe that if I never stated a negative word about BFL, bitcoiners would still be incurring the same increased cost you've so kindly pointed out.

Note the tone in our conversation, to date. Pretty civil, eh? Josh was given every opportunity to conduct himself in a civil manner. He could have easily addressed the FCC concern as a mistake on his part, or with a lie, for how would we truly not know the truth. That issue would have died by December of last year. But, by it being ignored, he no longer has that option, short of admitting that he fucked up. We all fuck up. You, I, Josh, Sonny, etc.

Speaking of Sonny, I have no problem with his past, but his past has turned into a reflection of how BFL is currently operating. Big difference. The parallels are too overwhelming to ignore.

[willphase]

No new posts? I think everyone is in shock that there can actually be a civil conversation on BCT

I respect your views here, PG.  I think both of us have managed to get our points across well.

Back to the normal schedule of flame wars!

Will

[k9quaint]

Thanks for your reply PG.  If you have the best interests of BFL customers at heart, e.g. if you felt customers were actually at risk from not having an FCC approved device in their living rooms, then I applaud you.  If you continue to highlight the significant risks of placing a pre-order with BFL (which you do very voraciously, I have to admit!) then I also salute you.

However, if you're just upset because Josh lied to you some time in the past, or called you a name, and you end up costing people on this forum $$$ because BFL have to delay their shipments dealing with the results of your missives, or end up having to charge more for their devices, then I do find that hard to support.

Will

The issue is not about the FCC. Josh could have said that he just sent the BFL chips into have the BFL logo silk screened on them, or something equally inane.
What does matter is that Josh claimed that he had a completed Jalapeno product that was just entering the certification process back in November of 2012.

At that time, BFL was using this case for their Jalapeno:


Of course, since that time it has come to light that there is no way on earth they even had working chips at that point. As late as June, they were still trying to get the Singles & Mini-rig boards to work. They had to put the Jalapeno product in the Single case and it could not be powered by USB, so there is no way an original board could work. There is no way their chip could have worked using only 3-5W of USB supplied power.

Josh replied to the FCC claim in that manner because Josh/Inaba had attacked his competitors in threads for not having FCC certification. So when PG called him on it, Josh either had to admit that BFL was not getting FCC certs (which would have made him a huge hypocrite) or he had to claim they were far along in the certification process (which implied the product was farther along that it could have been).

Knowing the specs of BFL's chips and boards now, a Jalapeno in November 2012 form could not have existed. Thus there could not have been any process for FCC certification. Thus Josh was both a hypocrite (for attacking his competitors for not doing what BFL had no intention of doing) and a liar (for implying that BFL had a product in hand).

[User705]

The hash rate can't possibly increase by 50% per month forever. it would require exponential growth in the hash rate.

It does not have to grow exponentially forever. It only has to grow 60% per month for 12 months to make the Monarch unprofitable (per PuertoLibre's estimations)... And 12 months of 60%/mo exponential growth starting today is possible. In the past, we saw 18 months of 100%/mo growth between Jan 2010 and Jun 2011.

However nobody can tell for sure whether the Monarch is going to be profitable or not. Assuming it ships in Jan 2014, if the average growth will be less than 57-58% per month it will be profitable, if it is higher then it won't be profitable. My estimate from ASIC market research is somewhere between 40 and 60%, but nobody knows precisely.

I'd like to see what happens, how our views change, etc. when the price hits $250-$500 per BTC...

The price of BTC is irrelevant in making an investment decision between moving your capital to (1) BTC, or (2) mining equipment. This has been explained many times. If BTC gains value both choices bring more returns. If BTC loses value both choices bring less returns. The question is which one will make you end up with more BTC at the end. So the only part of the equation to take into account is how much does the mining equipment cost today (in BTC), and how much BTC it could mine in the future.

Exactly. Unless for some people buying mining hardware is the only way for them to acquire large amounts of Bitcoins, as getting money into Bitcoins is much harder than purchasing hardware in many circumstances.

How hard can it be to buy 4600 worth of bitcoins?